Latest findings from state polls in Pennsylvania and New Jersey

READ FULL STORY HERE

One of the more reliable pollsters in the business, Quinnipiac, today released their survey results on a host of data coming in from Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Focusing mostly on Ed Rendell, the recently resolved budget impasse in Pennsylvania and the New Jersey Governor’s race below is a list of some of their key findings.

1) Scattered field of Democrats, Corbett still well ahead in Pa. Governor’s race

The 2010 Governor’s race in Pennsylvania is shaping up to be a competitive one on the Democratic side whereas Tom Corbett is still the heavy favorite for Republicans. Five Democratic candidates currently share 50% of the support from Pennsylvanians but a large number (46%) remain undecided. Dan Onorato is the front-runner at 14% with Joe Hoeffel and Jack Wagner trailing closely behind at 12% and 11% respectively. Only two legitimate contenders are currently on the GOP radar and Tom Corbett continues to outpace Jim Gerlach by a wide 42-13% margin. 43% remain undecided however.

2) Governor Rendell’s approval up slightly, still decidedly negative

Pennsylvanians may be relieved by the end of the state’s budget crisis but their blame of the Governor and leaders over the impasse persists. Last month Ed Rendell’s approval rating plummeted to 39% against 53% who disapproved – far and away his worst ever figures. Now at the end of September we see a slight improvement to 42-51% for the Governor. Never the less Pennsylvanians continue to give Rendell harsh grades on his handling of the state budget (26%) and the overall economy (34%). More disapprove (37%) than approve (31%) of the current budget agreement worked out by the Governor and state legislature.

3) Criticism of state legislature persists even after budget resolution

Neither Governor Rendell nor the Pennsylvania state legislature can claim momentum coming out of their recent budget agreement. Just 27% of Key Stone State voters now approve of the legislature with a record high 64% now disapproving of how they are handling their job. More blame the legislature than the Governor for the long struggle to get a budget a passed although 30% think they share equally in the blame. Republicans are being blamed more than Democrats working in the legislature (21-9%) for the current budget woes.

4) Pennsylvania’s growing slightly more dissatisfied with the way things are going

Asked how they feel things are going in their state overall a majority of Pennsylvanians polled continue to show their dissatisfaction. Just two-percent of voters are “very” satisfied with the current state of affairs in Pa. against 23% who claim to be very dissatisfied. There is almost an even number of those near the middle who are somewhat satisfied (37%) or somewhat dissatisfied (36%) with the recent happenings from their home state. This is the most negative assessment yet since Quinnipiac has been polling Pennsylvanians on the question, down from a record high of 68% of voters who were at least somewhat satisfied with events in their state from June of 2002.

5) Most Pennsylvanians relieved over passing of budget, evenly divided on spending

It seems that most Pennsylvanians are simply relieved to finally have a state budget passed, regardless of it being a potentially flawed agreement. 57% state-wide consider themselves relieved against 33% who think both sides should have kept hammering out the details regardless of how long it took to complete. In the Philadelphia area that included 68% of voters relieved. On the topic of spending a nearly identical 43% think more cuts should have been made and 44% believe that it would have been at the risk of vital state services. 58% of Republicans were in favor of cuts with 59% of Democrats agreeing to keep current spending levels. Independents were closely divided 47-42%.

6) Governor Corzine closing the gap against Christie

Although recent polls like that from

Rasmussen Reports show a mostly stable race between the two candidates Quinnipiac’s latest survey now has Governor Jon Corzine trailing by just four-points in New Jersey. Perhaps the influence of Christopher Daggett now polling at 12% has taken a toll on Republican Chris Christie. Corzine still pulls in just 39% of likely voters in the Garden State but Christie’s drop to 43% is responsible for the narrowing race. A September 1st poll showed a ten-point gap between the two major candidates and Daggett pulling in just 9% of the vote.

7) Unfavorable opinions of Chris Christie at a new high

The individual popularity of Republican challenger Chris Christie is starting to show some cracks. His favorable and unfavorable ratings are now even for the first time in the campaign at 38% - another 22% still claim not to know enough about the candidate. 14% of Republicans now hold an unfavorable view of Christie against just 11% of Democrats who view him favorably. Independent voters show a narrow favorable to unfavorable gap of 38-35%. Christie’s popularity has dropped with the results of each poll from the high of a 19% plus favorable rating in July, to 16% in August, 11% earlier this month and now dead even as we head into October.

