Barack Obama's approval rating in North Carolina hit its lowest level since he took office this month, and one group that he's seen a particularly steep decline with is conservative white Democrats.
They were integral to his victory in the state last year. Many registered Democrats who frequently would have voted Republican at the federal level because of the national party's views on social issues stuck with Obama because of overriding concern about the economy. But as the number of folks in that demographic listing the economy as their top issue has declined- with a corresponding increase in ones naming moral and family values- his approval ratings have gone down.
In February and March conservative white Democrats split almost evenly in their appraisals of Obama's performance, with 38-39% saying they liked the job he's doing, and 41% dissenting. In February 54% of voters in that group said the economy was their top issue with just 14% naming moral and family values.
Fast forward to June and Obama's level of disapproval with that group has climbed from 41% to 55%. Over that same period the economy dropped to 48% as their top issue, while the number of folks listing moral and family values nearly doubled to 26%.
The increase in states legalizing gay marriage seems to have shifted the priorities among at least some white conservative Democrats from the economy back to social issues- and if that remains the case it's going to be a lot harder for Obama to hold onto their support moving forward.
Where should we poll next week?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Quick Thought on South Carolina
I follow South Carolina politics pretty closely because that's where my family's from and I was pretty amused by today's editorial in The State saying that Mark Sanford needs to stay in office mostly so that Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer is not able to take the top spot.
There's no doubt Bauer's an embarrassment. He likes to run red lights, drive over 100 mph, and generally has not shown the maturity you would expect from someone in such a high position.
And he has paid a political price for all that. In 2006 he had to come from behind to win renomination in the runoff, then won in the general election by less than three tenths of a point even as Republicans were generally dominating the rest of the ticket. Bauer was able to survive though because a significant number of voters were not aware of all his foibles, something made possible by the generally low profile nature of the office he currently holds.
So while I get The State's point, I actually disagree with their conclusion- the surest way to keep Bauer from winning the Governor's office next year is to let him serve out Sanford's term. The level of scrutiny he'd have to deal with would likely bring a broader level of public awareness to his bad behavior that probably would keep him from winning a full term. I really don't care whether Sanford resigns or not, but I actually think his doing so would ultimately hurt the chances of Bauer's being Governor in 2011 more than it would help them.
There's no doubt Bauer's an embarrassment. He likes to run red lights, drive over 100 mph, and generally has not shown the maturity you would expect from someone in such a high position.
And he has paid a political price for all that. In 2006 he had to come from behind to win renomination in the runoff, then won in the general election by less than three tenths of a point even as Republicans were generally dominating the rest of the ticket. Bauer was able to survive though because a significant number of voters were not aware of all his foibles, something made possible by the generally low profile nature of the office he currently holds.
So while I get The State's point, I actually disagree with their conclusion- the surest way to keep Bauer from winning the Governor's office next year is to let him serve out Sanford's term. The level of scrutiny he'd have to deal with would likely bring a broader level of public awareness to his bad behavior that probably would keep him from winning a full term. I really don't care whether Sanford resigns or not, but I actually think his doing so would ultimately hurt the chances of Bauer's being Governor in 2011 more than it would help them.
Christie leads Corzine
The first of what will be monthly Public Policy Polling surveys looking at the race for Governor in New Jersey finds Chris Christie leading Jon Corzine 51-41.
Christie is being buoyed by a 60-26 advantage with independent voters and a remarkable degree of party unity, as he leads 93-3 with Republicans. By comparison, Corzine has just a 75-16 edge with Democrats.
There's not much doubt Christie's lead is being fueled largely by Corzine's unpopularity. 56% of voters in the state have a negative opinion of the incumbent, while just 36% view him favorably. For Christie the breakdown is 43% positive and 33% unfavorable.
One number pretty much sums up Corzine's current level of unpopularity but also his prospects for improvement. Among the 25% of voters who don't know enough about Christie to have formed an opinion of him one way or the other, he has a 48-30 lead over Corzine. That speaks pretty strongly to the Governor's lack of popularity, but it also speaks to the fact that if he can make those voters to whom Christie is currently a blank slate dislike his challenger even more than they currently dislike him he has a chance. It's probably going to take an effective, relentlessly negative campaign against Christie for Corzine to get reelected.
There are still a lot of votes up for grabs four months out from the election. While just 9% of respondents say they're undecided, 30% of those who currently have a preference say they could change their minds between now and November. That leaves around 36% of the electorate persuadable.
Christie is certainly a strong favorite at this point, but there are enough factors in play that at least have the potential to work in Corzine's favor that it's far from over.
Full results here.
Christie is being buoyed by a 60-26 advantage with independent voters and a remarkable degree of party unity, as he leads 93-3 with Republicans. By comparison, Corzine has just a 75-16 edge with Democrats.
There's not much doubt Christie's lead is being fueled largely by Corzine's unpopularity. 56% of voters in the state have a negative opinion of the incumbent, while just 36% view him favorably. For Christie the breakdown is 43% positive and 33% unfavorable.
One number pretty much sums up Corzine's current level of unpopularity but also his prospects for improvement. Among the 25% of voters who don't know enough about Christie to have formed an opinion of him one way or the other, he has a 48-30 lead over Corzine. That speaks pretty strongly to the Governor's lack of popularity, but it also speaks to the fact that if he can make those voters to whom Christie is currently a blank slate dislike his challenger even more than they currently dislike him he has a chance. It's probably going to take an effective, relentlessly negative campaign against Christie for Corzine to get reelected.
There are still a lot of votes up for grabs four months out from the election. While just 9% of respondents say they're undecided, 30% of those who currently have a preference say they could change their minds between now and November. That leaves around 36% of the electorate persuadable.
Christie is certainly a strong favorite at this point, but there are enough factors in play that at least have the potential to work in Corzine's favor that it's far from over.
Full results here.
Monday, June 29, 2009
McCrory in the 8th District?
Roll Call reports today that Republicans might like for Pat McCrory to run against Larry Kissell in the 8th District next year.
One thing the story misses is that McCrory, you know, doesn't live in the 8th District.
But putting that aside, how might he fare? Well don't expect a big home field advantage in Charlotte. There are 29 8th District precincts within Mecklenburg County and last year Bev Perdue won 26 of them against McCrory in the race for Governor, a heavy contributor to Perdue's surprise victory on the mayor's home turf.
Mecklenburg County actually only contains the third largest number of votes in the district. The most come from Cabarrus County, where McCrory did very well, and the second most come from Cumberland County, where McCrory crashed.
So there are strengths and weaknesses in a possible McCrory campaign- the greatest of which is obviously the extent to which voters would be willing to support a candidate who either didn't live in the district or moved into it for the sole purpose of seeking office. One person who I imagine would be happy- at least privately- about such a candidacy is Perdue because either McCrory would be safely in Washington instead of seeking a rematch in 2012, or he would be pretty damaged goods after losing two elections in a row.
One thing the story misses is that McCrory, you know, doesn't live in the 8th District.
But putting that aside, how might he fare? Well don't expect a big home field advantage in Charlotte. There are 29 8th District precincts within Mecklenburg County and last year Bev Perdue won 26 of them against McCrory in the race for Governor, a heavy contributor to Perdue's surprise victory on the mayor's home turf.
Mecklenburg County actually only contains the third largest number of votes in the district. The most come from Cabarrus County, where McCrory did very well, and the second most come from Cumberland County, where McCrory crashed.
So there are strengths and weaknesses in a possible McCrory campaign- the greatest of which is obviously the extent to which voters would be willing to support a candidate who either didn't live in the district or moved into it for the sole purpose of seeking office. One person who I imagine would be happy- at least privately- about such a candidacy is Perdue because either McCrory would be safely in Washington instead of seeking a rematch in 2012, or he would be pretty damaged goods after losing two elections in a row.
More on Burr
Stuart Rothenberg weighs in today on Richard Burr's battle against us with the DC media establishment.
One odd critique made by unnamed 'GOP insiders' is that our samples are too Democratic and too urban.
North Carolina's voter registration breakdown by party is currently 46% Democrats, 32% Republicans, and 22% independents. The state's exit poll last year found the electorate to be 42% Democrats, 31% Republicans, and 27% independents. So we're looking at a Democratic advantage of somewhere between 11 and 14 points.
The breakdown of our most recent survey, the one that really seemed to set off the Burr camp, was 45% Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 18% independents- in other words containing a smaller percentage of Democrats than there are registered and a higher percentage of Republicans than there are registered.
Recent polls conducted by two conservative groups- The Carolina Strategy Group, run by Burr's chief strategist, and the Civitas Institute have had samples that were 47% Democratic, 37% Republican, and 16% independents and 47% Democratic, 36% Republican, and 17% independents respectively.
Anyone who says the sample of our most recent Burr poll was too Democratic clearly knows nothing about North Carolina politics.
The criticism that our polls are too urban is a new one. Our most recent survey had 14% of respondents describing their community as urban. Let's operate on the assumption that the only 'urban' places in the state are Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Durham, and Winston-Salem. Those cities add up to a population of 1.7 million, about 19% of a state with a population just over 9 million. I really would be interested to see the metrics behind the claim that our samples are too urban.
Anyway Rothenberg's piece is a good read, check it out here.
One odd critique made by unnamed 'GOP insiders' is that our samples are too Democratic and too urban.
North Carolina's voter registration breakdown by party is currently 46% Democrats, 32% Republicans, and 22% independents. The state's exit poll last year found the electorate to be 42% Democrats, 31% Republicans, and 27% independents. So we're looking at a Democratic advantage of somewhere between 11 and 14 points.
The breakdown of our most recent survey, the one that really seemed to set off the Burr camp, was 45% Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 18% independents- in other words containing a smaller percentage of Democrats than there are registered and a higher percentage of Republicans than there are registered.
Recent polls conducted by two conservative groups- The Carolina Strategy Group, run by Burr's chief strategist, and the Civitas Institute have had samples that were 47% Democratic, 37% Republican, and 16% independents and 47% Democratic, 36% Republican, and 17% independents respectively.
Anyone who says the sample of our most recent Burr poll was too Democratic clearly knows nothing about North Carolina politics.
The criticism that our polls are too urban is a new one. Our most recent survey had 14% of respondents describing their community as urban. Let's operate on the assumption that the only 'urban' places in the state are Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Durham, and Winston-Salem. Those cities add up to a population of 1.7 million, about 19% of a state with a population just over 9 million. I really would be interested to see the metrics behind the claim that our samples are too urban.
Anyway Rothenberg's piece is a good read, check it out here.
New Jersey Preview Stat
On the topic of the party affiliation of moderates...
On the New Jersey poll we'll start releasing tomorrow we found 40% of moderates identifying as Democrats, 37% as independents, and just 23% as Republicans.
And Chris Christie still has a 47-42 lead with those voters.
On the New Jersey poll we'll start releasing tomorrow we found 40% of moderates identifying as Democrats, 37% as independents, and just 23% as Republicans.
And Chris Christie still has a 47-42 lead with those voters.
Moderates and Party ID
I was reading the local paper in an airport somewhere in the Midwest on Friday- either Omaha or Chicago- and saw a letter to the editor referencing the recent Pew finding that a plurality of Americans are conservatives and wondering why the Democrats are still in charge.
I can answer that question pretty easily: Republicans have ceded the middle to the Democrats. We've broken down party identification by ideology identification nationally and in six different states over the last two months. Here are the numbers:
So there are more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans among moderates in all of these geographies with the exception of Alabama.
Taking it a step further, Democrats are doing nearly as well among conservatives as Republicans are among moderates:
On average only 2% more of moderates are identifying with the Republican Party than conservatives are identifying with the Democratic party.
In other words Democrats are doing nearly as well with right leaning voters as Republicans are with centrists. As long as that's the case, the GOP will continue to be out of power.
I can answer that question pretty easily: Republicans have ceded the middle to the Democrats. We've broken down party identification by ideology identification nationally and in six different states over the last two months. Here are the numbers:
| Party ID of Moderates | Democrat | Republican | Independent |
| National | 49 | 20 | 31 |
| | 44 | 26 | 30 |
| | 47 | 22 | 31 |
| | 53 | 23 | 24 |
| | 55 | 23 | 23 |
| | 60 | 25 | 14 |
| | 45 | 18 | 37 |
So there are more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans among moderates in all of these geographies with the exception of Alabama.
Taking it a step further, Democrats are doing nearly as well among conservatives as Republicans are among moderates:
| State | % of moderates who are Republicans | % of conservatives who are Democrats |
| National | 20 | 19 |
| | 26 | 20 |
| | 22 | 21 |
| | 23 | 24 |
| | 23 | 19 |
| | 25 | 29 |
| | 18 | 13 |
On average only 2% more of moderates are identifying with the Republican Party than conservatives are identifying with the Democratic party.
In other words Democrats are doing nearly as well with right leaning voters as Republicans are with centrists. As long as that's the case, the GOP will continue to be out of power.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Coming next week...
We're going to most likely continue our of late weekly polls showing Democratic Governors in bad shape- but it won't come as a surprise to anyone this week as we begin our monthly polling on New Jersey and Jon Corzine.
We haven't started the poll yet so who knows, maybe we'll find Corzine doing better than the current conventional wisdom.
That should be out Tuesday.
We haven't started the poll yet so who knows, maybe we'll find Corzine doing better than the current conventional wisdom.
That should be out Tuesday.
Looking at North Carolina's Moderate Republicans
Moderate Republicans are the endangered species of North Carolina politics, but they could hold a lot of power in next year's elections.
Less than 10% of voters in the state currently identify themselves as moderate Republicans. That trails conservative Republicans (27%), moderate Democrats (22%), liberal Democrats (13%), conservative Democrats (10%), and moderate independents (10%). The only voter groups smaller than moderate Republicans are liberal Republicans and liberal and conservative independents.
They have some views out of the mainstream of their party. For instance a majority support increasing income taxes on the rich in the state this year. A quarter of them approve of Barack Obama's job performance, compared to only 6% of conservative Republicans. More than 50% of them say that Jim Hunt, rather than Jim Martin, was their favorite Governor of the last 37 years. More of them list education as their top issue than moral and family values. And perhaps most telling only 36% of them say Richard Burr should be reelected while 41% believe it's time to give someone else a chance.
That's really not a big surprise- Burr, as well as Republican legislative leaders in the state, have played much more to the party's right leaning base than its voters in the middle. These folks might agree with something like banning gay marriage but it's not as high a priority for them as money in the classroom. They might be sympathetic to what Bev Perdue is pushing right now.
Simply put Burr and Republican legislative candidates can't assemble a winning coalition without these voters but risk losing their support to moderate Democratic candidates by pursuing a nearly uniformly conservative agenda. It will be interesting to see what steps are taken to try to keep these voters in the fold over the next year, or what Democrats might be able to do to convince them to cross over.
Less than 10% of voters in the state currently identify themselves as moderate Republicans. That trails conservative Republicans (27%), moderate Democrats (22%), liberal Democrats (13%), conservative Democrats (10%), and moderate independents (10%). The only voter groups smaller than moderate Republicans are liberal Republicans and liberal and conservative independents.
They have some views out of the mainstream of their party. For instance a majority support increasing income taxes on the rich in the state this year. A quarter of them approve of Barack Obama's job performance, compared to only 6% of conservative Republicans. More than 50% of them say that Jim Hunt, rather than Jim Martin, was their favorite Governor of the last 37 years. More of them list education as their top issue than moral and family values. And perhaps most telling only 36% of them say Richard Burr should be reelected while 41% believe it's time to give someone else a chance.
That's really not a big surprise- Burr, as well as Republican legislative leaders in the state, have played much more to the party's right leaning base than its voters in the middle. These folks might agree with something like banning gay marriage but it's not as high a priority for them as money in the classroom. They might be sympathetic to what Bev Perdue is pushing right now.
Simply put Burr and Republican legislative candidates can't assemble a winning coalition without these voters but risk losing their support to moderate Democratic candidates by pursuing a nearly uniformly conservative agenda. It will be interesting to see what steps are taken to try to keep these voters in the fold over the next year, or what Democrats might be able to do to convince them to cross over.
Poor Gerald Ford
I've been writing from Omaha this week doing my best Roy Williams Jayhawk sticker impression by cheering on LSU in the finals of the College World Series while wearing a Carolina baseball shirt and a Tiger baseball hat. It did not give me 1/1000th of the joy it will when the Tar Heels finally finish the season with a win here, but I was happy for coach Paul Mainieri and his team.
Here are some of my politics related observations from my week in middle American:
-I went to the birthplace of Gerald Ford on Tuesday, and his bust there was covered in bird poop and had clearly not been cleaned in a long time. In some sense I thought that was symbolic because of his reputation for buffoonery, but a former President deserves better than that. The city of Omaha does almost everything in a first class manner, but this is something they need to work on. There were also horribly faded mementos in a display case at the birth site that had not been preserved as well.
-Another local politician who didn't reach the White House but has a much better tribute to his legacy is Senator Bob Kerrey. The pedestrian bridge over the Missouri River bearing his name is beautiful, a great connection between Iowa and Nebraska, and a definite improvement to the area since I was last here in 2007. It was full of people every time I went by it.
-There aren't a lot of more politically competitive places in American right now than Omaha. Barack Obama won the city's Congressional district 50-49, then in its Mayoral race last month Democrat Jim Suttle held off Republican Hal Daub by a 51-49 margin. Democrats came close to winning its Congressional seat last fall, and now appear to have a stronger potential candidate to challenge Lee Terry in 2010. It's a very interesting city politically.
Here are some of my politics related observations from my week in middle American:
-I went to the birthplace of Gerald Ford on Tuesday, and his bust there was covered in bird poop and had clearly not been cleaned in a long time. In some sense I thought that was symbolic because of his reputation for buffoonery, but a former President deserves better than that. The city of Omaha does almost everything in a first class manner, but this is something they need to work on. There were also horribly faded mementos in a display case at the birth site that had not been preserved as well.
-Another local politician who didn't reach the White House but has a much better tribute to his legacy is Senator Bob Kerrey. The pedestrian bridge over the Missouri River bearing his name is beautiful, a great connection between Iowa and Nebraska, and a definite improvement to the area since I was last here in 2007. It was full of people every time I went by it.
-There aren't a lot of more politically competitive places in American right now than Omaha. Barack Obama won the city's Congressional district 50-49, then in its Mayoral race last month Democrat Jim Suttle held off Republican Hal Daub by a 51-49 margin. Democrats came close to winning its Congressional seat last fall, and now appear to have a stronger potential candidate to challenge Lee Terry in 2010. It's a very interesting city politically.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Signs of GOP strength with independents in NC
Last year Democrats in North Carolina, especially at the federal level, did pretty well with independents. Our final polls showed Barack Obama and Kay Hagan both winning by four points with them, a result not that important to Hagan's victory but critical to Obama's.
They could make the difference in whether Richard Burr gets reelected or not next year, as well as in Republican hopes to retake the legislature, and right now they appear to be leaning in the GOP's direction.
When we asked a generic ballot question on a survey a couple weeks ago 38% of independents said they planned to generally vote Republican next year, compared to only 26% intending to go for Democrats.
When we tested Burr specifically against a generic Democrat last week he led 39-32 with independents, even though he trailed 41-38 overall.
Burr has also led among independent voters against every hypothetical Democrat we've tested him against, including Roy Cooper, against whom he had a 37-29 lead with indy voters.
The divided government message- that the country will be better off if it doesn't give Democrats too much power and retains some level of balance- is going to be critical to GOP success next year and may have a higher level of appeal with independents.
This is some initial good news for Republicans, but there is also a caveat. Many polls have shown GOP identification at an all time low, and it may be that a spike in independent ranks in North Carolina reflects conservative voters disenchanted with the party choosing to leave. They're still conservative though even if they don't want to wear the GOP label and much more likely to support Republican candidates even if they do it under a different name.
They could make the difference in whether Richard Burr gets reelected or not next year, as well as in Republican hopes to retake the legislature, and right now they appear to be leaning in the GOP's direction.
When we asked a generic ballot question on a survey a couple weeks ago 38% of independents said they planned to generally vote Republican next year, compared to only 26% intending to go for Democrats.
When we tested Burr specifically against a generic Democrat last week he led 39-32 with independents, even though he trailed 41-38 overall.
Burr has also led among independent voters against every hypothetical Democrat we've tested him against, including Roy Cooper, against whom he had a 37-29 lead with indy voters.
The divided government message- that the country will be better off if it doesn't give Democrats too much power and retains some level of balance- is going to be critical to GOP success next year and may have a higher level of appeal with independents.
This is some initial good news for Republicans, but there is also a caveat. Many polls have shown GOP identification at an all time low, and it may be that a spike in independent ranks in North Carolina reflects conservative voters disenchanted with the party choosing to leave. They're still conservative though even if they don't want to wear the GOP label and much more likely to support Republican candidates even if they do it under a different name.
Our low Obama approvals
As many of you have noticed, we show lower approval numbers for Barack Obama both nationally and on a state by state basis than most pollsters.
I think part of this has to do with IVR- people are just more willing to say they don't like a politician to us than they are to a live interviewer because they don't feel any social pressure to be nice. That's resulted in us, Rasmussen, and Survey USA showing poorer approval numbers than most for a variety of politicians.
But I think another part of it may be who we're calling. When we conduct polls this year we are using the same sampling criteria we used for all of our surveys last year- folks who voted in one of the last two or three elections. And if you look at our state by state approval numbers for Obama, they tend to link up pretty closely with the percentage of the vote he got in those places:
On average Obama's approval rating is 1.5% higher than the share of the vote he received in a given state, so pretty close to identical. And here's my big question: if you didn't vote for Obama, why would you approve of his job performance now? He was pretty clear during the campaign about what he was going to do if he got elected, and that's pretty much what he's done. If you didn't like that enough to vote for him I'm not sure why you would like it enough to approve of him now.