8) No change in Governor Corzine’s anemic favorable ratings

While Chris Christie is just receiving his first batch of bad news in terms of public perception Governor Corzine has been mired with negativity for quite some time. Little to no change in this latest Quinnipiac poll from earlier in the month shows that just 34% of New Jersey voters have a favorable opinion of Governor against 56% who do not. Alarming for the Governor is the number of independents (61%) who hold an unfavorable view as opposed to those who do have a favorable opinion (29%). Just 36% of Garden State voters approve of the job Corzine is doing, a modest two-point improvement from a month ago.

9) More than twice as many dissatisfied with current state affairs in NJ than satisfied

The pessimism shared by New Jersey voters is both consistent and reaches across political boundaries. Similar to results found in each of their past two state polls Quinnipiac finds just two-percent are “very” satisfied with the way things are going in the Garden State and just 32% are at least somewhat satisfied overall. Only 4% of Democrats and one in a hundred Republicans and independents are very satisfied with the direction of their home state. Over four times as many Democrats than Republicans are at least somewhat satisfied but all three political groups are well over 30% in the number of those claiming to be at least somewhat dissatisfied.

10) President Obama’s approval ratings rebound in New Jersey

Although still down from his rather lofty July numbers when 60% of Garden State voters approved of the President’s job performance Barack Obama has rebounded some in New Jersey. Currently 56% approve of the President up from a low of 51% earlier this month. Those figures include 89% of Democrats, 23% of Republicans and a 50-44% approval to disapproval split of independent voters. Obama’s minor surge in New Jersey over the past month may have something to do with the improving performance of Governor Corzine who has hitched much of his political wagon to the President’s agenda.

Poll: Americans increasingly tuned in to political news

READ FULL STORY HERE

With the level of discussion on social topics so high and so many Americans involved in the political process in recent years it’s not surprising to see an increase in the number of those paying attention to political news.

The results of a recent Gallup survey show that far more Americans are tuned in lately than ever before. Generally Gallup has measured a considerable drop in the level of attention Americans pay to political news from an election year to a one without major Presidential or Congressional races. While there has been a predictable drop from September of 2008 to 2009 an impressive number of Americans (36%) still claim to follow national political news “very” closely at present. Last election season 43% suggested they were very closely in tune with the events of the day, a record high percentage since Gallup began its tracking on this topic in 2001.

Charting the course from when President George W. Bush was first inaugurated in 2001 interest in political news dropped to its lowest point (19%) in the months prior to the September 11th tragedies. Since that time there has been a steady increase in the number of those plugged in to their news media. By the election season of 2004 some 36% of Americans claimed to be tuned in closely and while that total dropped to around 28% in the following off-election year, 31% of Americans were back viewing attentively for the 2006 midterms.

So far we have seen a steady rise, according to Gallup’s polling, in the number of those viewing political news closely in off-election years. In late-2001 just 23% were heavily tuned in. Those figures increased to 27% in 2003, 28% in 2005, 30% by 2007 and now a record high of 36% in 2009. Just as impressive as the total number of Americans who are closely in turn with political news are the 42% who suggest they are at least "somewhat" plugged in to their coverage. This brings the current total to 78% of adults who show at least some interest in following national affairs.

Gallup actually began tracking this statistic from the mid-stages of 1995 to mid-1996 before leaving a four and half year gap in their data gathering. The lowest total in the number of those who paid attention to political news in that span was 69% registered in the early-July of 1995. The highest number was measured at 81% in January of 1996 as that year’s election season began. Currently just 6% of adults report not watching news of national political affairs at all.

By party the number of Republicans exceeds Democrats and independents in the level of those tuned in. 41% of Republicans watch political news very closely, 37% of independents do the same, while 30% of Democrats share in that assessment. There is slightly more consistency in the number of those who do not pay any attention to political news. This includes just 18% of Republicans, 21% of Democrats and 24% of independents who are essentially tuned out.

Gallup points out that overall Republicans tend to report following political news a bit closer than Democrats or independents but these numbers have been subject to change depending on the election cycle. Democrats exceeded Republican levels during the span of late-August and early-September in 2004 by a 41-38% margin. Both parties cratered to a 26% level of attentiveness during that same span of 2005 against 30% independents who viewed news more closely. By the 2006 midterms Republicans tuned in considerably more than Democrats (35-27%) in spite of their heavy losses than fall. Last year’s election cycle which recorded record highs across the board included 50% of Republicans closely following political news against 44% of Democrats and 37% of independents doing the same.

Lastly Gallup shows substantial differences in terms of gender, age, education and income regardless of party identification. More men than women are tuned in closely (42-30%). Those aged 65 and older (46%) are far more attentive than young adults 18-29 (19%), or even those aged 30-64 (36%). The higher the level of education the more politically interested people tend to be. Postgraduates are tops at 52% closely tuned in, high school grads or less the least at just half that figure (26%) and those claiming some college or college graduates fit comfortably in the middle (39%). Greater wealth also seems to equal greater political interest and awareness. Just 26% of those making less than $30,000 a year follow political news closely against 34% in the $30,000-$74,999 range and 45% who earn $75,000 or more.

Battleground Pennsylvania: A history of Presidential politics in the Keystone State

READ FULL STORY HERE

With many of the world’s leaders meeting this week in Pittsburgh for the G20 conference it has been a rather slow few days for pollsters. Perhaps that will give us time to do a quick reflection on Pennsylvania’s unique history in Presidential elections as consistently one of the key battleground states through the years.

Pennsylvania has been viewed as an essential piece to the electoral puzzle of nearly every Presidential candidate over the past several decades. Its significant electoral clout along with the competitive nature of its politics places it high upon the mantle of most sought after states. Perhaps only Florida and Ohio have garnered more attention in recent years from national political campaigns attracted to the rich diversity of voter ideologies in both the primary and general election seasons.

The Keystone State was always a significant electoral victory for any candidate but it wasn’t always a competitive one. Admitted as the second state after ratifying the Constitution in December of 1787, Pennsylvania has participated in all 56 general elections dating back to 1789. Here is a history in brief of PA’s role in Presidential politics through the years.


1789-1824: Colonial Era to Jackson & the party split

In 1789 American War hero George Washington ran unopposed and swept all ten states en route to becoming the first American President. Pennsylvania’s electoral clout was sizable in the first ever election containing ten-electoral votes, tied with Massachusetts and Virginia for most. Less than 1.3% of an estimated 2.4-million eligible/free voters cast their votes in the election. John Adams was selected as Vice President getting about half the 69-total electoral voters from a scattered field of nearly a dozen candidates who ran for the position.

Nearly four years later the immensely popular Washington again ran unopposed and his Vice President Adams was also reelected. Pennsylvania dropped to the third largest state on the electoral map with fifteen-votes but it still composed over 11% of the country now fifteen states strong. In 1796 Pennsylvanians chose Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson for President but found themselves on the losing end to Federalist and sitting VP John Adams. The election was a close contest with Adams securing the victory by way of a narrow 71-68 electoral vote margin.

Four years later Pennsylvania was a focal point for the first time in Presidential politics. Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams but due to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party Aaron Burr was left with as many electoral votes (73) as the would-be President Jefferson. In the general election the Keystone State almost evenly split its fifteen electors between Jefferson and Adams but helped Jefferson eventually win the Presidency by voting for him 9-4 over Burr in a special election of state delegations.

Over the next several elections a series of landslide victories in which Pennsylvania sided with the winner reduced the state’s importance on the national scale. Still its size and clout could not be ignored as PA was twenty-electors strong in both the 1804 and 1808 elections, second most in the union. Again from 1812-1820 Pennsylvania with 25-electors had the second most in America, exceeded only by the state of New York’s 29.

In 1824 the infamous “corrupt bargain” election helped elect John Quincy Adams over the more popular Andrew Jackson. In an odd twist four members of the same party (Democratic-Republican) ran for President with Jackson finishing as the clear winner in terms of both popular and electoral votes but not securing the majority needed to take office automatically. Pennsylvania came out strong for "Old Hickory" in both the general and special House elections but Adams ultimately secured the victory.



1828-1856: Formation of modern parties & the election of James Buchanan

Angered by his controversial loss in the 1824 election Andrew Jackson helped engineer a split in the Democratic-Republican Party. By the 1828 election he would help engineer the newly formed Democrats’ rise to power over Quincy Adams and the National Republican Party. Pennsylvania cast all 28 of its electoral votes in this contest for Jackson and by 1832 a new census brought the state’s total to a new high of thirty-electors, still second most in the country.