That's not a criticism of the President by any means, the reality is that we're just a very divided nation politically. 5% of the electorate might have changed sides between 2004 and 2008 to move us from an R+3 country to a D+7 country but we're still pretty evenly split and any President who makes tough choices or exhibits leadership is going to earn the wrath of a significant chunk of the population.
It makes sense to me that Obama's approval numbers would closely track his vote numbers. Other pollsters may be using less strict sampling criteria that results in a good number of folks being polled who didn't vote last year and I would think apathetic folks are less likely to be unhappy with the President. There's not a right or wrong way to do it but I just wanted to shed some light on one of the factors I think might be responsible for the relatively modest figures we get for Obama.
I think part of this has to do with IVR- people are just more willing to say they don't like a politician to us than they are to a live interviewer because they don't feel any social pressure to be nice. That's resulted in us, Rasmussen, and Survey USA showing poorer approval numbers than most for a variety of politicians.
But I think another part of it may be who we're calling. When we conduct polls this year we are using the same sampling criteria we used for all of our surveys last year- folks who voted in one of the last two or three elections. And if you look at our state by state approval numbers for Obama, they tend to link up pretty closely with the percentage of the vote he got in those places:
| State | Obama Approval | Obama 2008% of Vote | Over/Under |
| | 63 | 62 | +1 |
| | 61 | 62 | -1 |
| | 60 | 54 | +6 |
| | 55 | 56 | -1 |
| | 51 | 52 | -1 |
| | 50 | 50 | Same |
| | 49 | 54 | -5 |
| | 47 | 39 | +8 |
| | 46 | 41 | +5 |
| | 45 | 44 | +1 |
| | 45 | 39 | +6 |
| | 39 | 43 | -4 |
| | 38 | 34 | +4 |
On average Obama's approval rating is 1.5% higher than the share of the vote he received in a given state, so pretty close to identical. And here's my big question: if you didn't vote for Obama, why would you approve of his job performance now? He was pretty clear during the campaign about what he was going to do if he got elected, and that's pretty much what he's done. If you didn't like that enough to vote for him I'm not sure why you would like it enough to approve of him now.
That's not a criticism of the President by any means, the reality is that we're just a very divided nation politically. 5% of the electorate might have changed sides between 2004 and 2008 to move us from an R+3 country to a D+7 country but we're still pretty evenly split and any President who makes tough choices or exhibits leadership is going to earn the wrath of a significant chunk of the population.
It makes sense to me that Obama's approval numbers would closely track his vote numbers. Other pollsters may be using less strict sampling criteria that results in a good number of folks being polled who didn't vote last year and I would think apathetic folks are less likely to be unhappy with the President. There's not a right or wrong way to do it but I just wanted to shed some light on one of the factors I think might be responsible for the relatively modest figures we get for Obama.
More on Burr Polling
After PPP and Civitas have pretty consistently shown Richard Burr with an approval rating in the 30s over the course of 2009, Insider Advantage joined the fray yesterday with a new poll showing his spread at 39/30.
Are they a bunch of liberals? Well the main guy there is a former Republican legislator in Georgia and aide to Newt Gingrich so I don't know that the Burr operation can play that card on this one.
It was very interesting to see yesterday that the News&Observer reported on Burr's going on the attack against us more than 24 hours after the Politico article was published and only after a commenter on their blog brought it to their attention.
That would seem to indicate the Burr campaign was pushing the 'rogue pollster' story only to the inside the Beltway media and not back home. Interesting decision and I see a couple reasons for it:
1) We have built up a lot of credibility with the North Carolina press corps after showing Elizabeth Dole's vulnerability and Barack Obama's ability to win the state before those two things were really widely viewed as possible- but we've also been very frank about Bev Perdue's lack of popularity- so the folks down here know that we've been quite accurate and they also know we're willing to deliver bad news to Democrats, making it a lot harder to push the bias angle.
2) They're getting too swept up about what people are saying about Burr in DC...insider perceptions matter to some extent but it's not like fundraising is going to dry up for an incumbent Senator because of some stories about unfavorable poll numbers in the major Washington publications. When you start worrying about that too much and let it get you off your game then you're in trouble...I know Republicans who thought the whole flap with Burr's internal/non-interal poll last week made his operation look chaotic and desperate and the fact they felt the need to go after PPP just lent more significance to our numbers.
Sometimes you have to sit back, take a deep breathe, and look at the big picture.
Are they a bunch of liberals? Well the main guy there is a former Republican legislator in Georgia and aide to Newt Gingrich so I don't know that the Burr operation can play that card on this one.
It was very interesting to see yesterday that the News&Observer reported on Burr's going on the attack against us more than 24 hours after the Politico article was published and only after a commenter on their blog brought it to their attention.
That would seem to indicate the Burr campaign was pushing the 'rogue pollster' story only to the inside the Beltway media and not back home. Interesting decision and I see a couple reasons for it:
1) We have built up a lot of credibility with the North Carolina press corps after showing Elizabeth Dole's vulnerability and Barack Obama's ability to win the state before those two things were really widely viewed as possible- but we've also been very frank about Bev Perdue's lack of popularity- so the folks down here know that we've been quite accurate and they also know we're willing to deliver bad news to Democrats, making it a lot harder to push the bias angle.
2) They're getting too swept up about what people are saying about Burr in DC...insider perceptions matter to some extent but it's not like fundraising is going to dry up for an incumbent Senator because of some stories about unfavorable poll numbers in the major Washington publications. When you start worrying about that too much and let it get you off your game then you're in trouble...I know Republicans who thought the whole flap with Burr's internal/non-interal poll last week made his operation look chaotic and desperate and the fact they felt the need to go after PPP just lent more significance to our numbers.
Sometimes you have to sit back, take a deep breathe, and look at the big picture.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Senate Delegation Approval Ratings
PPP has polled on the approval ratings of the entire Senate delegation in 13 different states over the last year. Here's how they stack up:
Minnesota's one woman Senate delegation comes in first. Amy Klobuchar has registered the highest individual approval rating of any individual Senator with us in the last year, and since she's her state's only one Minnesota comes in first. Spots 2-6 on the list are an indicator of the popularity that comes with longevity. Only one of the ten Senators in those states is in his first term, and a lot of them have been in office for quite a long time.
At the bottom end of the spectrum Illinois' bad rating is completely the fault of Roland Burris, as Dick Durbin has pretty solid numbers. North Carolina and Florida's spots at the bottom are more a product of unfamiliarity than unpopularity, as the states have three first term Senators and one second term one, driving up the number of respondents with no opinion. They're also big states, where there tend to be higher levels of 'don't know' when folks are asked to rate their officials.
| State | Average Approval Rating |
| | 62/25 |
| | 56/32 |
| | 53/38 |
| | 52/36 |
| | 50/35 |
| | 49/34 |
| | 46/25 |
| | 38/40 |
| | 38/44 |
| | 36/50 |
| | 34/34 |
| | 33/33 |
| | 32/48 |
Minnesota's one woman Senate delegation comes in first. Amy Klobuchar has registered the highest individual approval rating of any individual Senator with us in the last year, and since she's her state's only one Minnesota comes in first. Spots 2-6 on the list are an indicator of the popularity that comes with longevity. Only one of the ten Senators in those states is in his first term, and a lot of them have been in office for quite a long time.
At the bottom end of the spectrum Illinois' bad rating is completely the fault of Roland Burris, as Dick Durbin has pretty solid numbers. North Carolina and Florida's spots at the bottom are more a product of unfamiliarity than unpopularity, as the states have three first term Senators and one second term one, driving up the number of respondents with no opinion. They're also big states, where there tend to be higher levels of 'don't know' when folks are asked to rate their officials.
Updated Senate Approval Chart
Here are all the approval ratings we've found for various Senators across the country over the last year:
| Senator | Approval |
| Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) | 62/25 |
| Tom Coburn (R-OK) | 59/29 |
| Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) | 58/31 |
| Tom Carper (D-DE) | 57/26 |
| Kit Bond (R-MO) | 57/27 |
| Mark Pryor (D-AR) | 54/30 |
| John McCain (R-AZ) | 53/31 |
| Russ Feingold (D-WI) | 53/36 |
| Robert Byrd (D-WV) | 53/37 |
| James Inhofe (R-OK) | 52/35 |
| Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) | 52/39 |
| Jeff Sessions (R-AL) | 50/33 |
| Herb Kohl (D-WI) | 50/36 |
| Richard Shelby (R-AL) | 48/35 |
| Dick Durbin (D-IL) | 47/34 |
| Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) | 45/40 |
| Jim Webb (D-VA) | 44/33 |
| Mitch McConnell (R-KY) | 44/47 |
| Bill Nelson (D-FL) | 42/29 |
| Mark Udall (D-CO) | 41/46 |
| Sherrod Brown (D-OH) | 38/36 |
| George Voinovich (R-OH) | 37/44 |
| Ted Kaufman (D-DE) | 35/24 |
| Richard Burr (R-NC) | 34/35 |
| Michael Bennet (D-CO) | 34/41 |
| Kay Hagan (D-NC) | 33/33 |
| Johnny Isakson (R-GA) | 30/25 |
| Jim Bunning (R-KY) | 28/54 |
| Mel Martinez (R-FL) | 23/37 |
| Roland Burris (D-IL) | 17/62 |
Ohio Approval Ratings
51% of Ohio voters approve of Barack Obama's job performance, with 40% disapproving.
His numbers break down pretty much the same way they do everywhere else. He is very popular within his own party (an 81% approval rating), not very popular with Republicans (11%), and getting relatively mixed reviews from independents (49%).
He has maintained his strong appeal to moderate voters in the state, with 61% of them giving him good marks and just 29% negative ones. There's a significant gender gap in his approval, as he earns a +22 rating from women (55/33) but is in slightly negative territory with women (46/48).
Both of Ohio's Senators find approval ratings below 40%. Sherrod Brown is the slightly more popular one, with 38% of voters giving him good marks and 36% dissenting. A quarter of the state's population has no opinion about him either way.
George Voinovich's numbers are in negative territory, with 44% disapproving and 37% approval. Bad approval numbers for Voinovich have been a constant in PPP's polling- when we last looked at in August the numbers were 30/38- and he's not seeing a wave of popularity in the wake of his retirement. Missouri Senator Kit Bond had shown mediocre approval numbers last summer, then a major improvement after he announced he would not run again but that is not the case in Ohio.
Ohio, along with North Carolina, is one of just two states where PPP has found approval ratings for both Senators under 40. It's partially that Voinovich and Brown aren't that popular, but also a function of the fact that you find a lot more voters with no opinion in bigger states.
Full results here
His numbers break down pretty much the same way they do everywhere else. He is very popular within his own party (an 81% approval rating), not very popular with Republicans (11%), and getting relatively mixed reviews from independents (49%).
He has maintained his strong appeal to moderate voters in the state, with 61% of them giving him good marks and just 29% negative ones. There's a significant gender gap in his approval, as he earns a +22 rating from women (55/33) but is in slightly negative territory with women (46/48).
Both of Ohio's Senators find approval ratings below 40%. Sherrod Brown is the slightly more popular one, with 38% of voters giving him good marks and 36% dissenting. A quarter of the state's population has no opinion about him either way.
George Voinovich's numbers are in negative territory, with 44% disapproving and 37% approval. Bad approval numbers for Voinovich have been a constant in PPP's polling- when we last looked at in August the numbers were 30/38- and he's not seeing a wave of popularity in the wake of his retirement. Missouri Senator Kit Bond had shown mediocre approval numbers last summer, then a major improvement after he announced he would not run again but that is not the case in Ohio.
Ohio, along with North Carolina, is one of just two states where PPP has found approval ratings for both Senators under 40. It's partially that Voinovich and Brown aren't that popular, but also a function of the fact that you find a lot more voters with no opinion in bigger states.
Full results here
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Ideology along generational lines in North Carolina
We know that generational change is making North Carolina more Democratic- the disparity last year between Barack Obama's 48 point win among voters under 30 in the state and John McCain's 13 point victory with senior citizens was only greater in one other state in the country. But is it making the state more liberal? Here's how ideology breaks down along age lines over the course of our polling so far in 2009:
We definitely see that there's a linear relationship along age lines for both liberals and conservatives- the number of conservatives drops the younger the age group while the number of liberals increases. That said, even among the youngest age group there are still more conservatives than liberals.
One thing these figures point to is that the electorate is moving more and more toward being dominated by moderates than conservatives, as the age groups over 45 show the greatest number of voters being conservatives but those under 45 show the plurality as moderates. That's just another data point showing how centrist we're becoming- North Carolina is a pretty good bellwether for the country.
| Age Group | Liberal | Moderate | Conservative |
| 18 to 29 | 25 | 41 | 34 |
| 30 to 45 | 17 | 43 | 40 |
| 46 to 65 | 15 | 40 | 45 |
| Older than 65 | 12 | 39 | 49 |
We definitely see that there's a linear relationship along age lines for both liberals and conservatives- the number of conservatives drops the younger the age group while the number of liberals increases. That said, even among the youngest age group there are still more conservatives than liberals.
One thing these figures point to is that the electorate is moving more and more toward being dominated by moderates than conservatives, as the age groups over 45 show the greatest number of voters being conservatives but those under 45 show the plurality as moderates. That's just another data point showing how centrist we're becoming- North Carolina is a pretty good bellwether for the country.
Palin: the moderate choice?
One interesting fact within our national poll looking at the 2012 Presidential picture last week: Sarah Palin is the most popular potential candidate with moderate Republicans.
61% have a favorable opinion of her to 53% for Mitt Romney, 50% for Mike Huckabee, and 44% for Newt Gingrich.
She's generally thought of as the darling of the conservative wing of the party- and she's the most popular there too as 83% view her positively to 79% for Huckabee, 77% for Gingrich, and 69% for Romney- but it may come as a surprise that she's tops with moderates as well.
That popularity with the centrist wing of the party speaks well to her prospects for assembling the coalition of voters she would need to win the nomination...but she continues to poll the weakest in a general election match up, setting up what could be a hard choice for some GOP voters in 2012 between who they like the most and who they think can actually beat Barack Obama.
61% have a favorable opinion of her to 53% for Mitt Romney, 50% for Mike Huckabee, and 44% for Newt Gingrich.
She's generally thought of as the darling of the conservative wing of the party- and she's the most popular there too as 83% view her positively to 79% for Huckabee, 77% for Gingrich, and 69% for Romney- but it may come as a surprise that she's tops with moderates as well.
That popularity with the centrist wing of the party speaks well to her prospects for assembling the coalition of voters she would need to win the nomination...but she continues to poll the weakest in a general election match up, setting up what could be a hard choice for some GOP voters in 2012 between who they like the most and who they think can actually beat Barack Obama.
Democrats strong in Ohio Senate race
Jennifer Brunner and Lee Fisher have nearly identical leads over Rob Portman in the race to replace retiring Republican Senator George Voinovich.
Fisher leads Portman 41-32 and Brunner has a 40-32 advantage. For both that's a strong improvement since PPP first looked at the race in January. At that time it was Portman with a 41-39 lead over Fisher and a 42-34 one over Brunner.
Anyone trying to figure out whether Brunner or Fisher would make a stronger general election candidate or which has a leg up in the primary will not find it from this poll, as their numbers are nearly identical across the board. 32% of respondents have a favorable opinion of both Fisher and Brunner. 32% have an unfavorable one of Brunner, while the number is 31% for Fisher. Among just Democrats 51% have a favorable opinion of both candidates, with 13% having a negative one of Brunner to 12% for Fisher.
Portman is seen favorably by 22% of voters and unfavorably by 34%, not a particularly good place to start. It's interesting that really none of the three candidates are very popular, with Fisher holding a +1 net favorability rating, Brunner even, and Portman at -12. You'd think with the rare commodity of an open Senate seat someone would run who had already earned a greater measure of popularity with Ohio voters, but there don't seem to be any likely candidates who fit the bill.
All three candidates are getting 65-69% of the vote within their own parties, but with a significant Democratic identification advantage in Ohio and a slight lead for Brunner and Fisher with independents it gives them the overall solid leads.
Full results here
Fisher leads Portman 41-32 and Brunner has a 40-32 advantage. For both that's a strong improvement since PPP first looked at the race in January. At that time it was Portman with a 41-39 lead over Fisher and a 42-34 one over Brunner.
Anyone trying to figure out whether Brunner or Fisher would make a stronger general election candidate or which has a leg up in the primary will not find it from this poll, as their numbers are nearly identical across the board. 32% of respondents have a favorable opinion of both Fisher and Brunner. 32% have an unfavorable one of Brunner, while the number is 31% for Fisher. Among just Democrats 51% have a favorable opinion of both candidates, with 13% having a negative one of Brunner to 12% for Fisher.
Portman is seen favorably by 22% of voters and unfavorably by 34%, not a particularly good place to start. It's interesting that really none of the three candidates are very popular, with Fisher holding a +1 net favorability rating, Brunner even, and Portman at -12. You'd think with the rare commodity of an open Senate seat someone would run who had already earned a greater measure of popularity with Ohio voters, but there don't seem to be any likely candidates who fit the bill.
All three candidates are getting 65-69% of the vote within their own parties, but with a significant Democratic identification advantage in Ohio and a slight lead for Brunner and Fisher with independents it gives them the overall solid leads.
Full results here
Burr on the attack...against us
I guess Richard Burr's consistently poor approval numbers have gotten under his skin, because his campaign operation went attacking us to Politico this week.
When a campaign starts running against pollsters that's usually a pretty bad sign. The three North Carolina ones I can remember dissing us to the media last year- Elizabeth Dole, Richard Moore, and Bill Daughtridge- didn't end up so good.
In fact the timing of this salvo from Burr's campaign is almost identical to one launched against us by the Dole campaign in July 2007, and we all know how that ended up.
Now the Burr campaign did one thing well in this article, which is create an impression that we're the only group out there delivering bad news and we're just doing it because we have a partisan interest. Of course the conservative Civitas Institute has repeatedly found pretty similarly bad numbers, including a 40% approval rating and 33% favorability on its last two polls. The truth is that pollsters on both sides of the spectrum are finding the same thing when it comes to Burr's vulnerability.
Anyone who follows us closely knows that we put out the numbers however they come- in the last week alone we've shown Bev Perdue with a dreadful approval rating in North Carolina, as well as unexpected levels of vulnerability next year for the Democratic Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio. We show lower approval ratings for Barack Obama than almost any other pollster.
If Burr's numbers are worse than Elizabeth Dole's at the same point in the cycle then that's a real cause for concern, and attacking PPP isn't going to help his cause, although we don't mind the attention. And if his approval ratings improve, our numbers will reflect it.
When a campaign starts running against pollsters that's usually a pretty bad sign. The three North Carolina ones I can remember dissing us to the media last year- Elizabeth Dole, Richard Moore, and Bill Daughtridge- didn't end up so good.
In fact the timing of this salvo from Burr's campaign is almost identical to one launched against us by the Dole campaign in July 2007, and we all know how that ended up.
Now the Burr campaign did one thing well in this article, which is create an impression that we're the only group out there delivering bad news and we're just doing it because we have a partisan interest. Of course the conservative Civitas Institute has repeatedly found pretty similarly bad numbers, including a 40% approval rating and 33% favorability on its last two polls. The truth is that pollsters on both sides of the spectrum are finding the same thing when it comes to Burr's vulnerability.
Anyone who follows us closely knows that we put out the numbers however they come- in the last week alone we've shown Bev Perdue with a dreadful approval rating in North Carolina, as well as unexpected levels of vulnerability next year for the Democratic Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio. We show lower approval ratings for Barack Obama than almost any other pollster.
If Burr's numbers are worse than Elizabeth Dole's at the same point in the cycle then that's a real cause for concern, and attacking PPP isn't going to help his cause, although we don't mind the attention. And if his approval ratings improve, our numbers will reflect it.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
More on the Williams/Krzyzewski Poll
I saw a bunch of commentary around the blogosphere to the effect that our polling showing Roy Williams was more popular with North Carolinians than Mike Krzyzewski was stupid because UNC has a bigger fan base.
I already pointed out that Williams was more well liked by Duke fans than Krzyzewski is by UNC fans, but here's another statistic on that point:
-Among respondents who are not UNC fans 53% view Williams favorably and 12% negatively.
-Among those who are not Duke fans 47% have a positive opinion of Krzyzewski and 15% have a negative one.
In other words, Williams is at +41 among folks who are not his partisans and Krzyzewski is at +32, for a disparity of nine points. That is smaller than the overall 14 point disparity when all respondents are included, but it still shows Williams more popular even when you control for the size of the two teams' fanbases.
I already pointed out that Williams was more well liked by Duke fans than Krzyzewski is by UNC fans, but here's another statistic on that point:
-Among respondents who are not UNC fans 53% view Williams favorably and 12% negatively.
-Among those who are not Duke fans 47% have a positive opinion of Krzyzewski and 15% have a negative one.
In other words, Williams is at +41 among folks who are not his partisans and Krzyzewski is at +32, for a disparity of nine points. That is smaller than the overall 14 point disparity when all respondents are included, but it still shows Williams more popular even when you control for the size of the two teams' fanbases.
Divergent Polls in Ohio
Four pollsters have released approval numbers on Ted Strickland since last November.
Two of them- Quinnipiac and the Ohio Poll- show Strickland in a strong position. The most recent Quinnipiac showed Strickland at 57/29 for a net of +28. The latest Ohio Poll showed it at 56/34, or +22.
SurveyUSA and PPP show a very different picture. SUSA's most recent numbers were 45/44, or +1 and our release tonight finds 43/42, also +1.
It's worth noting that Quinnipiac and PPP are showing the same trend. In January Quinnipiac had Strickland at +38, so his +28 now is a ten point drop. We had him at +13 in January and now at +1 for a similar 12 point drop. So while we show very different pictures on Strickland's overall popularity we do both find it declining.
Why the discrepancy? I'm not sure. Quinnipiac and the Ohio Poll use live interviewers while PPP and SUSA utilize automated polling, but that may or may not explain the difference.