Any Democratic tradition that might have been forming in Pennsylvania was put on hold by Whig candidate William Henry Harrison. Although his Presidency was the shortest in American history Harrison stomped incumbent President Martin Van Buren 234-60 in the electoral college winning the 1840 election. The recently formed Whig Party, now united behind a single candidate, even held their first national convention in the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg that year.

As the exploration of the American-west stretched population Pennsylvania dropped to 26 electoral-votes for the 1844 and '48 elections where it never the less played in important role siding with the victor in close contests each year. By the time Democrat Franklin Pierce won in an electoral landslide in 1852 the Keystone State had rebounded in size with 27-electors.

In 1856 the state of Pennsylvania placed its one and only candidate in the White House helping Democrat James Buchanan to a decisive win in an election with three prominent candidates. Buchanan actually defeated sitting President Franklin Pierce in a primary challenge to secure the party nomination. The short-lived American or “Know Nothing” Party formed from the ashes of the Whig’s also held its convention in Philadelphia that year selecting former President Millard Fillmore as its nominee.

Most historians agree that largely due to his mishandling of the slavery issue James Buchanan ranks near the top of the list of worst American Presidents. His failure to even win re-nomination in 1860, the subsequent defeat of the Democrats by Abraham Lincoln and the outbreak of the Civil War changed the course of American political history and Pennsylvania’s role in the presidency.



1860-1932: Civil War & the Republican stronghold

Tensions had been brewing throughout the 1850s on the issues of states rights and slavery. Those tensions would boil over following the election of 1860. Angered by the domestic agenda of Pennsylvanian President James Buchanan the first truly sectional major party rose to power in the form of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln won the Republican nomination and then against a divided field of Democrats took home the Presidency.

Fearing the policies of the new President who campaigned heavily against slavery the country split in two and the new Confederacy was formed. Pennsylvania still the second largest state in the country at this time threw its support behind Lincoln who carried the Keystone State by nearly nineteen-percentage points in the general election. Lincoln’s Presidency would be so transforming that it set the stage for a Republican north and Pennsylvania over the next several decades.

Reunited again four years later the Democratic Party would make periodic inroads in Pennsylvania although the state would not go “blue” again for another 72-years. The closest election during this period came in 1876 when Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the Presidency by the narrowest of margins. His one-electoral vote victory offset a popular vote margin of over three-percentage points in favor of Democrat Samuel Tilden. Pennsylvania played a critical role in the outcome of this election. With its population rapidly growing during the height of the industrial revolution and its electoral clout up to 29-votes the Keystone State was the only one in the northeast region to deliver for Hayes.

Four years later native son and former Civil War General Winfield Hancock made a bid for the Presidency against Republican James Garfield. Hancock lost the popular vote by fewer than 2,000 making it the closest margin in election history. In both an odd twist and perfect example of Republican strength in Pennsylvania during that era even though Hancock hailed from the Philadelphia area he failed to capture his home state. This is particularly notable considering how close the popular vote was in the general election. Hancock lost Pennsylvania by better than four-percentage points, far more than the 0.1% with which he lost the country.

The GOP steamrolled ahead in Pennsylvania winning all but one contest by at least six-percentage points and capturing the White House in fourteen of the eighteen elections held between Lincoln’s 1860 victory and Herbert Hoover’s win in 1928. The only exception came in 1912 when a split ticket helped Democrat Woodrow Wilson secure victory over independent former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and sitting GOP President William Howard Taft. Excluding that election oddity the Republican Party candidate won by an average of 17.5% in Pennsylvania between 1860-1932.



1936-1988: Battleground Pennsylvania
With the United States plunged deep into an economic depression the era of Republican dominance came to a swift end with the landslide victory of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. Although Pennsylvania had been carried in that election by sitting President Herbert Hoover his margin of just 5.5% signaled a philosophical change was on the horizon.

Roosevelt’s historic landslide victory of 1936 included a sixteen-point victory in the Keystone and while his margins of victory both in PA and nationally were less impressive in the years that followed he still carried the state in 1940 and '44. In addition to Roosevelt’s economic agenda and World War II leadership the change in Pennsylvania voting patterns came from working class Americans and minorities – in no short supply in the industrial north – who were siding heavily with Democratic policies.

In spite of this Pennsylvania’s Republican tradition remained in tact and would continue to be reckoned with in the years that followed. Moderate Republican Thomas Dewey carried Pennsylvania in 1948 despite his upset loss to Democrat Harry Truman on a national scale. Both parties also held their conventions in Philadelphia that year. Dwight Eisenhower who beat Democrat Adlai Stevenson twice in the 1950s by decisive margins also carried the Keystone State with little resistance. Interestingly Eisenhower while not a native born Pennsylvania did move his residence to Gettysburg PA during his first term and could be considered the state’s second ever President after James Buchanan.

As population patterns shifted nationally Pennsylvania’s electoral clout which had peaked in the election years between 1912-28 (38-electoral votes) would begin a steady decline that continues to this day. Pennsylvania continued to play a critical role in the outcome of several elections however. 1960 was the closest Presidential election of the 20th century with a popular vote margin of around 0.1% and no less than nineteen states carried by less than three-percentage points.

Democrat John F. Kennedy was aided heavily by his modest victory in the Keystone State defeating Richard Nixon and collecting its 32-electoral votes. Four years later Lyndon Johnson set a Democratic record in Pennsylvania crushing Barry Goldwater by better than thirty-points in his landslide victory. Nixon’s narrow popular vote win in 1968 over Democratic Hubert Humphrey belied his loss in Pennsylvania by 3.6% but four years later he took home PA by twenty-points en route to a landslide of historic proportions.

Pennsylvania continued to stay relatively in line with the general national tide in the years that followed. Democratic Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election by a little more than two-percentage points while winning the battleground state of Pennsylvania by 2.7%. From 1980-88 Republican's Ronald Reagan and George Bush also scored victories in the Keystone State although their large wins nationally lessened the importance of their success in Pennsylvania.



1992-Present: The left-leaning Pennsylvania

Although Republican Presidents were ultimately successful in Pennsylvania throughout the 1980s there were signs that the state was inching further to the political left. Ronald Reagan won the 1984 election over Walter Mondale by nineteen-percentage points by only carried Pennsylvania by 7.4%. Pre-election polls from 1988 correctly suggested that Pennsylvania would be a key battleground state in a year where Democrats were hopeful. Republican George H.W. Bush carried most of surrounding Philadelphia and ultimately the Key Stone State’s 25-electoral votes. Still his victory of just 2.3% was noticeably lower than 7.8% margin he collected nationally.

The tide turned convincingly in 1992 with the arrival of Arkansas Democrat Bill Clinton on the scene. That year’s election was unique also because of the third-part presence of billionaire Ross Perot posing a challenge both to Clinton and sitting President George H.W. Bush. Perot would become the most successful third-party candidate – in terms of the popular vote total – since Teddy Roosevelt. He took home nearly nineteen-percent nationally while winning better than eighteen-percent in Pennsylvania.

The impact of Pennsylvania’s clout electorally speaking had diminished somewhat by 1992. With much of the America's population gains shifting south and westward the Keystone State dropped to being the fifth largest state with 23-electoral votes after the 1990 census. Still it would be something of a bellwether for Clinton and the Democrats who won PA by better than nine-percentage points in both 1992 and 1996. The easy Clinton victories of the 90s also served as a realigning election to an extent. The northeast once a bastion of Republican support had now almost fully changed sides and in certain instances have done so by wide-margins.

Pennsylvania’s role in Presidential politics was become more and more crucial in spite of its shrinking size on the electoral map. In this current decade the Keystone State has been visited and campaigned in innumerable times both by Democrats and Republicans positioning it as one of the three key battleground states along with Florida and Ohio. This was never more apparent than in the 2000 election one of the closest battles in Presidential history. George W. Bush accepted the GOP nomination at the Republican Convention in Philadelphia that year but it was Democrat Al Gore that captured the state’s 23-electoral votes by a little better than four-percentage points.

Bush ended up as the winner in the highly disputed election where Florida took center state. Four years later as President Bush ran for reelection Pennsylvania was again focused upon as one of the critical swing-states that would eventually decide the race. Pre-election polls conducted on the eve of the November 2nd election showed Pennsylvania at a near deadlock. Survey USA had a John Kerry lead of one-point, Quinnipiac showed a deadlocked tie and Gallup had Bush with a four-point lead. In the end Democrat John Kerry won the Keystone State by 2.5% but lost by around that same marginally nationally to Bush who captured the two other major battleground states of Florida and Ohio.