Who's right? All four pollsters have done a good job in recent Ohio elections. Last fall Barack Obama won the state by four points. PPP, SurveyUSA, and the Ohio Poll all came within two points of that outcome, and Quinnipiac came within three.
Hillary Clinton won the state's primary by ten points. SurveyUSA picked that outcome right on the nose, PPP and the Ohio Poll each came within a point, and Quinnipiac came within five points.
It's odd for a quartet of outfits that have all shown a good track record of predicting Ohio election outcomes to show such divergent numbers, but that's probably at least somewhat attributable to the amount of time before the election, and it will doubtless become clearer as we move toward 2010 just how vulnerable Strickland is or is not.
Two of them- Quinnipiac and the Ohio Poll- show Strickland in a strong position. The most recent Quinnipiac showed Strickland at 57/29 for a net of +28. The latest Ohio Poll showed it at 56/34, or +22.
SurveyUSA and PPP show a very different picture. SUSA's most recent numbers were 45/44, or +1 and our release tonight finds 43/42, also +1.
It's worth noting that Quinnipiac and PPP are showing the same trend. In January Quinnipiac had Strickland at +38, so his +28 now is a ten point drop. We had him at +13 in January and now at +1 for a similar 12 point drop. So while we show very different pictures on Strickland's overall popularity we do both find it declining.
Why the discrepancy? I'm not sure. Quinnipiac and the Ohio Poll use live interviewers while PPP and SUSA utilize automated polling, but that may or may not explain the difference.
Who's right? All four pollsters have done a good job in recent Ohio elections. Last fall Barack Obama won the state by four points. PPP, SurveyUSA, and the Ohio Poll all came within two points of that outcome, and Quinnipiac came within three.
Hillary Clinton won the state's primary by ten points. SurveyUSA picked that outcome right on the nose, PPP and the Ohio Poll each came within a point, and Quinnipiac came within five points.
It's odd for a quartet of outfits that have all shown a good track record of predicting Ohio election outcomes to show such divergent numbers, but that's probably at least somewhat attributable to the amount of time before the election, and it will doubtless become clearer as we move toward 2010 just how vulnerable Strickland is or is not.
Strickland Vulnerable
Ted Strickland's approval rating is down to 43% and he leads John Kasich just 44-42 in a hypothetical 2010 contest.
A January PPP poll found 48% of Ohio voters approving of Strickland's performance with 35% disapproving. The spread is now 43/42. That survey also found him with a six point lead over Kasich, 45-39.
Strickland has seen a decline in popularity among both Democrats and Republicans. Where previously 70% of voters within his party gave him good marks, now just 62% do. And the percentage of Republicans disapproving of him has increased from 59% to 72%. His numbers with independents are relatively steady.
Kasich is relatively unknown to the state's voters. 39% have no opinion of him- among those who do, perceptions of him are nearly evenly split with 31% holding a positive view of him and 30% an unfavorable one. Given Kasich's relative lack of popularity the closeness of this race seems more a referendum on Strickland than anything having to do with his opponent.
One significant problem- with a beam of light at the end of the tunnel- for Strickland is that he has some work to do shoring up his support with black voters in Ohio. In both this poll and our January poll he received just 52% of the African American vote against Kasich. It's not that we got a conservative sample of black voters- approval numbers on Barack Obama from this same poll that will be released later in the week show the President with an 89% approval rating among them. The good news is that Democratic candidates often under poll with African Americans, especially this far out from an election, but almost always end up earning upwards of 80% of their vote. These numbers may be a wakeup call that Strickland has some work to do there, but those voters probably aren't gone for good.
Another good piece of news for Strickland is that he is running even with Kasich among whites in the poll, and any Democrat who can split the white vote in Ohio is going to win statewide.
Nevertheless this race does look closer than has been the conventional wisdom, and it will draw a lot of national attention next year as a bellwether contest if it really ends up being this competitive.
Full results here
A January PPP poll found 48% of Ohio voters approving of Strickland's performance with 35% disapproving. The spread is now 43/42. That survey also found him with a six point lead over Kasich, 45-39.
Strickland has seen a decline in popularity among both Democrats and Republicans. Where previously 70% of voters within his party gave him good marks, now just 62% do. And the percentage of Republicans disapproving of him has increased from 59% to 72%. His numbers with independents are relatively steady.
Kasich is relatively unknown to the state's voters. 39% have no opinion of him- among those who do, perceptions of him are nearly evenly split with 31% holding a positive view of him and 30% an unfavorable one. Given Kasich's relative lack of popularity the closeness of this race seems more a referendum on Strickland than anything having to do with his opponent.
One significant problem- with a beam of light at the end of the tunnel- for Strickland is that he has some work to do shoring up his support with black voters in Ohio. In both this poll and our January poll he received just 52% of the African American vote against Kasich. It's not that we got a conservative sample of black voters- approval numbers on Barack Obama from this same poll that will be released later in the week show the President with an 89% approval rating among them. The good news is that Democratic candidates often under poll with African Americans, especially this far out from an election, but almost always end up earning upwards of 80% of their vote. These numbers may be a wakeup call that Strickland has some work to do there, but those voters probably aren't gone for good.
Another good piece of news for Strickland is that he is running even with Kasich among whites in the poll, and any Democrat who can split the white vote in Ohio is going to win statewide.
Nevertheless this race does look closer than has been the conventional wisdom, and it will draw a lot of national attention next year as a bellwether contest if it really ends up being this competitive.
Full results here
Voters' top priorities shift
42% of North Carolina voters named the economy and jobs as their top issue on our poll this month, the lowest that number has been since last summer and perhaps an indication that people in the state think that the worst has passed of the current recession. The economy polled in the 60s for much of the fall campaign last year and as the percentage of voters listing it as their top issue increased so did the percentage of the vote Barack Obama received in our polls against John McCain.
The two issues gaining in concern as the economy has dropped are moral and family values, and education. In December moral and family values was the biggest concern for 11% of voters, and that's now up to 18%. That issue started gaining in our surveys this spring as several states moved toward legalizing gay marriage, and among Republicans in North Carolina now there's nearly a toss up with 32% saying the economy is their greatest concern and 30% saying it's moral and family values.
Education has seen an even bigger increase in voters naming it as their top issue since December, going from 8% to 17%. This has traditionally been a top priority for North Carolina Democrats and as concern for the economy has at least slightly subsided 22% of voters in that party now put it at the top of their lists. Bev Perdue's renewed focus on public education over the last week could help shore up her numbers with voters of her party, as she takes on an issue of concern to many of them.
Two issues not seeing strong increases in public concern, despite an intense focus on them right now, are taxes and health care. Despite the spirited debate in Raleigh over how much new taxation should be relied on to fix the state's budget hole only 5% of North Carolinians list that as their biggest concern, compared to 4% six months ago. And with debate over health care heating up on Capitol Hill just 7% of voters say it's their top issue, up slightly from 4% in December.
Full results here
The two issues gaining in concern as the economy has dropped are moral and family values, and education. In December moral and family values was the biggest concern for 11% of voters, and that's now up to 18%. That issue started gaining in our surveys this spring as several states moved toward legalizing gay marriage, and among Republicans in North Carolina now there's nearly a toss up with 32% saying the economy is their greatest concern and 30% saying it's moral and family values.
Education has seen an even bigger increase in voters naming it as their top issue since December, going from 8% to 17%. This has traditionally been a top priority for North Carolina Democrats and as concern for the economy has at least slightly subsided 22% of voters in that party now put it at the top of their lists. Bev Perdue's renewed focus on public education over the last week could help shore up her numbers with voters of her party, as she takes on an issue of concern to many of them.
Two issues not seeing strong increases in public concern, despite an intense focus on them right now, are taxes and health care. Despite the spirited debate in Raleigh over how much new taxation should be relied on to fix the state's budget hole only 5% of North Carolinians list that as their biggest concern, compared to 4% six months ago. And with debate over health care heating up on Capitol Hill just 7% of voters say it's their top issue, up slightly from 4% in December.
Full results here
Obama popularity at lowest in NC
It's not a huge drop, but at 50%, Barack Obama's approval rating is the lowest it's been in North Carolina since he took office. It's fluctuated between 51 and 54% until this survey.
His numbers in the state peaked at 54% in April. Since then he's seen a modest decline in his reviews from Democrats, from 85% to 81% and an up tick in the proportion of Republicans disapproving of him from 74% to 80%. With independents he's pretty steady, as 49% approve and 43% disapprove.
Just as there was at the polls last fall there is a major urban/rural divide in how the state's voters see Obama, with 73% of urban but only 41% of rural voters saying he's doing a good job.
His approval remains at a strong 92% with African Americans but only 37% of whites give him good marks with 53% disapproving, numbers roughly equal to what he earned at the ballot box in November.
He is most popular in the Triangle, Charlotte, and the northeastern part of the state with his weakest reviews coming from voters in the mountains.
One thing's for sure: even if Obama's popularity has declined modestly since he took office he is still far more popular than the Governor or either of the state's Senators, and continues to be considerably more well liked than his predecessor in the White House.
Full results here
His numbers in the state peaked at 54% in April. Since then he's seen a modest decline in his reviews from Democrats, from 85% to 81% and an up tick in the proportion of Republicans disapproving of him from 74% to 80%. With independents he's pretty steady, as 49% approve and 43% disapprove.
Just as there was at the polls last fall there is a major urban/rural divide in how the state's voters see Obama, with 73% of urban but only 41% of rural voters saying he's doing a good job.
His approval remains at a strong 92% with African Americans but only 37% of whites give him good marks with 53% disapproving, numbers roughly equal to what he earned at the ballot box in November.
He is most popular in the Triangle, Charlotte, and the northeastern part of the state with his weakest reviews coming from voters in the mountains.
One thing's for sure: even if Obama's popularity has declined modestly since he took office he is still far more popular than the Governor or either of the state's Senators, and continues to be considerably more well liked than his predecessor in the White House.
Full results here
Friday, June 19, 2009
Next week...
I know I said we would start our 2009 general election Governor polling this week but that's going to wait...expect New Jersey out the week of the 29th and Virginia the week of July 6th.
We're going to be releasing another poll showing a Democratic Governor in more perilous shape for reelection next year than is the current conventional wisdom on Sunday night...not our favorite thing to do but we just put out the numbers whether we like them or not. We'll have the rest of the release for that state over the course of the week.
We'll also have Obama's newest NC numbers Sunday night.
Why the unusual release time? I'm off to Omaha bright and early Monday morning for the finals of the College World Series. It breaks my heart the Tar Heels didn't quite make it (I only went to 43 of their games this year) but it's a great event either way...Geaux Tigers!
We're going to be releasing another poll showing a Democratic Governor in more perilous shape for reelection next year than is the current conventional wisdom on Sunday night...not our favorite thing to do but we just put out the numbers whether we like them or not. We'll have the rest of the release for that state over the course of the week.
We'll also have Obama's newest NC numbers Sunday night.
Why the unusual release time? I'm off to Omaha bright and early Monday morning for the finals of the College World Series. It breaks my heart the Tar Heels didn't quite make it (I only went to 43 of their games this year) but it's a great event either way...Geaux Tigers!
More on the Burr poll saga
As I wrote about yesterday, Roll Call had a story about what it identified as a Richard Burr internal poll that showed him leading Elaine Marshall. Burr's spokesman, Paul Shumaker, was quoted about the poll.
I pointed out that this was quite ironic given that two weeks ago Burr had told the News&Observer that our testing him against hypothetical opponents was 'ridiculous.'
Within an hour a commenter showed up on our blog saying that it was not actually an internal poll, but had come from the Carolina Strategy Group. The CSG is a new Republican automated polling firm in North Carolina (I'm pretty sure created to counter us) that is run by...the very same Paul Shumaker who is Burr's main political consultant.
To me this looks like classic CYA. Shumaker discussed the poll with Roll Call as if it was an internal poll and I'm pretty sure the messaging about the origin of the poll just changed when we pointed out Burr's contradictory comments from a couple weeks ago. Either way it's hard to consider a poll conducted by Burr's strategist to not be 'internal,' whether the Burr campaign actually paid for it or not.
To continue the story, Chris Cillizza reported on the poll this morning, referring to it as an internal poll, then crossed out the reference to its being an internal poll and said it wasn't released by Burr's campaign. He didn't note that it was released by Burr's campaign manager.
I guess no one is exactly sure what happened here but it makes Burr's operation look pretty chaotic. The fact that they didn't release any approval or reelect numbers seems like confirmation that their numbers are saying the same thing our numbers are, which is that only 29% of North Carolinians and even just 49% of Republicans, think that he deserves another term. I hope some intrepid reporter will look more into what happened here.
I pointed out that this was quite ironic given that two weeks ago Burr had told the News&Observer that our testing him against hypothetical opponents was 'ridiculous.'
Within an hour a commenter showed up on our blog saying that it was not actually an internal poll, but had come from the Carolina Strategy Group. The CSG is a new Republican automated polling firm in North Carolina (I'm pretty sure created to counter us) that is run by...the very same Paul Shumaker who is Burr's main political consultant.
To me this looks like classic CYA. Shumaker discussed the poll with Roll Call as if it was an internal poll and I'm pretty sure the messaging about the origin of the poll just changed when we pointed out Burr's contradictory comments from a couple weeks ago. Either way it's hard to consider a poll conducted by Burr's strategist to not be 'internal,' whether the Burr campaign actually paid for it or not.
To continue the story, Chris Cillizza reported on the poll this morning, referring to it as an internal poll, then crossed out the reference to its being an internal poll and said it wasn't released by Burr's campaign. He didn't note that it was released by Burr's campaign manager.
I guess no one is exactly sure what happened here but it makes Burr's operation look pretty chaotic. The fact that they didn't release any approval or reelect numbers seems like confirmation that their numbers are saying the same thing our numbers are, which is that only 29% of North Carolinians and even just 49% of Republicans, think that he deserves another term. I hope some intrepid reporter will look more into what happened here.
Dubious Company for Perdue
We pointed out earlier this week that Bev Perdue's biggest problem right now is that her approval rating has slid under 50% even with folks in her own party.
Of the 40 or so Governors and Senators across the country we've taken approval ratings for this year that makes her part of a unique group of three, the other members being Roland Burris and Jim Bunning.
While those two's images are probably beyond rehabilitation Perdue can certainly turn these numbers around- it's all about showing leadership, having a coherent message, and increasing her visibility. She rebounded strongly every time things started going bad in her campaign last year, and it's time for her to do the governing version of that now.
Of the 40 or so Governors and Senators across the country we've taken approval ratings for this year that makes her part of a unique group of three, the other members being Roland Burris and Jim Bunning.
While those two's images are probably beyond rehabilitation Perdue can certainly turn these numbers around- it's all about showing leadership, having a coherent message, and increasing her visibility. She rebounded strongly every time things started going bad in her campaign last year, and it's time for her to do the governing version of that now.
Krzyzewski popular, though not as much as Williams
Last month we did a statewide poll looking at what North Carolinians think of Roy Williams, and I got a bunch of feedback from people wondering how popular Mike Krzyzewski is so we included him on our poll this month.
52% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of Krzyzewski, compared to 61% for Williams. 14% have an unfavorable opinion of the Duke coach, while just 9% had a negative one of the UNC head guy.
So both are pretty popular, although Williams more so. Part of the disparity is attributable to the Tar Heels having a larger fan base but Williams is also more popular with fans of opposing schools than Krzyzewski is.
While 68% of Duke fans last month said they had a favorable opinion of Williams, only 53% of Carolina fans say they view Krzyzewski positively. Among State fans 60% had a favorable opinion of Williams, while 51% have one of Krzyzewski. And among supporters of the Demon Deacons 59% like Roy and 53% like Coach K.
My biggest take away from these numbers is that UNC and Duke fans are not actually as hateful of their rivals as public perception would indicate. The most vociferous of their supporters might truly hate their adversary's coach, and they attract most of the attention whenever UNC-Duke time rolls around, but the average fan actually respects the opposing coach.
I guess you can put me in the vociferous category though because this UNC grad thinks that Roy Williams walks on water and that Krzyzewski is...well...just about the devil. Although he's pretty harmless when he's lost to Carolina 6 of the last 7 times out.
One other interesting note on these numbers: Krzyzewski actually gets slightly more approval from his own fans than Williams gets from Carolina partisans. 80% of Duke fans view their coach positively while 76% of Carolina ones do, perhaps a surprise given that Williams has won two national championships since the last time the Devils even made it to the Elite Eight.
Full results here
52% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of Krzyzewski, compared to 61% for Williams. 14% have an unfavorable opinion of the Duke coach, while just 9% had a negative one of the UNC head guy.
So both are pretty popular, although Williams more so. Part of the disparity is attributable to the Tar Heels having a larger fan base but Williams is also more popular with fans of opposing schools than Krzyzewski is.
While 68% of Duke fans last month said they had a favorable opinion of Williams, only 53% of Carolina fans say they view Krzyzewski positively. Among State fans 60% had a favorable opinion of Williams, while 51% have one of Krzyzewski. And among supporters of the Demon Deacons 59% like Roy and 53% like Coach K.
My biggest take away from these numbers is that UNC and Duke fans are not actually as hateful of their rivals as public perception would indicate. The most vociferous of their supporters might truly hate their adversary's coach, and they attract most of the attention whenever UNC-Duke time rolls around, but the average fan actually respects the opposing coach.
I guess you can put me in the vociferous category though because this UNC grad thinks that Roy Williams walks on water and that Krzyzewski is...well...just about the devil. Although he's pretty harmless when he's lost to Carolina 6 of the last 7 times out.
One other interesting note on these numbers: Krzyzewski actually gets slightly more approval from his own fans than Williams gets from Carolina partisans. 80% of Duke fans view their coach positively while 76% of Carolina ones do, perhaps a surprise given that Williams has won two national championships since the last time the Devils even made it to the Elite Eight.
Full results here
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Burr talks out of both sides of his mouth
This morning Richard Burr's campaign floated numbers from an internal poll that showed him leading Elaine Marshall.
Nothing unusual there, except that less than two weeks ago Burr made these comments to the News&Observer:
Nothing unusual there, except that less than two weeks ago Burr made these comments to the News&Observer:
In an interview last week, Burr shrugged off repeated surveys by Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling about potential opponents. The firm has pitched Burr against a variety of potential Democratic contenders, most of whom have dropped out of the race.
"I think it's ridiculous to go through hypothetical head-to-heads," Burr said.
"The next election is not even something I'm thinking about. Nor should I, until I know who I'm running against," he said.
Burr said he hasn't run any of his own polls yet.
"Why should I poll?" he asked. "I don't know who I'm running against."
So barely two weeks after calling us 'ridiculous' for testing hypothetical opponents against him he's doing it himself? What could have changed in two weeks to change his attitude so much? This is truly a bizarre development given his recent comments.
Hard to know what Perdue should do
It's really hard to know whether anything Bev Perdue does right now is a good idea, because we simply have no idea what the political landscape's going to look like in 2012. So instead of taking a side, here are three reasons Perdue's machinations on the budget right now are savvy and three reasons they're suicide.
Savvy:
-The main reason Perdue's approval ratings are declining so much is a drop in support from Democrats. She needs to do something to make her base happy, and prioritizing teachers and education is a good one.
-She can take credit three years from now for bold leadership. You better believe there will be campaign ads where she talks about how she stood up for education at a time when folks were all too happy to raise class sizes, cut teacher pay, etc. It would give her a good opportunity to say that she focused her leadership on the big picture, and was visionary enough to realize that one bad budget year was not a good excuse to jeopardize our childrens' future, etc.
-She's maybe taking some heat off of Democratic legislators who have to run for reelection next year. If there is a big tax increase and Perdue makes herself the face of it and gets the blame from angry voters that might keep Democrats from losing control of the General Assembly next year. Obviously hikes can't happen without support from legislative Democrats but if voter perception is that the Governor is to blame for all of this it might be enough to get folks in some swing districts 'to love their legislator, hate their Governor.'
Suicide:
-You don't want Perdue and $1.5 billion in the same headline. Need I say more?
-As we pointed out earlier this week, voters are willing to support some tax increases, especially if they feel like by and large someone else will be footing the bill. That's the case with things like the cigarette tax and income tax increases for the very wealthy. But it's hard to put together a package of increases this large without it affecting almost every voter in the state on an individual basis. If families that are already struggling feel like the Governor is gouging them even more there will certainly be a political price to pay for that.
-The unfortunate reality of the financial picture has been such that Perdue has had little opportunity to grab the attention of the voters with anything positive, like new programs that would be popular or any other proactive measures. By putting herself out in front on this, she risks the only thing voters know her for is raising their taxes...if it was a situation where she had built up a reservoir of personal popularity from other aspects of the job she might be able to better weather this...but she hasn't, and it's reflected in her approval ratings.
We really won't know whether Perdue is being brilliant or shooting herself in the foot for about three more years.
Savvy:
-The main reason Perdue's approval ratings are declining so much is a drop in support from Democrats. She needs to do something to make her base happy, and prioritizing teachers and education is a good one.
-She can take credit three years from now for bold leadership. You better believe there will be campaign ads where she talks about how she stood up for education at a time when folks were all too happy to raise class sizes, cut teacher pay, etc. It would give her a good opportunity to say that she focused her leadership on the big picture, and was visionary enough to realize that one bad budget year was not a good excuse to jeopardize our childrens' future, etc.
-She's maybe taking some heat off of Democratic legislators who have to run for reelection next year. If there is a big tax increase and Perdue makes herself the face of it and gets the blame from angry voters that might keep Democrats from losing control of the General Assembly next year. Obviously hikes can't happen without support from legislative Democrats but if voter perception is that the Governor is to blame for all of this it might be enough to get folks in some swing districts 'to love their legislator, hate their Governor.'
Suicide:
-You don't want Perdue and $1.5 billion in the same headline. Need I say more?
-As we pointed out earlier this week, voters are willing to support some tax increases, especially if they feel like by and large someone else will be footing the bill. That's the case with things like the cigarette tax and income tax increases for the very wealthy. But it's hard to put together a package of increases this large without it affecting almost every voter in the state on an individual basis. If families that are already struggling feel like the Governor is gouging them even more there will certainly be a political price to pay for that.
-The unfortunate reality of the financial picture has been such that Perdue has had little opportunity to grab the attention of the voters with anything positive, like new programs that would be popular or any other proactive measures. By putting herself out in front on this, she risks the only thing voters know her for is raising their taxes...if it was a situation where she had built up a reservoir of personal popularity from other aspects of the job she might be able to better weather this...but she hasn't, and it's reflected in her approval ratings.
We really won't know whether Perdue is being brilliant or shooting herself in the foot for about three more years.
Obama still solid looking forward
PPP's monthly national survey looking at how Barack Obama fares against some potential 2012 opponents finds the same basic two conclusions it did in April and May:
-Obama would get reelected by a margin greater than or equal to what he won against John McCain if he had to stand before the voters today
-Mike Huckabee is the most popular and strongest against Obama among the quartet of GOP hopefuls we've been testing, which includes Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney.
Obama holds a seven point lead over Huckabee, equal to his margin last fall, an eight point advantage over Gingrich and Romney, and a 12 point edge on Palin.
Huckabee is viewed favorably by 43% of voters in the country, with 35% looking at him unfavorably. Romney's numbers are 41/36. Gingrich and Palin both have negative ratings at 35/46 and 43/49 respectively.
Palin's reviews are basically the same as last month, indicating that her public spat with David Letterman has neither created sympathy for her among former detractors or caused her to lose any popularity.
Obama's approval rating is 52%, the low end of the 52-55% range PPP has found for him nationally over the last four months. His usual high ratings among Democrats and low ones among Republicans continues, but he is slightly negative with independents this time around at 46/49.
Full results here
-Obama would get reelected by a margin greater than or equal to what he won against John McCain if he had to stand before the voters today
-Mike Huckabee is the most popular and strongest against Obama among the quartet of GOP hopefuls we've been testing, which includes Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney.
Obama holds a seven point lead over Huckabee, equal to his margin last fall, an eight point advantage over Gingrich and Romney, and a 12 point edge on Palin.
Huckabee is viewed favorably by 43% of voters in the country, with 35% looking at him unfavorably. Romney's numbers are 41/36. Gingrich and Palin both have negative ratings at 35/46 and 43/49 respectively.
Palin's reviews are basically the same as last month, indicating that her public spat with David Letterman has neither created sympathy for her among former detractors or caused her to lose any popularity.
Obama's approval rating is 52%, the low end of the 52-55% range PPP has found for him nationally over the last four months. His usual high ratings among Democrats and low ones among Republicans continues, but he is slightly negative with independents this time around at 46/49.
Full results here
Who Doyle needs to win over
Our polling this week showed that while Barack Obama, Russ Feingold, and Herb Kohl are all pretty popular with Wisconsin voters, Jim Doyle's approval rating is in the tank. That means Doyle's path back to solid ground politically is largely predicated on winning back over those generally progressive leaning voters who have soured on him but are still generally supportive of Democrats in the state.
Only 56% of voters who approve of the job Feingold is doing in the Senate also approve of how Doyle is doing as Governor. Usually when you have a Governor and Senator of the same party you would see an alignment in their popularity closer to 80%.
Who are the voters that like Feingold but not Doyle? 25% of them are moderate independents, 24% are moderate Democrats, and 21% are liberal Democrats. So he basically has some work to do shoring up his base and winning over voters in the middle...pretty much the formula for any electoral victory. He has a little more than 16 months to make it happen.
Only 56% of voters who approve of the job Feingold is doing in the Senate also approve of how Doyle is doing as Governor. Usually when you have a Governor and Senator of the same party you would see an alignment in their popularity closer to 80%.
Who are the voters that like Feingold but not Doyle? 25% of them are moderate independents, 24% are moderate Democrats, and 21% are liberal Democrats. So he basically has some work to do shoring up his base and winning over voters in the middle...pretty much the formula for any electoral victory. He has a little more than 16 months to make it happen.
NC voters high on Hunt, down on Easley
Last month PPP asked North Carolina voters who their favorites and least favorites were among the last five Presidents, and this month we took on Governors.
The winner of the least favorite nod, no surprise, is Mike Easley. 45% of respondents chose him, followed by Bev Perdue at 26%.
What is remarkable is the unanimity with which respondents picked Easley- he was the choice of literally every group PPP tracks by ideology, community type, gender, party, race, age, and region. In the Triangle, where his recent troubles have drawn the most media coverage, 60% said he was their least favorite.
Even with two former Republican Governors in the mix Easley finished first among Democrats at 40%, and Bev Perdue came in second with her own party at 20%, another indicator that she has ruffled some feathers with the base in the first months of her administration.
The overwhelming winner as the most popular of the last five Governors is Jim Hunt, who earned 41%, followed by Jim Martin at 21%. Hunt nearly does the opposite of Easley by being named the most popular in every individual group but Martin edged him out by a narrow margin among Republicans (35-34) and voters from metro Charlotte (33-26).
It's a testament to Hunt's across the board appeal that he came out as the most popular among conservatives, and had steady support in the 42-47% range in every region of the state with the exception of Charlotte.
Jim Holshouser did not register with many respondents as either a favorite or least favorite, probably owing to the fact that most voters in the state either lived elsewhere or are too young to remember his time as Governor.
We will conduct this same poll next month on Senators. A year ago Jesse Helms might have been expected to win both the most popular and least popular honors but John Edwards has perhaps changed that.
Full results here.
The winner of the least favorite nod, no surprise, is Mike Easley. 45% of respondents chose him, followed by Bev Perdue at 26%.
What is remarkable is the unanimity with which respondents picked Easley- he was the choice of literally every group PPP tracks by ideology, community type, gender, party, race, age, and region. In the Triangle, where his recent troubles have drawn the most media coverage, 60% said he was their least favorite.
Even with two former Republican Governors in the mix Easley finished first among Democrats at 40%, and Bev Perdue came in second with her own party at 20%, another indicator that she has ruffled some feathers with the base in the first months of her administration.
The overwhelming winner as the most popular of the last five Governors is Jim Hunt, who earned 41%, followed by Jim Martin at 21%. Hunt nearly does the opposite of Easley by being named the most popular in every individual group but Martin edged him out by a narrow margin among Republicans (35-34) and voters from metro Charlotte (33-26).
It's a testament to Hunt's across the board appeal that he came out as the most popular among conservatives, and had steady support in the 42-47% range in every region of the state with the exception of Charlotte.
Jim Holshouser did not register with many respondents as either a favorite or least favorite, probably owing to the fact that most voters in the state either lived elsewhere or are too young to remember his time as Governor.
We will conduct this same poll next month on Senators. A year ago Jesse Helms might have been expected to win both the most popular and least popular honors but John Edwards has perhaps changed that.
Full results here.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Davis, Obama, and the White Vote
Last fall exit polls showed Barack Obama winning just 10% of the white vote in Alabama. Some experts have pointed to that and questioned whether Artur Davis is really a viable candidate for Governor of the state. It's safe to say that if he doesn't significantly improve on Obama's performance with that demographic he does have no chance, but he's starting out in a much better position.
Davis is already earning more than twice as much support among white voters than Obama received against all four potential opponents we tested him against last week. He gets 21% against Bradley Byrne, 24% against Tim James, 27% against Kay Ivey, and 30% against Roy Moore. And that's even with 28, 30, 35, and 21% of whites undecided in each of those respective contests.
We calculate that Davis will need to win about a third of the white vote to be elected Governor. He's certainly not there yet but given the good start he's off to and the fact that many are undecided- and thus not automatically writing off a black candidate- he has a decent chance.
Davis is already earning more than twice as much support among white voters than Obama received against all four potential opponents we tested him against last week. He gets 21% against Bradley Byrne, 24% against Tim James, 27% against Kay Ivey, and 30% against Roy Moore. And that's even with 28, 30, 35, and 21% of whites undecided in each of those respective contests.
We calculate that Davis will need to win about a third of the white vote to be elected Governor. He's certainly not there yet but given the good start he's off to and the fact that many are undecided- and thus not automatically writing off a black candidate- he has a decent chance.
Wolves fans were ready for McHale to go
The Associated Press is reporting that after 15 years Kevin McHale's time with the Minnesota Timberwolves is up.
We did a statewide poll on this issue in Minnesota back in April, and found that only 46% of people describing themselves as fans of the team wanted to see McHale return as coach.
While this has reached resolution the main reason we were conducting the poll- to see what voters in the state thought about the Al Franken/Norm Coleman standoff- sure has not!
I'll be interested to see if fan reaction stories to McHale's departure reflect what we found scientifically- this is certainly a field where anecdotes and easily rigged media outlet website polls drive the conventional wisdom about public opinion a lot more often than formal surveys.
We did a statewide poll on this issue in Minnesota back in April, and found that only 46% of people describing themselves as fans of the team wanted to see McHale return as coach.
While this has reached resolution the main reason we were conducting the poll- to see what voters in the state thought about the Al Franken/Norm Coleman standoff- sure has not!
I'll be interested to see if fan reaction stories to McHale's departure reflect what we found scientifically- this is certainly a field where anecdotes and easily rigged media outlet website polls drive the conventional wisdom about public opinion a lot more often than formal surveys.
Burr's Republican Problem
We didn't test any specific Democrats against Richard Burr this month, but we did measure his reelection prospects on a couple more generic measures, and it didn't come out good:
-Only 29% of North Carolina voters think Burr deserves another term, while 49% think it's time to give someone else a chance.
-Tested against a generic Democratic candidate, Burr trails 41-38.
-His approval rating is 34%, in the same mid-30s range where it's been all but one of the last seven months.
Perhaps the most interesting results came in answer to the question about whether Burr deserves another term- just 49% of Republicans said yes. Now obviously most of those folks would still end up voting for him next fall- he has a 73-10 lead with GOP voters on the generic ballot- but it speaks to a significant lack of enthusiasm about Burr with the Republican base.
That doesn't mean they're all going to go out next year and vote for the Democratic candidate. But with this race at the top of the ticket it might mean they don't bother to turn out at all...if the Senate race doesn't draw people out it's hard to see what's on the ballot that will.
The poll isn't all bad news for Burr...he has a 39-32 lead with independents on the generic ballot. But any Republican who's going to win statewide in North Carolina needs to win a lot of crossover support from Democrats, and with just 11% of them saying Burr deserves another term and 9% saying they would vote for Burr against a Democrat, he has a long way to go on that front. Couple that with the tepid support from the Republican base, and you have a pretty vulnerable incumbent.
Of course the biggest question is what Democrat's going to step to the plate...with Kay Hagan up for reelection in 2014 and the likelihood that Burr could become much more entrenched if he wins a second term, it may be a very long time before there's this good an opportunity for a Democrat to get elected to the Senate from North Carolina.
Full results here.
-Only 29% of North Carolina voters think Burr deserves another term, while 49% think it's time to give someone else a chance.
-Tested against a generic Democratic candidate, Burr trails 41-38.
-His approval rating is 34%, in the same mid-30s range where it's been all but one of the last seven months.
Perhaps the most interesting results came in answer to the question about whether Burr deserves another term- just 49% of Republicans said yes. Now obviously most of those folks would still end up voting for him next fall- he has a 73-10 lead with GOP voters on the generic ballot- but it speaks to a significant lack of enthusiasm about Burr with the Republican base.
That doesn't mean they're all going to go out next year and vote for the Democratic candidate. But with this race at the top of the ticket it might mean they don't bother to turn out at all...if the Senate race doesn't draw people out it's hard to see what's on the ballot that will.
The poll isn't all bad news for Burr...he has a 39-32 lead with independents on the generic ballot. But any Republican who's going to win statewide in North Carolina needs to win a lot of crossover support from Democrats, and with just 11% of them saying Burr deserves another term and 9% saying they would vote for Burr against a Democrat, he has a long way to go on that front. Couple that with the tepid support from the Republican base, and you have a pretty vulnerable incumbent.
Of course the biggest question is what Democrat's going to step to the plate...with Kay Hagan up for reelection in 2014 and the likelihood that Burr could become much more entrenched if he wins a second term, it may be a very long time before there's this good an opportunity for a Democrat to get elected to the Senate from North Carolina.
Full results here.
More on the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Posted by PPP Summer Fellow Jonathan Crook
Some pundits in Wisconsin are saying that the state could be the first "laboratory" for the recent opinion given by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that state judges must recuse themselves from any case in which an actor has given significant money to one of the judges during his or her campaign.
Last year about $6 million dollars were spent by the Wisconsin judicial candidates in total. Much more came from special interest groups, which bought t.v. spots and other advertisements.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision that could help curb this arms race sounds nice, but the vagaries in the language of the opinion, as is often the case, has left a great deal of room for interpretation. Also, as the author of the previously-linked article noted, the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court were dealing with were extraordinary compared to the regular contributions from private individuals, making the ruling that much harder to translate into action.
Even if Wisconsin does not use the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to keep conflicts of interests out of the courtroom, it still has a backup plan. The Impartial Justice Bill, which is being debated currently in the state legislature, would create a full public finance system for state judicial candidates, funded mainly by a $1-3 checkoff from state tax returns.
We polled Wisconsin voters earlier this week about the bill, and the results were not all that encouraging for those who are seeking its passage. 37% said that they favor the law, 28% said they are opposed, and 34% are still not sure.
Wisconsin is one state in acting in the pattern of a larger trend around the country. State judicial elections are getting more publicized, more expensive, and more malicious. The Supreme Court ruling was a step in the right direction, but we'll see from Wisconsin and other states if it really makes a difference.
Full results from the poll here.
Some pundits in Wisconsin are saying that the state could be the first "laboratory" for the recent opinion given by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that state judges must recuse themselves from any case in which an actor has given significant money to one of the judges during his or her campaign.
Last year about $6 million dollars were spent by the Wisconsin judicial candidates in total. Much more came from special interest groups, which bought t.v. spots and other advertisements.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision that could help curb this arms race sounds nice, but the vagaries in the language of the opinion, as is often the case, has left a great deal of room for interpretation. Also, as the author of the previously-linked article noted, the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court were dealing with were extraordinary compared to the regular contributions from private individuals, making the ruling that much harder to translate into action.
Even if Wisconsin does not use the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to keep conflicts of interests out of the courtroom, it still has a backup plan. The Impartial Justice Bill, which is being debated currently in the state legislature, would create a full public finance system for state judicial candidates, funded mainly by a $1-3 checkoff from state tax returns.
We polled Wisconsin voters earlier this week about the bill, and the results were not all that encouraging for those who are seeking its passage. 37% said that they favor the law, 28% said they are opposed, and 34% are still not sure.
Wisconsin is one state in acting in the pattern of a larger trend around the country. State judicial elections are getting more publicized, more expensive, and more malicious. The Supreme Court ruling was a step in the right direction, but we'll see from Wisconsin and other states if it really makes a difference.
Full results from the poll here.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Kissell not among top GOP targets
Swing State Project reports that the NRCC shared their top 13 targets for next year with National Journal, and Larry Kissell's not on the list.
I certainly don't find that surprising for three reasons:
1) Kissell won by ten points last year. It wasn't like it was one of the closer races.
2) For all the talk about how important black turnout was to his success, the truth is that in 2006 he came within a hair of winning with low black turnout but more importantly- no money! He certainly won't have the latter problem again next year.
3) The Republicans have not had a lot of success with recruitment. Their main target, at least publicly, was the odd choice of Mike Minter and he turned them down.
I'm not trying to claim the GOP has given up here by any means but there are certainly greener pastures.
I certainly don't find that surprising for three reasons:
1) Kissell won by ten points last year. It wasn't like it was one of the closer races.
2) For all the talk about how important black turnout was to his success, the truth is that in 2006 he came within a hair of winning with low black turnout but more importantly- no money! He certainly won't have the latter problem again next year.
3) The Republicans have not had a lot of success with recruitment. Their main target, at least publicly, was the odd choice of Mike Minter and he turned them down.
I'm not trying to claim the GOP has given up here by any means but there are certainly greener pastures.
Feingold in good shape
Russ Feingold has a good approval rating and a double digit lead over his seemingly strongest potential 2010 opponent, who doesn't appear likely to run anyway.
53% of Wisconsin voters approve of the job Feingold is doing with just 36% disapproving. Of the 30 or so Senators PPP has measured approval ratings for in the last year that puts Feingold in the top ten for popularity.
He has 80% approval from Democrats, 20% from Republicans, and a 50/37 spread with independents.
In a hypothetical contest against Congressman Paul Ryan, Feingold leads 51-39. That 12 point lead is identical to his winning margin in 2004 and speaks to the fact that while he has enough detractors that he's not likely to top 60% unless Republicans don't make any effort at all, his position is strong enough that he won't be a top GOP target next year either.
Barack Obama has a 55% approval rating, highlighted by a 65% approval mark from the voters under 30 who were so pivotal to his surprisingly lopsided victory in the state's primary last year. Herb Kohl has a solid 50/36 approval breakdown as well.
Full results here.
53% of Wisconsin voters approve of the job Feingold is doing with just 36% disapproving. Of the 30 or so Senators PPP has measured approval ratings for in the last year that puts Feingold in the top ten for popularity.
He has 80% approval from Democrats, 20% from Republicans, and a 50/37 spread with independents.
In a hypothetical contest against Congressman Paul Ryan, Feingold leads 51-39. That 12 point lead is identical to his winning margin in 2004 and speaks to the fact that while he has enough detractors that he's not likely to top 60% unless Republicans don't make any effort at all, his position is strong enough that he won't be a top GOP target next year either.
Barack Obama has a 55% approval rating, highlighted by a 65% approval mark from the voters under 30 who were so pivotal to his surprisingly lopsided victory in the state's primary last year. Herb Kohl has a solid 50/36 approval breakdown as well.
Full results here.
NC voters ok with higher taxes...if someone else pays them
We asked North Carolina voters on our poll over the weekend whether the state's budget gap should be filled completely with spending cuts or a combination of spending cuts and new taxes, and by a 51-32 margin they said completely with spending cuts.
Then in the next question we asked whether they would support raising income taxes on folks who make more than $200,000 a year...and 60% of them said yes. Previous polling also showed voters in support of hikes to the cigarette and alcohol taxes.
Why do voters say they're opposed to any tax increases in general, but then support the specific proposals? It's probably because they're fine with other folks getting their taxes raised. The reality is that most voters don't make 200k. Most voters these days don't smoke. Most voters don't buy so much alcohol that an increase in that tax would really hurt them. People are worried about their economic situation much more so than that of their neighbors, and if taxes are raised in a way that doesn't hurt their bottom line they really don't have a problem with it.
And I'm sure House Democrats knew that when they rolled out their revenue package last week.
69% of the state's moderate swing voters support the income tax increase on wealthy people, and even 40% of Republicans do with 79% of Democrats and a slight majority of independents in favor as well.
Full results here
Then in the next question we asked whether they would support raising income taxes on folks who make more than $200,000 a year...and 60% of them said yes. Previous polling also showed voters in support of hikes to the cigarette and alcohol taxes.
Why do voters say they're opposed to any tax increases in general, but then support the specific proposals? It's probably because they're fine with other folks getting their taxes raised. The reality is that most voters don't make 200k. Most voters these days don't smoke. Most voters don't buy so much alcohol that an increase in that tax would really hurt them. People are worried about their economic situation much more so than that of their neighbors, and if taxes are raised in a way that doesn't hurt their bottom line they really don't have a problem with it.
And I'm sure House Democrats knew that when they rolled out their revenue package last week.
69% of the state's moderate swing voters support the income tax increase on wealthy people, and even 40% of Republicans do with 79% of Democrats and a slight majority of independents in favor as well.
Full results here
Perdue approval drops further
Last month Bev Perdue's approval rating was 34%...now it's down to 30%. 53% of voters in the state disapprove of the job she's doing and 17% aren't sure.
Perdue's approval has now dropped 13 points from the 43% level she had in February. Most of the erosion in her support has come from the Democratic base- what was a 66% approval rating among voters in her party is now just 46%. She's had a ten point decline with independents and just a three point one with Republicans, most of whom didn't approve of her performance to begin with.
Previous polling showed she was unpopular with teachers and state employees, two key elements of the Democratic coalition, and the realities of the economy have kept her from rolling out and developing the sorts of programs that might win her popularity with progressive voters.
It's also pretty clear that voters in the state are now holding her responsible for the tough economic climate, where Washington absorbed most of the blame during the Bush years. PPP is finding unusually low approval ratings for Governors in several states right now even as the President remains popular.
Perdue now has a negative approval rating in every region of the state.
Full results here
Perdue's approval has now dropped 13 points from the 43% level she had in February. Most of the erosion in her support has come from the Democratic base- what was a 66% approval rating among voters in her party is now just 46%. She's had a ten point decline with independents and just a three point one with Republicans, most of whom didn't approve of her performance to begin with.
Previous polling showed she was unpopular with teachers and state employees, two key elements of the Democratic coalition, and the realities of the economy have kept her from rolling out and developing the sorts of programs that might win her popularity with progressive voters.
It's also pretty clear that voters in the state are now holding her responsible for the tough economic climate, where Washington absorbed most of the blame during the Bush years. PPP is finding unusually low approval ratings for Governors in several states right now even as the President remains popular.
Perdue now has a negative approval rating in every region of the state.
Full results here
Monday, June 15, 2009
Proof that Doyle's in bad shape
The Democrats in Wisconsin are whacking our poll with the tired old anti-IVR arguments...pretty much to be expected even though we had the most accurate survey on the last race we polled there, showing Barack Obama up by double digits in the primary against Hillary Clinton when most folks thought it was much closer.
What I think is amusing though is the spokesman for the Wisconsin Democratic Party touting Research 2000's poll of the race last week, which showed more voters in the state holding an unfavorable opinion of Jim Doyle than a favorable one...when you have to tout a poll with those kind of numbers it's usually a pretty good sign that the incumbent is in a bad position.