The recent 2008 election ushered in Democrat Barack Obama as the decisive winner both nationally and in Pennsylvania. Republican nominee John McCain took interest never the less in Pennsylvania’s crucial 21-electoral votes. After all Hillary Clinton had defeated Obama soundly in that year’s primary contest appealing more towards older, white and working class voters that lived in the central, northern and suburban regions of the state.

Polls conducted just days before the general election however showed the strength of Obama and the Democrats in PA hard to ignore. On Election Day November 4th Barack Obama took home a resounding victory in Pennsylvania by 10.3% while winning the election with 365-electoral votes. It was the best performance for a Democrat in Pennsylvania since Lyndon Johnson’s thirty-point win there in 1964 and further established the left-leaning reputation Pennsylvania currently holds. Due to the potent mixture of its size, political diversity and regional significance Pennsylvania will no doubt continue to play a significant role in Presidential politics and the outcome of elections for decades to come.

Poll: Corzine still trails Christie in New Jersey Governor's race

READ FULL STORY HERE

With less than a month and a half remaining in the New Jersey Governor’s race incumbent Jon Corzine simply isn’t picking up ground quickly enough on Republican challenger Chris Christie.

Residents of the greater Philadelphia area as well as national pundits continue to follow this race closely. It has been suggested that an off-election year race for Governor serves as something of a barometer to what sort of political tide we can expect to see in 2010 and beyond. If that is indeed the case the Democrats might want to rethink their game plan, for a Republican has not won a statewide election in New Jersey since 1997 and according to the latest Rasmussen poll the Democratic Governor trails 48-41%.

This figure actually represents a slight, if statistically insignificant improvement for Corzine from a previous Rasmussen’s poll released earlier this month showed him trailing his Republican challenger by eight percentage-points. Independent Chris Daggett who recently placed a humorous TV ad lampooning both major-party candidates never the less is struggling to make his mark in the race, attracting just 6% of the vote.

For Christie the 48% of support he is receiving from Garden State voters means of course that he is still under the 50% threshold and not exactly running away with the race. Christie’s popularity peaked a month ago when Rasmussen indicated that the former U.S. Attorney and prosecutor led 50-42%. More recently a poll pegged him at just 46% of the vote but more importantly his lead of seven or eight points over that span has remained in tact.

Governor Corzine meanwhile can’t seem to budge the overall negative perceptions New Jersey residents have of him in spite of a barrage of television spots over the past several weeks. Just 38% of voters in the Garden State approve of his job performance against 61% who do not. Almost identical to that and also critically low for an incumbent at this point in a campaign season is his personal favorability mired at a 39-60% positive to negative split. Not that Christie is wildly popular either as his 48-46% favorable to unfavorable margin attests. But more than anything this election is being played up as a referendum on the policies of incumbent Governor Corzine.

New Jersey is a left-leaning state and as Rasmussen points out Democrats traditionally close strong even with their poll numbers lagging late in races. The presence of independent Chris Daggett, while not a threat to win never the less presents a problem for Corzine however. Eight-percent of Democrats plan to cast their vote for Daggett against just 2% of Republicans who suggest they are defecting. If Corzine was simply able to close that margin of six-points between the third-party support being offered by Democrats and Republicans this race would be a virtual dead-heat.

As it stands we will continue to watch this race as it heads into the back stretch. No lack of fanfare should be expected regardless of the result. If Christie wins it will be viewed by Republicans as a comeback for the party and an important step in their quest to take back power in 2010 – or at least close the gap considerably. On the flip side if Corzine pulls off what now has to be labeled an upset it will too be viewed, this time by Democrats, as a comeback and important step in stabilizing the current balance of power.

Poll: Approval of health care reform varies by state, concerns linger nationwide

READ FULL STORY HERE

This morning Rasmussen Reports released in video form the results of yet another health care poll. Unlike others however this one takes a look at the approval, or lack thereof, for President Obama and Congressional Democrats reform proposals.

Ten states were weeded out and looked at specifically. There was a healthy range of some of more liberal spots in the country (Massachusetts, Connecticut), left-leaners (New Jersey, Minnesota) conservative bastions (Texas), right-leaners (Virginia, North Carolina) and a few battleground states in between (Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada). The results continue to illustrate the struggles that favorable politicians and reform backers have in convincing the general public of the need of this current version of health care reform.