What I think is amusing though is the spokesman for the Wisconsin Democratic Party touting Research 2000's poll of the race last week, which showed more voters in the state holding an unfavorable opinion of Jim Doyle than a favorable one...when you have to tout a poll with those kind of numbers it's usually a pretty good sign that the incumbent is in a bad position.
NC voters itching for change
Last week we asked generically on our North Carolina poll whether voters would support incumbents or challengers if there was an election today. The result wasn't even close, with 44% saying challengers and just 13% saying incumbents.
That speaks to a pretty high level of dissatisfaction with government right now, but the question is whether either party will be able to capitalize on it:
-It provides an opportunity for Democrats with Richard Burr, especially given his own poor numbers. But when is a strong challenger going to take the plunge and enter the race?
-It also provides an opportunity for Republicans to finally regain control of the legislature...but can they put together the kind of coherent, appealing message necessary to get to the voters in the middle who they've been losing out on election after election?
The broad unhappiness voters have with their elected officials right now provides both parties with some chances for success next year...whether either will take advantage remains to be seen.
That speaks to a pretty high level of dissatisfaction with government right now, but the question is whether either party will be able to capitalize on it:
-It provides an opportunity for Democrats with Richard Burr, especially given his own poor numbers. But when is a strong challenger going to take the plunge and enter the race?
-It also provides an opportunity for Republicans to finally regain control of the legislature...but can they put together the kind of coherent, appealing message necessary to get to the voters in the middle who they've been losing out on election after election?
The broad unhappiness voters have with their elected officials right now provides both parties with some chances for success next year...whether either will take advantage remains to be seen.
Divergent Wisconsin Polls
Obviously our Wisconsin poll today shows pretty different numbers from a similar one conducted by Research 2000 last week that showed Jim Doyle beating the same two opponents for reelection.
There doesn't seem to be any weighting disparity to explain the difference: our sample at 42-32-26 is actually more Democratic than the Daily Kos one was at 39-34-27.
The two polls' numbers for Doyle among Democrats are nearly identical- they found 64% with a favorable opinion of him and we found 61% approving of him.
Where they go in different directions is among Republicans and independents. We find virtually no Republicans- just 6%- approving of the job Doyle is doing while they find 23% looking on him favorably. And while they find only 51% of independents with an unfavorable opinion of him, we find 69% in disapproval of his job performance.
That still doesn't answer who's right or wrong and with the election as far away as it is we won't soon get an answer to that. It does seem worth mentioning that SurveyUSA's most recent numbers for Doyle were similar to ours, with only 35% approving of his work compared to 59% who did not. Perhaps their client in Wisconsin will get them to look at the matches with Scott Walker and Mark Neumann sometime in the near future.
There doesn't seem to be any weighting disparity to explain the difference: our sample at 42-32-26 is actually more Democratic than the Daily Kos one was at 39-34-27.
The two polls' numbers for Doyle among Democrats are nearly identical- they found 64% with a favorable opinion of him and we found 61% approving of him.
Where they go in different directions is among Republicans and independents. We find virtually no Republicans- just 6%- approving of the job Doyle is doing while they find 23% looking on him favorably. And while they find only 51% of independents with an unfavorable opinion of him, we find 69% in disapproval of his job performance.
That still doesn't answer who's right or wrong and with the election as far away as it is we won't soon get an answer to that. It does seem worth mentioning that SurveyUSA's most recent numbers for Doyle were similar to ours, with only 35% approving of his work compared to 59% who did not. Perhaps their client in Wisconsin will get them to look at the matches with Scott Walker and Mark Neumann sometime in the near future.
Doyle in Trouble
Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has just a 34% approval rating, and trails two potential 2010 opponents in hypothetical contests.
Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker has a 48-40 lead over Doyle and former Congressman Mark Neumann has a 42-41 edge.
Doyle remains relatively popular within his own party, but meets with approval from just 6% of Republicans and also finds disapproval from 69% of independents. The difficulty with independents is unique to Doyle- a PPP release tomorrow looking at federal level politicians in Wisconsin finds Barack Obama, Russ Feingold, and Herb Kohl all finding approval from voters who don't identify with either major party.
Neither of the Republicans is particularly well known statewide, with 33% of voters holding a favorable opinion of Walker and 26% having one of Neumann, so it seems safe to say their strong performance in the poll has a lot more to do with Doyle than it does with either of them.
The incumbent does have one great ally, and that is time. With November 2010 more than 16 months away he will certainly have an opportunity to rehabilitate his image before then, particularly if the economy starts to move more in the right direction.
Full results here.
Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker has a 48-40 lead over Doyle and former Congressman Mark Neumann has a 42-41 edge.
Doyle remains relatively popular within his own party, but meets with approval from just 6% of Republicans and also finds disapproval from 69% of independents. The difficulty with independents is unique to Doyle- a PPP release tomorrow looking at federal level politicians in Wisconsin finds Barack Obama, Russ Feingold, and Herb Kohl all finding approval from voters who don't identify with either major party.
Neither of the Republicans is particularly well known statewide, with 33% of voters holding a favorable opinion of Walker and 26% having one of Neumann, so it seems safe to say their strong performance in the poll has a lot more to do with Doyle than it does with either of them.
The incumbent does have one great ally, and that is time. With November 2010 more than 16 months away he will certainly have an opportunity to rehabilitate his image before then, particularly if the economy starts to move more in the right direction.
Full results here.
Friday, June 12, 2009
You just can't win...
Someone came into the blog a little bit ago doing this google search:
"public policy polling biased in favor of republicans west virginia"
They got us. We bias our polls for the Democrats everywhere else, but in West Virginia we've just decided to randomly skew them for the benefit of the Republicans.
Or something like that.
"public policy polling biased in favor of republicans west virginia"
They got us. We bias our polls for the Democrats everywhere else, but in West Virginia we've just decided to randomly skew them for the benefit of the Republicans.
Or something like that.
Coming up...
-On Monday we'll have our poll showing a midwestern Governor trailing by eight points for reelection next year.
-Over the course of the week we'll be rolling out our new North Carolina poll. Here's a preview:
-Bev Perdue continues to be very unpopular.
-Richard Burr will not like the answer to this question:
-Later in the week we'll have our monthly look ahead to 2012 at the national level.
-Finally, looking further ahead we'll start up our monthly general election polling for Virginia and New Jersey with one of them coming out the week of the 22nd and the other the week of the 29th.
Have a good weekend, and let's hope the Heels do well in Omaha! I fly out for the championship series on the 22nd and it would sure be nice if they were in it.
-Over the course of the week we'll be rolling out our new North Carolina poll. Here's a preview:
-Bev Perdue continues to be very unpopular.
-Richard Burr will not like the answer to this question:
Do you think that Richard Burr deserves another term in the US Senate, or is it time to give someone else a chance? If you think Burr deserves another term, press 1. If you think it’s time to give someone else a chance, press 2. If you’re not sure, press 3.-And by popular demand we'll find out if Coach K is as popular as Roy Williams, after we looked at the UNC coach last month.
-Later in the week we'll have our monthly look ahead to 2012 at the national level.
-Finally, looking further ahead we'll start up our monthly general election polling for Virginia and New Jersey with one of them coming out the week of the 22nd and the other the week of the 29th.
Have a good weekend, and let's hope the Heels do well in Omaha! I fly out for the championship series on the 22nd and it would sure be nice if they were in it.
Edmondson starts out stronger but...
Drew Edmondson made his candidacy for Governor of Oklahoma official earlier this week. Based on the initial poll we did of the race last month he is the stronger Democratic candidate.
We found that 59% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of him, compared to 48% for Jari Askins. He also starts out as a stronger general election candidate. He gets better reviews among Republicans (32% favorable to 26% for Askins) and independents (27% favorable to 19% for Askins), and is more competitive in a head to contest with Mary Fallin, trailing by ten points to Askins' 16.
At the same time you can argue these comparative numbers are pretty good for Askins. She's been in statewide office for two and a half years to Edmondson's 14 and a half and doesn't have the family name that carries a lot of weight in Oklahoma politics. Based on those facts you might expect Edmondson's initial numbers to be vastly superior to those of Askins, and that's not the case.
Of course it's a long time until 2010!
We found that 59% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of him, compared to 48% for Jari Askins. He also starts out as a stronger general election candidate. He gets better reviews among Republicans (32% favorable to 26% for Askins) and independents (27% favorable to 19% for Askins), and is more competitive in a head to contest with Mary Fallin, trailing by ten points to Askins' 16.
At the same time you can argue these comparative numbers are pretty good for Askins. She's been in statewide office for two and a half years to Edmondson's 14 and a half and doesn't have the family name that carries a lot of weight in Oklahoma politics. Based on those facts you might expect Edmondson's initial numbers to be vastly superior to those of Askins, and that's not the case.
Of course it's a long time until 2010!
Unions in North Carolina
Unions played an unprecedented role in North Carolina elections last year, particularly in helping Kay Hagan to defeat Elizabeth Dole. But a variety of recent polling in the state shows that they still aren't very popular with the state's voters.
The poll we released yesterday on the impact for candidates of receiving various endorsements showed union support as the most potentially harmful at the polls, with 50% of the respondents saying they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by a union. That compared unfavorably to other groups with sometimes controversial agendas including right wing religious organizations (43%), realtors (39%), the Sierra Club (37%), and Planned Parenthood (36%).
April's Elon Poll showed similar attitudes, finding 51% of North Carolinians with an unfavorable opinion of labor unions compared to 31% who had a favorable one. When respondents were asked generally whether they think unions or business are in the right when there's a dispute 47% said business and 26% said unions. And by a 50-36 margin they said unions have a negative impact rather than a positive one on the economy.
Hagan was attacked for her union support last fall, but it didn't seem to stick. It will be interesting to see if next year, in an election cycle where there's less clutter, this becomes a bigger issue. But one thing seems pretty clear at this point: North Carolinians aren't exactly pining for unionization, and for many elected officials there is a political risk in supporting efforts in that direction. The climate for labor in the state is surely better than it was a generation ago, but there is a long way to go.
The poll we released yesterday on the impact for candidates of receiving various endorsements showed union support as the most potentially harmful at the polls, with 50% of the respondents saying they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by a union. That compared unfavorably to other groups with sometimes controversial agendas including right wing religious organizations (43%), realtors (39%), the Sierra Club (37%), and Planned Parenthood (36%).
April's Elon Poll showed similar attitudes, finding 51% of North Carolinians with an unfavorable opinion of labor unions compared to 31% who had a favorable one. When respondents were asked generally whether they think unions or business are in the right when there's a dispute 47% said business and 26% said unions. And by a 50-36 margin they said unions have a negative impact rather than a positive one on the economy.
Hagan was attacked for her union support last fall, but it didn't seem to stick. It will be interesting to see if next year, in an election cycle where there's less clutter, this becomes a bigger issue. But one thing seems pretty clear at this point: North Carolinians aren't exactly pining for unionization, and for many elected officials there is a political risk in supporting efforts in that direction. The climate for labor in the state is surely better than it was a generation ago, but there is a long way to go.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
More on the Endorsements Poll
A message from Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling:
"I have always said that Democrats have the right policies but that the Republican religious right is better at the methods they use in selling their message. Clearly they are being successful in the NC legislature using threats and intimidation at the ballot box with Republican and Democratic legislators alike to fold on the right policies even as they become a smaller and smaller percentage of the vote. There are other groups whose policies are largely opposed by the majority of voters who are successful with the threat of withholding political donations from or contributing to the defeat of these politicians.
"I have always said that Democrats have the right policies but that the Republican religious right is better at the methods they use in selling their message. Clearly they are being successful in the NC legislature using threats and intimidation at the ballot box with Republican and Democratic legislators alike to fold on the right policies even as they become a smaller and smaller percentage of the vote. There are other groups whose policies are largely opposed by the majority of voters who are successful with the threat of withholding political donations from or contributing to the defeat of these politicians.
Special Interests and the General Assembly
There's not much doubt the religious right wields a lot of clout at the General Assembly. Last year it killed a school bullying bill, and this year it has had success in weakening a bill that would have given parents the choice to have their children receive comprehensive sex education.
They get stuff done- and perhaps more accurately keep things from happening- because they're very good at mobilizing their members and creating an illusion that they pack some punch at the ballot box and could really cause some trouble in the next election.
They're also a very distinct minority, and in fact most North Carolinians have a negative view of them and their ability to influence legislation. We conducted a poll earlier this week and asked voters whether they would be more or likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by a right wing religious organization. 43% of respondents said they would be less likely to do with 32% saying they would be more likely to. They are a particular turn off to the moderate voters who often decide North Carolina elections, with 55% of them saying they'd be less inclined to support a candidate endorsed by the religious right.
Voters are even less sympathetic to elected officials who choose to alter legislation based on push back from conservative religious groups. 63% said they would be less likely to vote for someone who changed a bill because of pressure from right wing Christian groups with just 22% saying that would make them more inclined to support someone.
Our polling showed levels of support around 70% statewide for both the bullying and sex education proposals but the squeaky minority frequently continues to frequently win out. What is particularly ironic is that it is often Democratic legislators who give into this pressure despite the fact that it is mostly coming from Republicans who would never vote for them anyway. While 58% of Republicans say they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by a right wing religious group, only 11% of Democrats and 20% of independents do. So really what Democrats are doing is risking turning off their base to please a group of voters that is not likely to ever support them at the polls.
What are the takeaways?
1) Progressive voters really do need to do a better job of making their voices heard by bombarding legislative offices with e-mails, calls, and letters in the same quantities that have made the right wing so effective.
2) Legislators need to do a better job of taking a step back and realizing that just because they hear from 100 constituents on an issue, that doesn't mean it's what the majority of their voters think, and that they have an obligation to consider the wishes of all those they represent and not just the 99th percentile of them who make the most noise. In fact we have polled on these issues in a good number of 'swing' districts across North Carolina and have found that they are popular across the board- scientific polling might not be as 'in your face' as some of the communication with melodramatic rhetoric that officials receive on these issues, but it is a much better gauge of true public opinion.
They get stuff done- and perhaps more accurately keep things from happening- because they're very good at mobilizing their members and creating an illusion that they pack some punch at the ballot box and could really cause some trouble in the next election.
They're also a very distinct minority, and in fact most North Carolinians have a negative view of them and their ability to influence legislation. We conducted a poll earlier this week and asked voters whether they would be more or likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by a right wing religious organization. 43% of respondents said they would be less likely to do with 32% saying they would be more likely to. They are a particular turn off to the moderate voters who often decide North Carolina elections, with 55% of them saying they'd be less inclined to support a candidate endorsed by the religious right.
Voters are even less sympathetic to elected officials who choose to alter legislation based on push back from conservative religious groups. 63% said they would be less likely to vote for someone who changed a bill because of pressure from right wing Christian groups with just 22% saying that would make them more inclined to support someone.
Our polling showed levels of support around 70% statewide for both the bullying and sex education proposals but the squeaky minority frequently continues to frequently win out. What is particularly ironic is that it is often Democratic legislators who give into this pressure despite the fact that it is mostly coming from Republicans who would never vote for them anyway. While 58% of Republicans say they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by a right wing religious group, only 11% of Democrats and 20% of independents do. So really what Democrats are doing is risking turning off their base to please a group of voters that is not likely to ever support them at the polls.
What are the takeaways?
1) Progressive voters really do need to do a better job of making their voices heard by bombarding legislative offices with e-mails, calls, and letters in the same quantities that have made the right wing so effective.
2) Legislators need to do a better job of taking a step back and realizing that just because they hear from 100 constituents on an issue, that doesn't mean it's what the majority of their voters think, and that they have an obligation to consider the wishes of all those they represent and not just the 99th percentile of them who make the most noise. In fact we have polled on these issues in a good number of 'swing' districts across North Carolina and have found that they are popular across the board- scientific polling might not be as 'in your face' as some of the communication with melodramatic rhetoric that officials receive on these issues, but it is a much better gauge of true public opinion.
Ideology in the South
We've polled three southern states in the last month: Alabama, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Democrats have varying degrees of success in these places: in North Carolina Obama won and there's a majority Democratic Congressional delegation, in West Virginia Obama got clocked but there's still a majority Democratic Congressional delegation, and in Alabama, well, there hasn't been a lot good news for Democrats recently.
What's interesting though is that the three states break down pretty similarly on ideological lines:
Digging deeper into the numbers it's easy to figure out why Democrats have so much more trouble in Alabama: conservatives have almost completely left the party. In North Carolina and Virginia around 30% of voters who define themselves that way ideologically are still Democrats but in Alabama just 20% are. And Democrats in Alabama are having a lot more trouble holding moderates as well. While 60% of West Virginia moderates and 54% of North Carolina moderates are still Democrats, just 44% of the ones in Alabama are.
There is no longer the ideological diversity among Democratic ranks in Alabama that once existed and still exists to some extent in North Carolina and West Virginia and that makes it much harder for the party to succeed there in high level elections.
The difference between West Virginia and North Carolina is the disparity between a state with a 3% black population and one with a 20% black population.
What's interesting though is that the three states break down pretty similarly on ideological lines:
| State | | | |
| Alabama | 14 | 37 | 49 |
| North Carolina | 16 | 39 | 46 |
| West Virginia | 17 | 41 | 43 |
Digging deeper into the numbers it's easy to figure out why Democrats have so much more trouble in Alabama: conservatives have almost completely left the party. In North Carolina and Virginia around 30% of voters who define themselves that way ideologically are still Democrats but in Alabama just 20% are. And Democrats in Alabama are having a lot more trouble holding moderates as well. While 60% of West Virginia moderates and 54% of North Carolina moderates are still Democrats, just 44% of the ones in Alabama are.
There is no longer the ideological diversity among Democratic ranks in Alabama that once existed and still exists to some extent in North Carolina and West Virginia and that makes it much harder for the party to succeed there in high level elections.
The difference between West Virginia and North Carolina is the disparity between a state with a 3% black population and one with a 20% black population.
Interesting Trend in Public Finance Responses
Post by Jonathan Crook, PPP Summer Fellow:
Last week we polled Alabama voters about their state Supreme Court elections. Unsurprisingly, respondents said that they want stricter spending limits for candidates. They felt that campaign contributions influence the way that judges make decision in the courtroom. They're extremely concerned about special interest groups buying advertising spots for candidates.
However, they don't want anything to do with public financing. We've gotten the results after polling in North Carolina, West Virginia, and now Alabama. Voters in these states are clearly in favor of doing all of the things that public finance programs aim to do, but when you mention those magic words, people automatically change their tune.
I'm beginning to think that the inconsistencies with our polls about public finance are stemming from a lack of knowledge about the specifics of these programs, and then tendencies for people to hear the term "public finance" and think about what a fiasco the program in place for presidential candidates has been. In my opinion, the public funding for Presidential elections has been the most publicized, so when people hear about such programs, they mistakenly make that connection.
Next week I will try to explain the specifics of a state public finance program to see if that will change the results at all. If it doesn't, it could just mean that people want a different solution to the problem.
Full results here
Last week we polled Alabama voters about their state Supreme Court elections. Unsurprisingly, respondents said that they want stricter spending limits for candidates. They felt that campaign contributions influence the way that judges make decision in the courtroom. They're extremely concerned about special interest groups buying advertising spots for candidates.
However, they don't want anything to do with public financing. We've gotten the results after polling in North Carolina, West Virginia, and now Alabama. Voters in these states are clearly in favor of doing all of the things that public finance programs aim to do, but when you mention those magic words, people automatically change their tune.
I'm beginning to think that the inconsistencies with our polls about public finance are stemming from a lack of knowledge about the specifics of these programs, and then tendencies for people to hear the term "public finance" and think about what a fiasco the program in place for presidential candidates has been. In my opinion, the public funding for Presidential elections has been the most publicized, so when people hear about such programs, they mistakenly make that connection.
Next week I will try to explain the specifics of a state public finance program to see if that will change the results at all. If it doesn't, it could just mean that people want a different solution to the problem.
Full results here
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Those liberals at Civitas...
Today Civitas came out with a poll showing Barack Obama's NC approval rating at 66%, with Bev Perdue's at 47% and Kay Hagan's at 40%. Our most recent look at each of them had Obama's approval at 51, Perdue's at 34, and Hagan's at 33. In other words the conservative polling firm shows these three Democratic officials with an average approval rating 12 points higher than we do.
There are a couple take aways from this:
-Although I think Civitas' issue polling is often biased and serves no point other than to push their policy agenda, I think the way their polls are conducted is perfectly sound and yields reasonable horse race and approval numbers.
-The second is that I just continue to think that voters are more willing to be negative about their politicians on automated polls than to live interviewers. For almost every politician we do approval ratings for they get worse numbers than any other poll shows- and that's true for both Democrats and Republicans. I can't remember us getting criticized any time in the near past for putting out an approval on someone that was too high.
We're going to be putting out a pretty stunning poll on a midwestern Governor up for reelection next year early next week.
There are a couple take aways from this:
-Although I think Civitas' issue polling is often biased and serves no point other than to push their policy agenda, I think the way their polls are conducted is perfectly sound and yields reasonable horse race and approval numbers.
-The second is that I just continue to think that voters are more willing to be negative about their politicians on automated polls than to live interviewers. For almost every politician we do approval ratings for they get worse numbers than any other poll shows- and that's true for both Democrats and Republicans. I can't remember us getting criticized any time in the near past for putting out an approval on someone that was too high.
We're going to be putting out a pretty stunning poll on a midwestern Governor up for reelection next year early next week.
Some lessons from the Virginia results...
-It's good to be patient. When one campaign has a lot more money than the others, as was the case with Terry McAuliffe in this race, there is a definite temptation when you're lagging in the polls to go ahead and start spending that two, three months out from an election to keep from getting too far behind. But Creigh Deeds' campaign kept its eyes on the big picture- that most voters weren't paying attention to the race or making up their minds- and waited to spend all of their money on media in May and June. Clearly that was the right choice- going on the air in Hampton Roads in January didn't really pay any long term dividends for McAuliffe.
-At the same time you shouldn't wait too long. It's gotten lost in all of the hype about the Washington Post endorsement, which undoubtedly did make a difference, but Deeds was already gaining on the field in mid-May. After going on tv the first week of the month he cut McAuliffe's lead over him from 16 points to 9, and tied up Brian Moran after lagging in third place in every poll from January on. He had already made himself into the momentum candidate, and the WaPo endorsement then helped him build on that further. But it's a puzzle why Moran waited so much longer to go on tv than Deeds, because by the time he did he had sort of become the forgotten candidate in the race.
-The decision to spend more money on television ads, particularly in Washington DC, than on field in the closing weeks clearly paid off for Deeds. You have to wonder how much of the work McAuliffe and Moran did getting out the vote actually resulted in reminding people they needed to go vote- for Deeds. But GOTV is going to be huge this fall, particularly with black voters. They never got that interested in this primary and Deeds did worse with them than he did with most voter blocs but their votes will be crucial to defeating Bob McDonnell.
One other note. I am very impressed with the Virginia blogosphere. Lots of informed commentary and I don't think I ever saw someone bash a poll just because they didn't like the results of it. We poll all over the country and what I read in Va. conveyed much more depth of knowledge than in most places.
-At the same time you shouldn't wait too long. It's gotten lost in all of the hype about the Washington Post endorsement, which undoubtedly did make a difference, but Deeds was already gaining on the field in mid-May. After going on tv the first week of the month he cut McAuliffe's lead over him from 16 points to 9, and tied up Brian Moran after lagging in third place in every poll from January on. He had already made himself into the momentum candidate, and the WaPo endorsement then helped him build on that further. But it's a puzzle why Moran waited so much longer to go on tv than Deeds, because by the time he did he had sort of become the forgotten candidate in the race.
-The decision to spend more money on television ads, particularly in Washington DC, than on field in the closing weeks clearly paid off for Deeds. You have to wonder how much of the work McAuliffe and Moran did getting out the vote actually resulted in reminding people they needed to go vote- for Deeds. But GOTV is going to be huge this fall, particularly with black voters. They never got that interested in this primary and Deeds did worse with them than he did with most voter blocs but their votes will be crucial to defeating Bob McDonnell.
One other note. I am very impressed with the Virginia blogosphere. Lots of informed commentary and I don't think I ever saw someone bash a poll just because they didn't like the results of it. We poll all over the country and what I read in Va. conveyed much more depth of knowledge than in most places.
Alabama Governor looks competitive
We tested eight potential match ups for Governor of Alabama last week, and they almost all came out within the margin of error.
The early front runner appears to be Republican Bradley Byrne who leads Democrats Artur Davis and Ron Sparks 39-35 and 41-27 in prospective contests.
Davis nonetheless looks to be quite a formidable candidate, as he holds small leads in matches against three other likely Republican contenders. He has a 39-31 edge on Kay Ivey, a 41-38 one on Roy Moore, and a 37-35 lead over Tim James.
Sparks doesn't poll quite as well against the other GOP hopefuls. He leads Ivey 33-29, is tied with James at 32, and trails Moore 38-36.
There's not much doubt the black vote is the reason Davis is polling so much better than Sparks. For instance against Byrne Davis holds a 58 point lead with that demographic, 68-10. But Sparks has just an 18 point advantage at 38-20. Sparks actually gets slightly more support from white voters than Davis in all of the possible matches. We didn't do any polling on the primary, but with African Americans likely to make up around half of the electorate and Davis doing so much better with them it's hard at this admittedly early stage to see anyone else being able to snag the nomination.
Given the wealth of strong candidates and how tightly bunched they are in this early polling it looks like this has the potential to be one of the more competitive races in the country next year.
Full results here
The early front runner appears to be Republican Bradley Byrne who leads Democrats Artur Davis and Ron Sparks 39-35 and 41-27 in prospective contests.
Davis nonetheless looks to be quite a formidable candidate, as he holds small leads in matches against three other likely Republican contenders. He has a 39-31 edge on Kay Ivey, a 41-38 one on Roy Moore, and a 37-35 lead over Tim James.
Sparks doesn't poll quite as well against the other GOP hopefuls. He leads Ivey 33-29, is tied with James at 32, and trails Moore 38-36.
There's not much doubt the black vote is the reason Davis is polling so much better than Sparks. For instance against Byrne Davis holds a 58 point lead with that demographic, 68-10. But Sparks has just an 18 point advantage at 38-20. Sparks actually gets slightly more support from white voters than Davis in all of the possible matches. We didn't do any polling on the primary, but with African Americans likely to make up around half of the electorate and Davis doing so much better with them it's hard at this admittedly early stage to see anyone else being able to snag the nomination.
Given the wealth of strong candidates and how tightly bunched they are in this early polling it looks like this has the potential to be one of the more competitive races in the country next year.
Full results here
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Some thoughts on Virginia...
First the bragging:
-It was said repeatedly in the media that nobody had any idea what turnout was going to be, so the polls couldn't be trusted. Most estimates fell in the 200,000 range. Well we went on the record to Politico as saying we thought turnout would be around 300,000 and it looks like we were pretty much right.
-Our final poll showed Deeds at 40%, McAuliffe at 26%, and Moran at 24%. On the surface it may appear that we were well off because Deeds ended up with 50% (our McAuliffe and Moran projections were exactly correct.) But look at it this way- from our second (Deeds 27, McAuliffe 24, Moran 22) to last to our final poll 80% of the voters who made up their minds had picked Deeds. It looks like that trend continued right into election day with the remaining undecideds.
Second, why I'm not surprised we were on the mark:
This was the perfect race to be polling using the voter list and automated calls.
We called folks who had voted in any one of the Democratic primaries between 2005 and 2008. The reasoning behind that was basically no one who didn't bother to turn out for the Presidential primary was going to turn out for this one. So we were sure everyone who might possibly turn out was included within our sampling frame.
Some folks thought we were being too liberal in our sampling because for the most part it seemed unlikely voters who turned out just for Obama/Clinton were going to come out for the much less interesting Deeds/Moran/McAuliffe match. Well we agree that most 2008 only primary voters weren't going to come out again, but we still thought a decent number of them would.
That's why we said at the start of every poll, if you don't intend to vote in the primary, please hang up now. When you're dealing with an automated poll folks who don't intend to vote don't feel the sort of social pressure they might feel from a live interviewer to participate. So folks who didn't plan to vote didn't bother to answer the poll. No harm done. You don't want a high response rate from people who aren't going to vote. But the sampling we used did ensure that those more casual voters who were going to come out again this year were included.
I have no doubt this is very different from how polling was conducted 20 years ago. But the world is moving forward.
Finally, some notes on the media. Outlets that continue to have stubborn policies about automated polls and put out stories this morning saying the race was a toss up frankly misled their readers. This race obviously ended up being a total blow out, and the final round of polls did reflect that.
It will be interesting to see if the Washington Post writes any follow up to its haughty May declaration, backed up with no facts, that automated polls 'take less care than polls conducted by live interviewers.' One thing's for sure: PPP and Survey USA took more care in polling this race than the WaPo did, because they didn't have enough confidence in their operation to take a crack at it. We're not afraid to poll difficult contests, and because of that we'll inevitably screw up sometimes. But we did pretty well on this one.
Congratulations to Creigh Deeds on a remarkable campaign!
-It was said repeatedly in the media that nobody had any idea what turnout was going to be, so the polls couldn't be trusted. Most estimates fell in the 200,000 range. Well we went on the record to Politico as saying we thought turnout would be around 300,000 and it looks like we were pretty much right.
-Our final poll showed Deeds at 40%, McAuliffe at 26%, and Moran at 24%. On the surface it may appear that we were well off because Deeds ended up with 50% (our McAuliffe and Moran projections were exactly correct.) But look at it this way- from our second (Deeds 27, McAuliffe 24, Moran 22) to last to our final poll 80% of the voters who made up their minds had picked Deeds. It looks like that trend continued right into election day with the remaining undecideds.
Second, why I'm not surprised we were on the mark:
This was the perfect race to be polling using the voter list and automated calls.
We called folks who had voted in any one of the Democratic primaries between 2005 and 2008. The reasoning behind that was basically no one who didn't bother to turn out for the Presidential primary was going to turn out for this one. So we were sure everyone who might possibly turn out was included within our sampling frame.
Some folks thought we were being too liberal in our sampling because for the most part it seemed unlikely voters who turned out just for Obama/Clinton were going to come out for the much less interesting Deeds/Moran/McAuliffe match. Well we agree that most 2008 only primary voters weren't going to come out again, but we still thought a decent number of them would.
That's why we said at the start of every poll, if you don't intend to vote in the primary, please hang up now. When you're dealing with an automated poll folks who don't intend to vote don't feel the sort of social pressure they might feel from a live interviewer to participate. So folks who didn't plan to vote didn't bother to answer the poll. No harm done. You don't want a high response rate from people who aren't going to vote. But the sampling we used did ensure that those more casual voters who were going to come out again this year were included.
I have no doubt this is very different from how polling was conducted 20 years ago. But the world is moving forward.
Finally, some notes on the media. Outlets that continue to have stubborn policies about automated polls and put out stories this morning saying the race was a toss up frankly misled their readers. This race obviously ended up being a total blow out, and the final round of polls did reflect that.
It will be interesting to see if the Washington Post writes any follow up to its haughty May declaration, backed up with no facts, that automated polls 'take less care than polls conducted by live interviewers.' One thing's for sure: PPP and Survey USA took more care in polling this race than the WaPo did, because they didn't have enough confidence in their operation to take a crack at it. We're not afraid to poll difficult contests, and because of that we'll inevitably screw up sometimes. But we did pretty well on this one.
Congratulations to Creigh Deeds on a remarkable campaign!
Gubernatorial Legacies
Last month we asked kind of a fun question on our big monthly North Carolina poll, looking at who the favorites and least favorites are among the last five Presidents with voters in the state. Ronald Reagan came out as the most popular and George W. Bush as the least.
We'll do the same thing with Governors this month. Until yesterday I thought there would be strong competition between Mike Easley and Bev Perdue for the least popular mantle but I imagine that's pretty firmed up now. I would expect Jim Hunt to get top honors although Jim Martin could give him a run for it assuming NC Republicans, many of whom didn't live here between 1985 and 1993, know who he is.
We're going to do the Senators in July. A year ago at this time I would have put money on Jesse Helms winning both most popular and least popular honors but John Edwards will probably edge him out on the latter front at this point.
We'll do the same thing with Governors this month. Until yesterday I thought there would be strong competition between Mike Easley and Bev Perdue for the least popular mantle but I imagine that's pretty firmed up now. I would expect Jim Hunt to get top honors although Jim Martin could give him a run for it assuming NC Republicans, many of whom didn't live here between 1985 and 1993, know who he is.
We're going to do the Senators in July. A year ago at this time I would have put money on Jesse Helms winning both most popular and least popular honors but John Edwards will probably edge him out on the latter front at this point.
Election Day Nuggets in Virginia
So there's been a lot of debate about what the balance of turnout will be in Virginia today between what we would describe as 'hard core' primary voters (those who turned out for one of the low interest contests in 2005, 2006, or 2007) and more 'casual' ones (those whose only primary voting experience since 2004 was the Presidential one last year.)
Our polls suggest a little more than 50% of the voters today will be those 'casual' ones. Since 150,000 people turned out in 2006 and we would expect most all of them to come out today, that would put overall turnout around 300,000. Most folks, however, seem to expect a lower turnout...perhaps even as low as that same 150,000 from 2006.
Using the data from our final poll, here's what the numbers would be in various turnout scenarios from 150,000 all the way up to 410,000:
There's not much doubt Creigh Deeds wins under any turnout scenario, although lower turnout would push his margin closer to 20 points and higher turnout would keep it more around 15. Turnout does have a strong ability to determine who finishes second...if it is under 250,000 votes Brian Moran will likely be the runner up while if it pushes up over 300k Terry McAuliffe is more likely to be. And of course keep in mind that we conducted most of the interviews for our final poll on Saturday and things could have shifted some since then, especially considering how fluid the electorate has been in this contest.
If I really had to make a prediction I'd guess Deeds wins with 45% to 29% for Moran and 26% for McAuliffe.
One other interesting note: under the low turnout scenario (150k) outlined above just 21% of the electorate today would be African Americans.
Our polls suggest a little more than 50% of the voters today will be those 'casual' ones. Since 150,000 people turned out in 2006 and we would expect most all of them to come out today, that would put overall turnout around 300,000. Most folks, however, seem to expect a lower turnout...perhaps even as low as that same 150,000 from 2006.
Using the data from our final poll, here's what the numbers would be in various turnout scenarios from 150,000 all the way up to 410,000:
| Turnout | Deeds % | McAuliffe % | Moran % |
| 150,000 | 46 | 19 | 26 |
| 170,000 | 45 | 20 | 26 |
| 190,000 | 44 | 21 | 25 |
| 210,000 | 43 | 22 | 25 |
| 230,000 | 43 | 23 | 25 |
| 250,000 | 42 | 23 | 24 |
| 270,000 | 42 | 24 | 24 |
| 290,000 | 41 | 24 | 24 |
| 310,000 | 41 | 25 | 24 |
| 330,000 | 41 | 25 | 24 |
| 350,000 | 40 | 25 | 24 |
| 370,000 | 40 | 26 | 24 |
| 390,000 | 40 | 26 | 24 |
| 410,000 | 40 | 26 | 24 |
There's not much doubt Creigh Deeds wins under any turnout scenario, although lower turnout would push his margin closer to 20 points and higher turnout would keep it more around 15. Turnout does have a strong ability to determine who finishes second...if it is under 250,000 votes Brian Moran will likely be the runner up while if it pushes up over 300k Terry McAuliffe is more likely to be. And of course keep in mind that we conducted most of the interviews for our final poll on Saturday and things could have shifted some since then, especially considering how fluid the electorate has been in this contest.
If I really had to make a prediction I'd guess Deeds wins with 45% to 29% for Moran and 26% for McAuliffe.
One other interesting note: under the low turnout scenario (150k) outlined above just 21% of the electorate today would be African Americans.
Our Updated Governor Approvals
PPP has polled on the approval ratings of a dozen Governors so far in 2009. Here's how they stack up:
| Governor | Approval |
| Mike Beebe (D-AR) | 68/20 |
| Jack Markell (D-DE) | 62/17 |
| Joe Manchin (D-WV) | 53/34 |
| Brad Henry (D-OK) | 52/36 |
| Bob Riley (R-AL) | 51/36 |
| Pat Quinn (D-IL) | 49/25 |
| Ted Strickland (D-OH) | 48/35 |
| Steve Beshear (D-KY) | 47/37 |
| Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) | 46/40 |
| Rick Perry (R-TX) | 41/48 |
| Bill Ritter (D-CO) | 41/49 |
| Bev Perdue (D-NC) | 34/51 |
Alabama Approvals
More Alabama voters disapprove than approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as President so far, but he's doing better in the court of public opinion now than he did at the polls in the state last November.
47% of Alabamans disapprove of Obama's job performance, with 45% approving. He received 39% of the vote there against John McCain.
His numbers are breaking down with the same polarization along party lines that we find everywhere. He's immensely popular with Democrats as 84% give him good marks, but just 11% of Republicans think he's doing a good job. Among independents the spread is 49% disapproving and 40% in approval.
Not surprisingly he's getting his best marks from the groups he performed the strongest with at the ballot box last year. 85% of African Americans and 54% of voters under 30 approve of what he's doing, while only 28% of whites and 41% of senior citizens do.
The state's Republican Senators and Governor are all relatively popular. Jeff Sessions' approval is 50/33 and Richard Shelby's is 48/35. That ranks them 11th and 12th among 27 Senators PPP has gaged the approval of over the last year, or slightly better than average.
Bob Riley's approval rating is 51/36. He is easily the most popular of the major politicians in the state with independent voters, earning a 56% approval. He gets better numbers among Democrats- a 31% approval compared to 25% and 22% for Sessions and Shelby respectively but worse numbers among Republicans- a 67% approval compared to 74% and 72% for Sessions and Shelby.
PPP will release numbers looking at the 2010 picture for Governor in the state tomorrow.
Full results here.
47% of Alabamans disapprove of Obama's job performance, with 45% approving. He received 39% of the vote there against John McCain.
His numbers are breaking down with the same polarization along party lines that we find everywhere. He's immensely popular with Democrats as 84% give him good marks, but just 11% of Republicans think he's doing a good job. Among independents the spread is 49% disapproving and 40% in approval.
Not surprisingly he's getting his best marks from the groups he performed the strongest with at the ballot box last year. 85% of African Americans and 54% of voters under 30 approve of what he's doing, while only 28% of whites and 41% of senior citizens do.
The state's Republican Senators and Governor are all relatively popular. Jeff Sessions' approval is 50/33 and Richard Shelby's is 48/35. That ranks them 11th and 12th among 27 Senators PPP has gaged the approval of over the last year, or slightly better than average.
Bob Riley's approval rating is 51/36. He is easily the most popular of the major politicians in the state with independent voters, earning a 56% approval. He gets better numbers among Democrats- a 31% approval compared to 25% and 22% for Sessions and Shelby respectively but worse numbers among Republicans- a 67% approval compared to 74% and 72% for Sessions and Shelby.
PPP will release numbers looking at the 2010 picture for Governor in the state tomorrow.
Full results here.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Erskine...
NC State has been in a mess for months and finally today appears to be headed in the right direction.
It seems pretty clear Erskine Bowles has a heck of a lot to do with that.
It's too bad he'll be 71 in 2016 because he's an extraordinarily competent executive and clean as a whistle...he would make a great Governor, reaching the office his dad just couldn't quite get.
For now North Carolinians are lucky to have him in the position he's in.
It seems pretty clear Erskine Bowles has a heck of a lot to do with that.
It's too bad he'll be 71 in 2016 because he's an extraordinarily competent executive and clean as a whistle...he would make a great Governor, reaching the office his dad just couldn't quite get.
For now North Carolinians are lucky to have him in the position he's in.
Turnout and Virginia
On our final poll 59% of respondents were '2008 only' primary voters and 41% voted in one of the primaries between 2005 and 2007. Given that about 150,000 people voted in the highest turnout election of that trio, that would put turnout somewhere over 300,000 tomorrow, which is higher than most people expect.
If turnout is lower than our poll suggests Creigh Deeds actually wins by even more than we're currently showing, and Brian Moran overtakes Terry McAuliffe for second.
Among voters who turned out for one of the low intensity contests between 2005 and 2007 Deeds is at 46% with Moran at 26% and McAuliffe at just 19%. Among frequent primary voters 48% have an unfavorable opinion of McAuliffe with just 33% viewing him positively.
Among what we would describe as more casual primary voters- those who only turned out for Clinton/Obama- Deeds has a much narrower lead with 36% to 30% for McAuliffe and 22% for Moran.
So at this point it looks like even shockingly high turnout would not pull McAuliffe through, and if lower turnout projections prove to be correct Deeds is likely to win by an even more convincing margin than we're showing.
If turnout is lower than our poll suggests Creigh Deeds actually wins by even more than we're currently showing, and Brian Moran overtakes Terry McAuliffe for second.
Among voters who turned out for one of the low intensity contests between 2005 and 2007 Deeds is at 46% with Moran at 26% and McAuliffe at just 19%. Among frequent primary voters 48% have an unfavorable opinion of McAuliffe with just 33% viewing him positively.
Among what we would describe as more casual primary voters- those who only turned out for Clinton/Obama- Deeds has a much narrower lead with 36% to 30% for McAuliffe and 22% for Moran.
So at this point it looks like even shockingly high turnout would not pull McAuliffe through, and if lower turnout projections prove to be correct Deeds is likely to win by an even more convincing margin than we're showing.
Burr Sensitivity
Last week Richard Burr told McClatchy that our polling hypothetical opponents against him is 'ridiculous.'
I'd probably be a little sensitive if I was polling under 50% against a bunch of folks with very little name recognition too.
But since we don't want to hurt the Senator's feelings, I think on our next poll we're just going to test him against a generic Democrat and also ask in general whether folks think he deserves another term.
I'd probably be a little sensitive if I was polling under 50% against a bunch of folks with very little name recognition too.
But since we don't want to hurt the Senator's feelings, I think on our next poll we're just going to test him against a generic Democrat and also ask in general whether folks think he deserves another term.
A remarkable figure
We did our first poll on the Virginia Democratic primary in late January. At that point in the game it's basically an activist poll since for the most part you're still in a pre-campaign mode and not reaching out to the broader electorate. At that point Terry McAuliffe and Brian Moran were tied at 18% with Creigh Deeds back at 11% and 53% undecided.
Since then Deeds has gained 29 points, McAuliffe has gained eight points, and Moran has gained six points. So essentially among voters who made their decisions during the campaign Deeds is at 67%, McAuliffe is at 19%, and Moran is at 14%.
That's quite a remarkable tribute to the campaign he's run, assuming our final poll is correct.
Since then Deeds has gained 29 points, McAuliffe has gained eight points, and Moran has gained six points. So essentially among voters who made their decisions during the campaign Deeds is at 67%, McAuliffe is at 19%, and Moran is at 14%.
That's quite a remarkable tribute to the campaign he's run, assuming our final poll is correct.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Deeds takes strong lead
The undecideds have broken almost exclusively to Creigh Deeds in Virginia's Democratic primary for Governor, allowing him to open up a double digit lead 36 hours before voters in the state head to the polls.
Deeds is now at 40%, followed by Terry McAuliffe at 26%, and Brian Moran at 24%. Since PPP's last poll Deeds has gained 13% while his opponents have each gone up by just 2%.