Rasmussen’s nationwide tracking of the health care issue indicates that over the past ten days of polling (9/8 – 9/18) a combined average of 45.6% Americans approve and 51.4% disapprove of the Democratic administration’s reform plan. These overall numbers are to an extent reflected by the tracking of responses from those citizens residing in the aforementioned states.

Strongest in favor of the new health care plan are not surprisingly the two most Democratic supporting states on our list of ten. Massachusetts sides with the reform proposal by a margin of 52-44% and Connecticut voters are supportive to the tune of 52-46%. President Obama in the 2008 election carried both New England states by margins of 26% and 23% respectively. Next on the list in terms of favorability is New Jersey splitting its voters by a 50-47% margin. The Garden State is one of the precious few where a majority or near majority of voters are in favor of the Democratic health care plan, it’s also one embroiled in a testy Governor’s race. Not surprisingly with the modest approval for reform expressed by New Jersey’s voters incumbent Governor and Democrat Jon Corzine has run ads and campaigned in favor of President Obama’s health care plan.

Two other states on the list, Colorado and Minnesota also show a plurality of voters who favor the current health care reform plan. President Obama and the Democrats face a tougher challenge in the swing-state of New Hampshire however where voters are against the plan 50-47%. Also against by solid percentages are three key states where the Democratic Party made major gains in the last election. Virginia is opposed by a 51-46% margin, Nevada disapproves to the tune of 52-45% and 53% of North Carolina voters are against current reform legislation against just 44% who would like to see it passed.

The reddest of states on Rasmussen’s featured list of ten, Texas, is overwhelmingly against the push for reform brought forth by the President and Democratically controlled Congress. By a margin of 58-40% Texans say “no”. This was of course a state that voted against Obama by nearly ten percentage-points in the last election but also one that echoes many of the fears being expressed by Americans nationwide.

Three subsets of questions asked to New Jersey, Connecticut and Texas voters go into greater detail regarding the negative perceptions of reform. 500 likely voters in New Jersey expressed concern with the overall quality of coverage. In this poll only 29% feel that health care will improve under the new plan against 45% who think it will get worse. Two in ten Garden State voters assume things will stay about the same as they are currently. In Texas the economic impact of new health care legislation is viewed harshly. Only 9% of a thousand polled in the Lone State State are confident the federal deficit will be reduced by reform against 68% who think it will increase the deficit and 15% who say it will have no impact.

Even in left-leaning Connecticut where a majority of voters approve of reform legislation many are still pessimistic of its cost benefits. 43% expect the price of health care coverage to go up against just 24% who expect to see a decrease. Another 26% figure it to stay about the same and 7% remain uncertain.

With approval ratings for Congress at near record-low, which party holds edge?

READ FULL STORY HERE
With so much talk recently about President Obama’s struggling approval numbers both on the issue of health care an overall it would be easy to assume the Republican Party is on the cusp of a comeback. Sure enough there are several individual races in the upcoming 2010 midterms where high profile Democrats look in danger of being unseated at this point in time.

The bigger picture however remains that while the party in power always gets the most attention the vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with their leaders on either side of the political isle.

A recently released Gallup/USA Today survey shows that both Congressional Democrats and Republicans are at near record-low approval numbers. Aside from a spike in confidence for both sides following the January inauguration of President Obama the overall trend for either party is a downward slide since early-2002. Currently the Gallup poll pegs Democratic approval in congress at 36% with the GOP pulling in an even more dismal 27%. Democrats reached their all-time low at the end of 2007 when just 30% of Americans approved of how they were handling their job, the Republican Party meanwhile cratered at 25% just before the beginning of 2009.

Republican voters are quick to call out what they perceive to be a lackluster performance by their own party. Just 39% of Republicans now approve of the performance of their GOP representatives, this down from 52% nine months ago. Oddly enough Democrats actually have an improved opinion of the GOP congress giving them a 20% approval, up eleven percentage-points from last December.