Among the reasons for Deeds' ascent are:
-A remarkable increase in support in northern Virginia in the wake of the Washington Post endorsement. More Democratic primary votes are cast there than anywhere else, and in the last two and a half weeks Deeds has gone from polling at just 11% there to a surprising lead in the region with 38% to 35% for Moran and 20% for McAuliffe. The endorsement is not inherently a game changer but the Deeds campaign effectively milked it for all it was worth with signs, mailers, and a late media buy. All of that paid huge dividends.
-He finally consolidated the anti-McAuliffe vote. Even though Terry McAuliffe has always had higher negatives than his two opponents combined, for most of the campaign voters with an unfavorable opinion of him were splitting almost evenly between Deeds and Moran, resulting in both of their polling behind McAuliffe. In the closing weeks though much of that has gravitated toward Deeds as he now has a 58-35 lead on Moran among voters who don't like the former DNC chair. Since those folks comprise 40% of the electorate, it is a very important group to do well with.
-He made the most of the Democratic primary being pretty much the only game in town for Republicans and independent voters. Deeds has a 10 point lead with primary voters who are Democrats, but we also project 20% of the folks who turn out on Tuesday to be independents and 6% to be Republicans. Among those voters Deeds has a 26 point lead, with 48% to 22% for McAuliffe and 19% for Moran. His support from them pushes his overall lead to 14 points.
-He racked up the kinds of margins he needed outside the suburbs of DC and the urban areas of Richmond and Hampton Roads. In his 540 area code he is at 56% and has a 33 point lead on McAuliffe. In 434 he is at 49% and has a 22 point lead on McAuliffe. These areas in total may cast only a quarter of the votes in a Democratic primary but when you pull those kinds of margins it makes a big difference.
What happened to Moran?
-He always needed a dominating performance in northern Virginia to win this primary, but he never really built on his initial support. On our first poll conducted at the end of January he was polling at 34% in the region. Now with a 43% reduction in undecideds there he's polling at 35%. Deeds' momentum there completely took the wind out of his sails.
-He never gained traction in any other part of the state. He's in last place in every other region. Even though he didn't get the level of support he needed in NoVa, that's still where he's getting 45% of his voters.
What happened to McAuliffe?
-Although his early ad buys allowed him to build up support in parts of the state where none of the candidates had a natural base, like Richmond and Hampton Roads, the support he was building was weak. Once he no longer had the airwaves to himself, Deeds was able to build support and Moran hurt McAuliffe with negative ads.
-He ended up with remarkably high negatives. When 40% of the voters in your own party's primary say they have an unfavorable opinion of you it's very hard to get enough support from the rest to assemble a winning margin.
Caveat
Voter preferences in this election are about as fluid as in any race PPP has ever polled. The fact that Deeds went from 20% to 40% in two and a half weeks speaks pretty strongly to that. There have always been a lot of undecideds, and we have repeatedly showed that even many voters with a preference are open to changing it. Usually voter preferences are pretty hardened by 48-72 hours before an election but if there was ever one where that could change this would be it. That said, Deeds' margin is pretty commanding.
In the race for Lieutenant Governor Jody Wagner now leads with 41% to 12% for Michael Signer and 6% for Jon Bowerbank who is no longer running but whose name is still on the ballot.
Full results here.
Deeds is now at 40%, followed by Terry McAuliffe at 26%, and Brian Moran at 24%. Since PPP's last poll Deeds has gained 13% while his opponents have each gone up by just 2%.
Among the reasons for Deeds' ascent are:
-A remarkable increase in support in northern Virginia in the wake of the Washington Post endorsement. More Democratic primary votes are cast there than anywhere else, and in the last two and a half weeks Deeds has gone from polling at just 11% there to a surprising lead in the region with 38% to 35% for Moran and 20% for McAuliffe. The endorsement is not inherently a game changer but the Deeds campaign effectively milked it for all it was worth with signs, mailers, and a late media buy. All of that paid huge dividends.
-He finally consolidated the anti-McAuliffe vote. Even though Terry McAuliffe has always had higher negatives than his two opponents combined, for most of the campaign voters with an unfavorable opinion of him were splitting almost evenly between Deeds and Moran, resulting in both of their polling behind McAuliffe. In the closing weeks though much of that has gravitated toward Deeds as he now has a 58-35 lead on Moran among voters who don't like the former DNC chair. Since those folks comprise 40% of the electorate, it is a very important group to do well with.
-He made the most of the Democratic primary being pretty much the only game in town for Republicans and independent voters. Deeds has a 10 point lead with primary voters who are Democrats, but we also project 20% of the folks who turn out on Tuesday to be independents and 6% to be Republicans. Among those voters Deeds has a 26 point lead, with 48% to 22% for McAuliffe and 19% for Moran. His support from them pushes his overall lead to 14 points.
-He racked up the kinds of margins he needed outside the suburbs of DC and the urban areas of Richmond and Hampton Roads. In his 540 area code he is at 56% and has a 33 point lead on McAuliffe. In 434 he is at 49% and has a 22 point lead on McAuliffe. These areas in total may cast only a quarter of the votes in a Democratic primary but when you pull those kinds of margins it makes a big difference.
What happened to Moran?
-He always needed a dominating performance in northern Virginia to win this primary, but he never really built on his initial support. On our first poll conducted at the end of January he was polling at 34% in the region. Now with a 43% reduction in undecideds there he's polling at 35%. Deeds' momentum there completely took the wind out of his sails.
-He never gained traction in any other part of the state. He's in last place in every other region. Even though he didn't get the level of support he needed in NoVa, that's still where he's getting 45% of his voters.
What happened to McAuliffe?
-Although his early ad buys allowed him to build up support in parts of the state where none of the candidates had a natural base, like Richmond and Hampton Roads, the support he was building was weak. Once he no longer had the airwaves to himself, Deeds was able to build support and Moran hurt McAuliffe with negative ads.
-He ended up with remarkably high negatives. When 40% of the voters in your own party's primary say they have an unfavorable opinion of you it's very hard to get enough support from the rest to assemble a winning margin.
Caveat
Voter preferences in this election are about as fluid as in any race PPP has ever polled. The fact that Deeds went from 20% to 40% in two and a half weeks speaks pretty strongly to that. There have always been a lot of undecideds, and we have repeatedly showed that even many voters with a preference are open to changing it. Usually voter preferences are pretty hardened by 48-72 hours before an election but if there was ever one where that could change this would be it. That said, Deeds' margin is pretty commanding.
In the race for Lieutenant Governor Jody Wagner now leads with 41% to 12% for Michael Signer and 6% for Jon Bowerbank who is no longer running but whose name is still on the ballot.
Full results here.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Looks like a tight race in Virginia...
for second place. The undecideds seem to almost all be moving in the same direction.
I'm not going to call the race like I did the Saturday before the election for Kay Hagan based on early returns from our final poll because preferences in this race have been so fluid. But it doesn't look like things are going to be as close on Tuesday as the polling in the last week suggested.
I'm not going to call the race like I did the Saturday before the election for Kay Hagan based on early returns from our final poll because preferences in this race have been so fluid. But it doesn't look like things are going to be as close on Tuesday as the polling in the last week suggested.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Coming next week...
The final Virginia primary poll will be out Sunday night or some time Monday. I will give an update Sunday about whether it will be coming out that night or the next day. I'm sure I will post some teasers over the weekend as the poll runs as well.
We're also going to have a 2010 Alabama Governor poll, as well as approvals on the state's major politicians, some time later in the week.
And we'll have our big monthly North Carolina poll going into the field at the end of next week so any suggestions on questions we should ask are welcomed. I'm thinking about asking more generic stuff related to the Burr seat than polling specific people against him for this one but if there are any serious potential candidates we should try against him but haven't yet we'll consider including them.
Have a good weekend, let's hope the Heels make it to Omaha again this weekend and good luck to our ACC friends at Clemson, Virginia, and Florida State as well.
We're also going to have a 2010 Alabama Governor poll, as well as approvals on the state's major politicians, some time later in the week.
And we'll have our big monthly North Carolina poll going into the field at the end of next week so any suggestions on questions we should ask are welcomed. I'm thinking about asking more generic stuff related to the Burr seat than polling specific people against him for this one but if there are any serious potential candidates we should try against him but haven't yet we'll consider including them.
Have a good weekend, let's hope the Heels make it to Omaha again this weekend and good luck to our ACC friends at Clemson, Virginia, and Florida State as well.
How Marshall Polled
With the news that Elaine Marshall is at least ever so slightly considering a Senate bid it seems worth revisiting how she fared when we polled her against Richard Burr back in March:
She trailed 43-35 in a potential contest. That eight point deficit is the best we've found of anyone we've polled against Burr with the exception of Roy Cooper and Mike McIntyre.
At the same time it was interesting that even after 12 years in statewide office, 53% of North Carolinians didn't express an opinion one way or the other about whether they view Marshall favorably. So her initial name recognition- which I've repeatedly said is not a good criterion for Democrats to use in choosing a candidate- is actually not that high.
I don't know how Marshall's fundraising would be but female candidates certainly have done well statewide in recent NC elections.
She trailed 43-35 in a potential contest. That eight point deficit is the best we've found of anyone we've polled against Burr with the exception of Roy Cooper and Mike McIntyre.
At the same time it was interesting that even after 12 years in statewide office, 53% of North Carolinians didn't express an opinion one way or the other about whether they view Marshall favorably. So her initial name recognition- which I've repeatedly said is not a good criterion for Democrats to use in choosing a candidate- is actually not that high.
I don't know how Marshall's fundraising would be but female candidates certainly have done well statewide in recent NC elections.
Something I don't totally understand
In Tuesday's Republican primary for Governor in New Jersey 330,000 people voted.
Last year there were a little over 1.6 million votes for John McCain in the state. There were almost 2 million votes for Barack Obama in Virginia.
So why is turnout in Virginia on Tuesday expected to be so much less than it was in New Jersey this week?
Both primary contests have been pretty spirited and had millions of dollars poured into them. It's actually easier to vote in Virginia where primaries are completely open than in New Jersey where just Republicans and independents can vote in a GOP primary.
I understand there's more of a tradition of vibrant primaries for Governor in New Jersey than Virginia but it still seems amazing to me that they would exceed the turnout of 200,000 at least one campaign is expecting by 65%.
We're already on the record saying we think turnout will be more around 300,000 with the caveat that projecting hard numbers of voters is not really what we do, but most folks seem to think turnout will be lower than that.
Why is there so little interest in Virginia compared to New Jersey? I'm interested in the thoughts of those who would understand this better than me.
Last year there were a little over 1.6 million votes for John McCain in the state. There were almost 2 million votes for Barack Obama in Virginia.
So why is turnout in Virginia on Tuesday expected to be so much less than it was in New Jersey this week?
Both primary contests have been pretty spirited and had millions of dollars poured into them. It's actually easier to vote in Virginia where primaries are completely open than in New Jersey where just Republicans and independents can vote in a GOP primary.
I understand there's more of a tradition of vibrant primaries for Governor in New Jersey than Virginia but it still seems amazing to me that they would exceed the turnout of 200,000 at least one campaign is expecting by 65%.
We're already on the record saying we think turnout will be more around 300,000 with the caveat that projecting hard numbers of voters is not really what we do, but most folks seem to think turnout will be lower than that.
Why is there so little interest in Virginia compared to New Jersey? I'm interested in the thoughts of those who would understand this better than me.
Women and African Americans key in Virginia
With just four days until the primary in Virginia, our final look at the undecideds finds that women and African Americans could hold the balance of power.
While we project 57% of primary voters overall to be women, 66% of the ones who reported being undecided in our last poll are. We've been saying all the way since February that none of these candidates was getting a leg up with that highly important Democratic primary demographic, and although Terry McAuliffe did have a solid lead with them in some of our May polling that's disappeared along with his overall lead. It's surprising the campaigns didn't do more to effectively target female voters.
We see 29% of voters on Tuesday being African Americans, but their accounting for 40% of the undecideds. I would not be surprised if black turnout ended up being more like 25% given how little the candidates seem to have caught on, and that's something the eventual nominee is going to have figure out for the fall or else it's going to be awfully difficult to beat Bob McDonnell. At some point it looked like black voters were going to be a boon to McAuliffe but now Brian Moran has tied it up with them and Creigh Deeds isn't nearly as far back as he was a month ago.
We still see a disproportionate number of conservative Democrats undecided- 29% compared to 15% of the overall electorate. That seems like it would work to Deeds' benefit, but like with black voters you have to consider the possibility that if none of the candidates have captured the attention of these voters yet they might just not turn out. It also makes you wonder if Moran's attacking Deeds for not being sufficiently progressive might have the highly unintended effect of helping him with this disproportionately undecided segment of voters.
One final note on the undecideds- as has consistently been the case there are a lot fewer of them in northern Virginia than anywhere else. That would seem to bode poorly for Moran's prospects. The largest segment of them is in Hampton Roads, so while metro DC may be getting a lot of attention this week, the contest could well be decided in Norfolk and Virginia Beach rather than Arlington and Alexandria.
While we project 57% of primary voters overall to be women, 66% of the ones who reported being undecided in our last poll are. We've been saying all the way since February that none of these candidates was getting a leg up with that highly important Democratic primary demographic, and although Terry McAuliffe did have a solid lead with them in some of our May polling that's disappeared along with his overall lead. It's surprising the campaigns didn't do more to effectively target female voters.
We see 29% of voters on Tuesday being African Americans, but their accounting for 40% of the undecideds. I would not be surprised if black turnout ended up being more like 25% given how little the candidates seem to have caught on, and that's something the eventual nominee is going to have figure out for the fall or else it's going to be awfully difficult to beat Bob McDonnell. At some point it looked like black voters were going to be a boon to McAuliffe but now Brian Moran has tied it up with them and Creigh Deeds isn't nearly as far back as he was a month ago.
We still see a disproportionate number of conservative Democrats undecided- 29% compared to 15% of the overall electorate. That seems like it would work to Deeds' benefit, but like with black voters you have to consider the possibility that if none of the candidates have captured the attention of these voters yet they might just not turn out. It also makes you wonder if Moran's attacking Deeds for not being sufficiently progressive might have the highly unintended effect of helping him with this disproportionately undecided segment of voters.
One final note on the undecideds- as has consistently been the case there are a lot fewer of them in northern Virginia than anywhere else. That would seem to bode poorly for Moran's prospects. The largest segment of them is in Hampton Roads, so while metro DC may be getting a lot of attention this week, the contest could well be decided in Norfolk and Virginia Beach rather than Arlington and Alexandria.
A big problem for NC Republicans
A higher percentage of conservatives in North Carolina identify as Democrats than moderates do as Republicans. As long as that's the case it's going to be very hard for the GOP to turn around its recent losing streak at the polls in the state.
Over the course of all our North Carolina polling so far in 2009 55% of moderates have identified as Democrats, with 20% Republicans, and 25% independents.
Among conservatives 61% are Republicans, 26% are Democrats, and 13% are independents.
Democrats are doing a better job of appealing to voters on the right side of the spectrum than Republicans are doing of attracting folks in the middle. It's pretty hard for the GOP to construct an electoral majority as long as that's the case. Nevertheless Republicans in both Washington and Raleigh this year have seemed more fixated on pleasing the far right than pursuing an agenda that would better help them reach out to the 80% of moderates who currently don't identify with their party.
Among liberals it's no surprise that 87% are Democrats, 8% are independents, and 5% are Republicans.
Over the course of all our North Carolina polling so far in 2009 55% of moderates have identified as Democrats, with 20% Republicans, and 25% independents.
Among conservatives 61% are Republicans, 26% are Democrats, and 13% are independents.
Democrats are doing a better job of appealing to voters on the right side of the spectrum than Republicans are doing of attracting folks in the middle. It's pretty hard for the GOP to construct an electoral majority as long as that's the case. Nevertheless Republicans in both Washington and Raleigh this year have seemed more fixated on pleasing the far right than pursuing an agenda that would better help them reach out to the 80% of moderates who currently don't identify with their party.
Among liberals it's no surprise that 87% are Democrats, 8% are independents, and 5% are Republicans.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Why Terry Dropped
We've been saying all along that even among voters planning to vote for a particular candidate in the Virginia primary, a good chunk are open to changing their minds between now and election day. That means for each candidate a certain segment of their support is solid and a certain proportion of it is weak. The reason Terry McAuliffe dropped from the poll we released on May 22nd to the one we put out on Tuesday is that he lost a lot of his weak supporters.
Here are the numbers from the May 22nd poll:
And here are the numbers from the June 2nd poll:
As you can see from these numbers, the percentage of voters solidly committed to McAuliffe stayed pretty much level, as you would expect if they are indeed solidly committed. But he dropped four points worth of weak support. People who were open to changing their minds about who to vote for logically would be much more susceptible to having their preferences influenced by attacks against McAuliffe and that appears to have hurt him.
Some folks seem to think this is a two person race between McAuliffe and Creigh Deeds. I don't buy that yet but it is interesting that Brian Moran's support is the weakest among the three candidates- you have to wonder if that means some folks planning to vote for him are more anti-McAuliffe than anything else and waiting to see who has the best chance of beating him at the end. By most measures Deeds fits that bill at this point.
Still, the fact that the pendulum shifted from McAuliffe to Deeds so rapidly is a lesson that it can also swing back toward McAuliffe or Moran equally as fast. I almost always feel confident that a Saturday/Sunday poll the weekend before the election reflects people's final choices but this is one case where there are so few voters with hardened opinions that even something minor in the last 48 hours before folks go to the polls could somehow shift the balance- it wouldn't take much.
Here are the numbers from the May 22nd poll:
| Candidate | Support | % of Supporters Solidly Committed | Total Solid Support | Total Weak Support |
| Deeds | 20 | 62 | 12.4% | 7.6% |
| McAuliffe | 29 | 58 | 16.8% | 12.2% |
| Moran | 20 | 53 | 10.6% | 9.4% |
And here are the numbers from the June 2nd poll:
| Candidate | Support | % of Supporters Solidly Committed | Total Solid Support | Total Weak Support |
| Deeds | 27 | 56 | 15.1% | 11.9% |
| McAuliffe | 24 | 66 | 15.8% | 8.2% |
| Moran | 22 | 45 | 9.9% | 12.1% |
As you can see from these numbers, the percentage of voters solidly committed to McAuliffe stayed pretty much level, as you would expect if they are indeed solidly committed. But he dropped four points worth of weak support. People who were open to changing their minds about who to vote for logically would be much more susceptible to having their preferences influenced by attacks against McAuliffe and that appears to have hurt him.
Some folks seem to think this is a two person race between McAuliffe and Creigh Deeds. I don't buy that yet but it is interesting that Brian Moran's support is the weakest among the three candidates- you have to wonder if that means some folks planning to vote for him are more anti-McAuliffe than anything else and waiting to see who has the best chance of beating him at the end. By most measures Deeds fits that bill at this point.
Still, the fact that the pendulum shifted from McAuliffe to Deeds so rapidly is a lesson that it can also swing back toward McAuliffe or Moran equally as fast. I almost always feel confident that a Saturday/Sunday poll the weekend before the election reflects people's final choices but this is one case where there are so few voters with hardened opinions that even something minor in the last 48 hours before folks go to the polls could somehow shift the balance- it wouldn't take much.
NC tepid on Sotomayor Confirmation
Just 39% of North Carolina voters say they think the Senate should confirm Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, while 43% say it should not and 18% are unsure.
It's pretty easy to pinpoint why the numbers break down that way. Republicans in the state are more opposed to her confirmation than Democrats are supportive of it. 72% of GOP voters say the Senate should turn her down with only 13% expressing a desire for approval. Among Democrats 59% think she should be confirmed and 24% are opposed. Independents are almost evenly split with 37% opposing Sotomayor and 33% in favor.
There is a gender gap in the numbers, although it is not huge. 47% of men think she should not be confirmed, while just 40% of women feel that way.
The bottom line on these numbers as it relates to Kay Hagan and Richard Burr is that with public opinion pretty much split on her in the state they don't really have anything to gain or lose no matter how they vote on her confirmation.
Full results here.
It's pretty easy to pinpoint why the numbers break down that way. Republicans in the state are more opposed to her confirmation than Democrats are supportive of it. 72% of GOP voters say the Senate should turn her down with only 13% expressing a desire for approval. Among Democrats 59% think she should be confirmed and 24% are opposed. Independents are almost evenly split with 37% opposing Sotomayor and 33% in favor.
There is a gender gap in the numbers, although it is not huge. 47% of men think she should not be confirmed, while just 40% of women feel that way.
The bottom line on these numbers as it relates to Kay Hagan and Richard Burr is that with public opinion pretty much split on her in the state they don't really have anything to gain or lose no matter how they vote on her confirmation.
Full results here.
Stiller's Resignation
I was interested to see Laura Leslie report that Bonner Stiller ran for reelection last year even though he wanted to step down because Republicans were concerned about losing his seat.
It's true that this seat has been competitive in the not so distant past. Powerful Democrat David Redwine held it for years before losing it by just 169 votes in 2002 and then a slightly more conclusive 457 in 2004. Stiller was reelected by wide margins in 2006 and 2008 after Redwine stopped trying to get his seat back.
Still, I'm not sure how good of an opportunity there is for Democrats here even in an open seat situation. Brunswick County is certainly trending in a Republican direction. For instance let's took at the Presidential results there. In 2004 John Kerry lost the county by 21 points and in 2008 Barack Obama lost it by 17 points. So Obama's four point gain in that county runs well behind the more than 12 point gain he made relative to Kerry statewide that allowed him to win North Carolina. 53% of straight ticket voters in the county last year were Republicans even as just 40% were statewide.
That's not to say it's impossible for a Democrat to win here. Civitas' partisan index shows NC-17 as R+8 and there are Democrats representing comparably Republican districts, including Ray Warren's R+11 and Alice Underhill and Bob England's R+7's. But the trend for Democrats is not good here, and that's why I thought it was a little odd Republicans apparently goaded him to run again for fear of losing the seat. They would have to mess up pretty bad not to retain this district.