Perhaps the influence of Democratic President in the White House has given Democratic voters a more optimistic view of their politicians overall. They give their own party’s Congress a 67% approval rating currently, up seven-points from December. Independent’s meanwhile favor Democrats in congress by a narrow 28-25% margin down from 29-22% nine months ago. The highest marks ever scored for either party within their own party not surprisingly came in the wake of September 11, 2001. Democratic approval of the Dems in Congress climbed to 82% in the later stages of 2001 and Republicans view of the GOP surged up to 86% in early-2002. Similarly independent support of both parties reached a record high in early-2002 with 55% approving of the job Democrats in Congress were doing and 52% giving positive marks to Republican representatives.

Gallup isn’t alone in their harsh assessment of Congress coming from voters. A recent Fox poll indicates that just 27% of registered voters approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 30% a month ago and down four-points from mid-May. AP-GFK rates Congressional approval at just 28% while CBS has the figure even lower at 26%. Poor as that sounds the approval numbers being generated by Congress from the aforementioned pollsters actually mark a considerable approvement from the truly dismal figures collected from last October.

So where do the two parties stand in terms of a head-to-head match up looming in 2010? With the individual approval ratings of either party so low Rasmussen not surprisingly has a tight race depicted. Currently the Republican Party holds a slight 41-40% edge against Democrats in a generic ballot, this mirrors the overall picture over the past several months.

Of course the midterms are over a year away and much can happen in that time to shift the political landscape. The number of Americans approving of either party’s Congress in recent years has remained consistently low however. Does this perhaps point to a fight for control of the House and Senate in the years to follow as being a battle of individual races instead of that of an overall wave of public sentiment? Only time will tell.

Poll: Support for health care reform retreats to pre-speech levels

READ FULL STORY HERE

Bounces and bubbles are two of the more common terms used by pollsters in American politics. Lately they have been used to describe the post-speech increase in the number of voters who had begun siding with President Obama’s proposals to overhaul health care.

While there has been some good news for the administration since the President’s major address before Congress last week according to at least two new polls it would appear the bouncing ball of confidence is resettling and the bubble is bursting.

The latest dose of bad medicine for Obama and supporters of health care reform comes from surveys conducted by Rasmussen and USA Today/Gallup. Last Thursday Rasmussen reported that 44% of voters were in favor of the President’s health care plan. Seven days later those numbers are back to being identical to the aforementioned total. This after an early-week post-speech bounce that saw them climb to a 51-46% approval to disapproval.

CNN/Opinion Research closely mirrored the previous findings from Rasmussen and other polling outlets. Their figures also indicated a rise to 51% support for Obama’s plan after it had been at only 44% prior to the President’s speech. New CNN numbers are likely to arrive in the coming days. For now USA Today offers up its own batch of damaging numbers for the administration and its mission to win over the hearts and minds of the American public.

When asked whether they would advise their member of congress to vote for or against a health care this year 38% were in favor of a yay vote, 40% were against and 22% had no opinion. The 22% of those without a strong opinion from the 1,030 adults polled broke fairly even (50-47%) for and against their representative voting on a bill. Other figures indicate that while a small plurality of adults think health care coverage in America will improve with the passing of a bill only 34% think the costs will improve and just 30% believe the overall quality will get better against 41% who think it will get worse.

Even worse is the confidence those have in Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on middle income families to help pay for his reform proposals. 60% of Americans do not believe such goals can be accomplished without raising taxes against just 38% who are confident.

Reflecting back on the Rasmussen survey the figures suggest a remarkably stable position coming from the American public. Even as the issue continues to dominate headlines and with education on the topic surely increases as well the number of those opposed to the President’s plan (53%) has been relatively stable since mid-July. Scott Rasmussen points out in the Wall Street journal that while many Americans see the logic in reform for the system as a whole 68% of them rate their own coverage as good or excellent. Why tinker with a system you are happy with, especially if you fear that you have more to lose than to gain?

One thing Americans do seem more confident about is the political muscle of President Obama and Democrats to pass reform before the end of the year. Half think passage is at least somewhat likely but a far smaller percentage of the public (27%) believes that the quality of care will actually improve in the event of a new bill. That total is fairly consistent with the quarter of Americans who strongly support the President's plan.

While any number of news stories report that Democrats and Republicans are far from uniting on a compromise, the new numbers also show support for reform from the American public retreating to pre-speech numbers. Furthermore with around three-quarters of the American public somewhat against, strongly opposed or remaining uncertain of health care reform the path to success in all aspects of the issue remains a treacherous one traveled for the President.