It's true that this seat has been competitive in the not so distant past. Powerful Democrat David Redwine held it for years before losing it by just 169 votes in 2002 and then a slightly more conclusive 457 in 2004. Stiller was reelected by wide margins in 2006 and 2008 after Redwine stopped trying to get his seat back.
Still, I'm not sure how good of an opportunity there is for Democrats here even in an open seat situation. Brunswick County is certainly trending in a Republican direction. For instance let's took at the Presidential results there. In 2004 John Kerry lost the county by 21 points and in 2008 Barack Obama lost it by 17 points. So Obama's four point gain in that county runs well behind the more than 12 point gain he made relative to Kerry statewide that allowed him to win North Carolina. 53% of straight ticket voters in the county last year were Republicans even as just 40% were statewide.
That's not to say it's impossible for a Democrat to win here. Civitas' partisan index shows NC-17 as R+8 and there are Democrats representing comparably Republican districts, including Ray Warren's R+11 and Alice Underhill and Bob England's R+7's. But the trend for Democrats is not good here, and that's why I thought it was a little odd Republicans apparently goaded him to run again for fear of losing the seat. They would have to mess up pretty bad not to retain this district.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
More WaPo Silliness
Yesterday Brian Moran's campaign released not exactly a topline number on the horse race so much as a crosstab, showing that he was leading the field among voters who had participated in a Democratic primary prior to last year's contest for President. Although we don't know how many people will turn out next week whose only prior primary voting experience was the Obama/Clinton race it's likely there will be a good number of them, meaning that what Moran released covers only a portion of the electorate. Our polling has found that the 2008 only voters are more partial to Terry McAuliffe. So what the Moran campaign did, and it's perfectly reasonable, is release numbers covering a certain segment of the electorate that is favorable to them.
What I found amusing is the way the Washington Post covered the Moran campaign's release and our poll. When I read The Fix this morning before I went to work there was a brief item on our poll and the Moran release pointing out that Creigh Deeds seems to have the momentum in the race. But when I looked at it again a couple hours ago this notice had been appended to the item:
What I found amusing is the way the Washington Post covered the Moran campaign's release and our poll. When I read The Fix this morning before I went to work there was a brief item on our poll and the Moran release pointing out that Creigh Deeds seems to have the momentum in the race. But when I looked at it again a couple hours ago this notice had been appended to the item:
(AN IMPORTANT NOTE: The following item makes reference to a Public Policy Polling survey that shows Creigh Deeds leading the Democratic primary. The current policy of the Washington Post -- as outlined by pollster Jon Cohen in a recent piece -- is not to report on this so-called "robo" polling due to questions about its methodology. The Fix did report this data for two reasons: 1. Through a lack of thoroughness on our part we were unaware of the Post policy 2. Conversations with several people involved in the primary and familiar with internal polling numbers confirmed that Deeds was indeed building momentum.)So apparently at some point this morning the WaPo poll police got to Chris Cillizza. What I found amusing about this is that whoever complained to Cillizza about our poll apparently did not require him to post a similar addendum pointing out that Moran's poll only covered part of the electorate and not the entire spectrum of likely voters for next Tuesday.
I think most observers would agree that an independent poll with full demographic and crosstab information released and conducted of the entire primary electorate is more reliable than a campaign's selective release of numbers from a favorable portion of primary voters, and most of the Virginia media poll coverage this morning reflected that. But apparently ours is the one that the Post thinks its readers need to be warned against while no comment is made on how selective Moran's release is.
Electability in Virginia
One of the knocks against Terry McAuliffe as a potential Democratic nominee for Governor in Virginia has been that he would be unelectable in the general election. And on the surface our polling from the last four months would seem to corroborate that, with more than a third of the Democratic primary electorate saying it has a negative opinion of McAuliffe, more than Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran combined.
But when we asked folks on our most recent poll if they would vote for Deeds/McAuliffe/Moran in the general election if each of them was the Democratic nominee the differences weren't all that great. 19% of primary voters said they would not support McAuliffe in November, compared to 17% for Moran, and 12% for Deeds. That's all within the margin of error.
Party unity should not be a big problem for Democrats regardless of who ends up winning on Tuesday. The proportion of primary voters saying they won't vote for a potential nominee are always a lot higher during the middle of a heated primary than they end up being in November, and the number of Dems saying they'll refuse to support any of the contenders in the general is pretty low to begin with.
One thing that is interesting in the numbers and bodes well for Deeds if he ends up with the nomination is that he does better than the other two with the independents planning to vote in the Democratic primary on this measure. 29% say they won't vote for McAuliffe in the fall and 21% say the same of Moran but just 5% express that sentiment when it comes to Deeds.
Taken all together though, November electability doesn't appear to be something savvy Virginia Democrats necessarily need to use as part of their criteria in deciding who to vote for on Tuesday.
Full results here.
But when we asked folks on our most recent poll if they would vote for Deeds/McAuliffe/Moran in the general election if each of them was the Democratic nominee the differences weren't all that great. 19% of primary voters said they would not support McAuliffe in November, compared to 17% for Moran, and 12% for Deeds. That's all within the margin of error.
Party unity should not be a big problem for Democrats regardless of who ends up winning on Tuesday. The proportion of primary voters saying they won't vote for a potential nominee are always a lot higher during the middle of a heated primary than they end up being in November, and the number of Dems saying they'll refuse to support any of the contenders in the general is pretty low to begin with.
One thing that is interesting in the numbers and bodes well for Deeds if he ends up with the nomination is that he does better than the other two with the independents planning to vote in the Democratic primary on this measure. 29% say they won't vote for McAuliffe in the fall and 21% say the same of Moran but just 5% express that sentiment when it comes to Deeds.
Taken all together though, November electability doesn't appear to be something savvy Virginia Democrats necessarily need to use as part of their criteria in deciding who to vote for on Tuesday.
Full results here.
Burr coverage off the mark
Most of the media coverage, both from Washington and within the state, about Richard Burr's situation for next year completely misses the point. Conventional wisdom is so deeply ingrained in people that even when an election completely shatters it- like the North Carolina Senate election last year- people seem to go right back to it. That's very much true with today's Real Clear Politics story about the race.
First, it declares that Richard Burr does not have the same problems Elizabeth Dole did. Actually he does. Dole's problem was that she was so weakly defined with the electorate that when the DSCC started attacking her in August people believed it, because she hadn't given them any reason to see otherwise. Burr has exactly the same problem. A third of voters in our polls have no opinion about him. Civitas' polls have tended to show closer to 50% with no opinion about him. When you have not crafted an image of yourself with the electorate, you give someone else the opportunity to. Burr's 'issues' will be whatever the DSCC and his opponent decides they are unless he does a lot more to define himself with the voters in the next year. But that's not really going to start happening in a broad sense until the last few months before the election.
The same 'experts' writing these stories and giving these quotes are probably the same ones who said Dole was going to coast to reelection because she had a 14 point lead on July 1st. Well she was highly malleable and trailed Kay Hagan by three points by the end of August. When you haven't caught the voters' attention your fortunes can shift really fast, and our numbers consistently show Burr in an even weaker position on that front than Dole was. I don't know what's going to get thrown at Burr but the DSCC showed last year it is quite adept at making use of what's out there, such as effectiveness rankings.
Second, this continuing thought that Democrats are in trouble because they haven't landed a 'name' challenger yet is ridiculous. Every single story written about Burr's status should point out that Hagan didn't join the race until October. That's still four months away. And she certainly wasn't a name challenger. Gary Pearce is the only person I've seen who really seems to get this. Our poll last week showed that two sentences of Cal Cunningham's biography gave him better numbers than almost every prominent Democrat we've polled, including several statewide officials and members of Congress. Cooper would clearly have been the best possible candidate but beyond him I think any Democrat who can raise money and has a story to tell is going to start in a roughly similar position.
We saw all these things to be true in 2008, yet the press coverage still comes across with a very 2007 mentality.
First, it declares that Richard Burr does not have the same problems Elizabeth Dole did. Actually he does. Dole's problem was that she was so weakly defined with the electorate that when the DSCC started attacking her in August people believed it, because she hadn't given them any reason to see otherwise. Burr has exactly the same problem. A third of voters in our polls have no opinion about him. Civitas' polls have tended to show closer to 50% with no opinion about him. When you have not crafted an image of yourself with the electorate, you give someone else the opportunity to. Burr's 'issues' will be whatever the DSCC and his opponent decides they are unless he does a lot more to define himself with the voters in the next year. But that's not really going to start happening in a broad sense until the last few months before the election.
The same 'experts' writing these stories and giving these quotes are probably the same ones who said Dole was going to coast to reelection because she had a 14 point lead on July 1st. Well she was highly malleable and trailed Kay Hagan by three points by the end of August. When you haven't caught the voters' attention your fortunes can shift really fast, and our numbers consistently show Burr in an even weaker position on that front than Dole was. I don't know what's going to get thrown at Burr but the DSCC showed last year it is quite adept at making use of what's out there, such as effectiveness rankings.
Second, this continuing thought that Democrats are in trouble because they haven't landed a 'name' challenger yet is ridiculous. Every single story written about Burr's status should point out that Hagan didn't join the race until October. That's still four months away. And she certainly wasn't a name challenger. Gary Pearce is the only person I've seen who really seems to get this. Our poll last week showed that two sentences of Cal Cunningham's biography gave him better numbers than almost every prominent Democrat we've polled, including several statewide officials and members of Congress. Cooper would clearly have been the best possible candidate but beyond him I think any Democrat who can raise money and has a story to tell is going to start in a roughly similar position.
We saw all these things to be true in 2008, yet the press coverage still comes across with a very 2007 mentality.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
If Shuler runs for the Senate...
Today and tomorrow I'm going to look at what could happen with Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre's House seats if either of them runs for the Senate next year. Today I'm going to deal with Shuler's.
The 11th is a Republican district and was represented by one from 1990 to 2006. But it is not overwhelmingly so by any means. Last year John McCain won it 52-47.
The district's population center and Democratic core is in Buncombe County. When Shuler beat Charles Taylor in 2006 a third of the vote was cast there and it provided most of Shuler's margin of victory. He took the district by 17,000 votes and won the county by 14,000 votes.
Because Buncombe County has become more reliably Democratic in recent election cycles, I think the party is better off in an open seat situation with a candidate who is from one of the redder, more rural parts of the district.
Two proven vote getters in that realm are state senators John Snow and Joe Sam Queen. In the North Carolina version of the PVI that Civitas produces each of their districts are R+6. There are only two Democratic senators representing districts more Republican than those. There are eight counties in Snow's district, which is completely contained within the 11th Congressional District. Last year Barack Obama lost all but one of them and Snow won all of them. Queen's district is not completely within the 11th, but he won in all four of the counties that are. These guys have already shown a consistent ability to win in territory that is not too friendly for Democrats.
If either of these folks ran and could have as much success within their districts in a Congressional race as they have had in their Senate races, you combine that with a typical strong Democratic performance in Buncombe County and you have a formula for victory. Another important thing about each of them, which will be an issue tomorrow when we discuss McIntyre's district, is that both of them are still young enough to be serious candidates for a higher office.
Jordan Schrader last week mentioned Senator Tom Apodaca and former House member Charles Thomas as candidates the NRCC might be interested in. I think Thomas is the more interesting of those two candidates because he's from Buncombe County (his district flipped when he didn't run for reelection) and he earned a reputation during his term in the legislature as more of an environmentalist than many within the Democratic caucus. His potential to do unusually well for a Republican in Buncombe would make him an interesting candidate, but it also should be noted that the GOP primary electorate within this district is extremely right wing (as evidenced by its nomination of Carl Mumpower last year) and Thomas might not be ideologically pure enough to win in May. Apodada represents a very Republican district and hasn't faced a Democratic challenge since 2004 so I really don't know enough to assess his chances.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of potential contenders and I welcome ideas in the comments about other candidates. But in looking at the big picture around this district I think it's entirely plausible Democrats could keep it even without Shuler as long as they nominate someone who can appeal beyond just Asheville.
The 11th is a Republican district and was represented by one from 1990 to 2006. But it is not overwhelmingly so by any means. Last year John McCain won it 52-47.
The district's population center and Democratic core is in Buncombe County. When Shuler beat Charles Taylor in 2006 a third of the vote was cast there and it provided most of Shuler's margin of victory. He took the district by 17,000 votes and won the county by 14,000 votes.
Because Buncombe County has become more reliably Democratic in recent election cycles, I think the party is better off in an open seat situation with a candidate who is from one of the redder, more rural parts of the district.
Two proven vote getters in that realm are state senators John Snow and Joe Sam Queen. In the North Carolina version of the PVI that Civitas produces each of their districts are R+6. There are only two Democratic senators representing districts more Republican than those. There are eight counties in Snow's district, which is completely contained within the 11th Congressional District. Last year Barack Obama lost all but one of them and Snow won all of them. Queen's district is not completely within the 11th, but he won in all four of the counties that are. These guys have already shown a consistent ability to win in territory that is not too friendly for Democrats.
If either of these folks ran and could have as much success within their districts in a Congressional race as they have had in their Senate races, you combine that with a typical strong Democratic performance in Buncombe County and you have a formula for victory. Another important thing about each of them, which will be an issue tomorrow when we discuss McIntyre's district, is that both of them are still young enough to be serious candidates for a higher office.
Jordan Schrader last week mentioned Senator Tom Apodaca and former House member Charles Thomas as candidates the NRCC might be interested in. I think Thomas is the more interesting of those two candidates because he's from Buncombe County (his district flipped when he didn't run for reelection) and he earned a reputation during his term in the legislature as more of an environmentalist than many within the Democratic caucus. His potential to do unusually well for a Republican in Buncombe would make him an interesting candidate, but it also should be noted that the GOP primary electorate within this district is extremely right wing (as evidenced by its nomination of Carl Mumpower last year) and Thomas might not be ideologically pure enough to win in May. Apodada represents a very Republican district and hasn't faced a Democratic challenge since 2004 so I really don't know enough to assess his chances.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of potential contenders and I welcome ideas in the comments about other candidates. But in looking at the big picture around this district I think it's entirely plausible Democrats could keep it even without Shuler as long as they nominate someone who can appeal beyond just Asheville.
West Virginia Results Show Conflicting Views
Post by Jonathan Crook, PPP Summer Fellow
West Virginia voters responded to our poll this week in a somewhat contradictory, but not uncommon, manner. They are heartily against the concept of public funding in general, but are in favor of seeking the results that public funding has created in other states for their own.
This state in particular has a rather interesting history of fund-raising and controversy in the elections for members of its highest court - the state Supreme Court of Appeals. Amidst all of the drama surrounding the arms race campaign spending, the conflicts of interests, and the recusals, one would think that the citizens of West Virginia would like to see a change.
According to our poll, they do. 67% of respondents would like to see stricter limits on campaign spending. 74% don't believe that candidates can accept funds from lawyers and law firms without creating conflicts of interests in the courtroom. 40% even think that a public finance system would reduce those conflicts, as opposed to 28% who don't.
West Virginia voters were also in great support of adopting a public finance program similar to that in North Carolina's state judicial system - with 73% saying they would be in favor of such a measure.
Even with all of this, however, when asked point-blank if they want public finance - the answer was a resounding "no." 56% don't agree with public finance in general, and only 25% are in favor of adopting a public finance system for Supreme Court of Appeals elections, even though these same citizens said that it would help later in the survey.
Obviously the terms here are loaded. "Public finance" may evoke very different reactions from different people. Hopefully the discourse on this matter, which is quite relevant in states like West Virginia and many others, won't be swayed by those who seek to exploit the initial reactions of buzzwords and rather take the time to talk about what these terms and policies really mean.
Full results here.
West Virginia voters responded to our poll this week in a somewhat contradictory, but not uncommon, manner. They are heartily against the concept of public funding in general, but are in favor of seeking the results that public funding has created in other states for their own.
This state in particular has a rather interesting history of fund-raising and controversy in the elections for members of its highest court - the state Supreme Court of Appeals. Amidst all of the drama surrounding the arms race campaign spending, the conflicts of interests, and the recusals, one would think that the citizens of West Virginia would like to see a change.
According to our poll, they do. 67% of respondents would like to see stricter limits on campaign spending. 74% don't believe that candidates can accept funds from lawyers and law firms without creating conflicts of interests in the courtroom. 40% even think that a public finance system would reduce those conflicts, as opposed to 28% who don't.
West Virginia voters were also in great support of adopting a public finance program similar to that in North Carolina's state judicial system - with 73% saying they would be in favor of such a measure.
Even with all of this, however, when asked point-blank if they want public finance - the answer was a resounding "no." 56% don't agree with public finance in general, and only 25% are in favor of adopting a public finance system for Supreme Court of Appeals elections, even though these same citizens said that it would help later in the survey.
Obviously the terms here are loaded. "Public finance" may evoke very different reactions from different people. Hopefully the discourse on this matter, which is quite relevant in states like West Virginia and many others, won't be swayed by those who seek to exploit the initial reactions of buzzwords and rather take the time to talk about what these terms and policies really mean.
Full results here.
Virginia Candidates Basically Tied
With a week to go until the Democratic primary for Governor in Virginia the state of the race is as muddled as ever, with all three candidates within five points of each other. Creigh Deeds has a slight lead with 27%, followed by Terry McAuliffe at 24%, and Brian Moran at 22%. All three candidates are within each other's margins of error and if the election was today any of the trio could plausibly finish first or last.
Nevertheless the momentum continues to be on Deeds' side. Over the last month he has gone from 14% to 20% to 27% in the polls while McAuliffe has dropped from 30% to 29% to 24% and Moran has pretty much stayed in place, polling twice at 20% and now up to 22%.
Two developments in the race appear to have fueled the movement over the last week and a half:
-Deeds' endorsement by the Washington Post has resulted in a significant increase in support in northern Virginia. He was polling at 11% there two weeks ago and that has more than doubled in the wake of the endorsement to 23%. With that region casting about 30% of the primary vote, more than half of his progress since the last poll has come there alone.
-McAuliffe has seen a decline in support in the Hampton Roads and greater Richmond areas since Brian Moran went on the airwaves with ads attacking him. He's dropped from 34 to 23% in Richmond and from 33 to 25% in Hampton Roads.
While the race is not trending well for McAuliffe it would be a mistake to count him out. Most of the interviews for this poll were conducted before he went on the air in Washington DC, and reports yesterday showed that he has almost as much money as his two opponents combined for the final week of the campaign.
There are a couple ways to look at that. You could argue that since McAuliffe has had a huge fundraising advantage all along and has not been able to put the race away that his stretch run spending won't be able to put him over the top, especially with Deeds and Moran having enough to run active campaigns in the final week as well. On the other hand the electorate in this race is remarkably fluid. We're still showing 26% of voters undecided and even among voters with a preference 44% say they could change their minds. There are a lot of folks who do plan to vote who have not been paying much attention and will tune in to make their decision in these closing days, and McAuliffe may have more of an ability to reach them. It's very hard to say how this will all play out.
Here are two key issues for each candidate in the final week:
Creigh Deeds:
-Black voters are undecided at a much higher rate than white voters, 36% compared to 22%, and he is running in third with that demographic. Can he capture enough of those voters for his lead among whites to hold off McAuliffe and Moran?
-Can he continue to build the momentum from the Post endorsement in northern Virginia? Moran is still going to win the region and McAuliffe is now running very expensive tv ads there. Deeds will need to at least hold onto the support he's built up there in recent weeks while trying to continue to build it.
Terry McAuliffe:
-Can he still afford to stay positive about his primary opponents? Some argue he's already broken that vow, but he could break it a lot more directly over the airwaves if he wanted to. He's seen his support drop as the only candidate in the race having attack ads run against him, and with his negatives higher than his two opponents combined he may need to knock them down to prop himself up. There's no virtue in being the good guy if it costs you the nomination.
-Is there any way he can win over independent voters? McAuliffe actually leads the race among Democrats with 26% to 24% for both Deeds and Moran. But with little reason to vote in the Republican primary it appears about 20% of the electorate next week will be independent voters, and Deeds is up 40-17 on him with those folks. Bob McDonnell's lack of opposition for the GOP nomination could have the unintended effect of hurting McAuliffe's chances.
Brian Moran:
-Can he translate his attacks on McAuliffe to votes for him? He seems to be having some success in driving down the front runner's support, but it seems to be benefiting Deeds at least as much if not more than he's helping himself. He needs to show voters not just why they shouldn't vote for McAuliffe, but also why he's the better alternative. In the last poll Moran led Deeds 40-35 among voters with an unfavorable opinion of McAuliffe. Now Deeds has the 47-36 advantage with that group.
-Is there any way he can do more to connect with the more conservative, rural part of the electorate? He's running at 5% Southside and only has the support of 9% of voters who describe their ideology as conservative. Those may not be huge voter blocs in a Democratic primary, but in a race as tight as this one every little thing has the potential to make a big difference.
In the Lieutenant Governor's race Jody Wagner has extended her lead to 27-11 over Michael Signer.
PPP will release numbers looking at how the Democratic electorate views each of the Gubernatorial candidates when it comes to the general election tomorrow, and a final primary poll either late Sunday night or Monday.
Full results here.
Nevertheless the momentum continues to be on Deeds' side. Over the last month he has gone from 14% to 20% to 27% in the polls while McAuliffe has dropped from 30% to 29% to 24% and Moran has pretty much stayed in place, polling twice at 20% and now up to 22%.
Two developments in the race appear to have fueled the movement over the last week and a half:
-Deeds' endorsement by the Washington Post has resulted in a significant increase in support in northern Virginia. He was polling at 11% there two weeks ago and that has more than doubled in the wake of the endorsement to 23%. With that region casting about 30% of the primary vote, more than half of his progress since the last poll has come there alone.
-McAuliffe has seen a decline in support in the Hampton Roads and greater Richmond areas since Brian Moran went on the airwaves with ads attacking him. He's dropped from 34 to 23% in Richmond and from 33 to 25% in Hampton Roads.
While the race is not trending well for McAuliffe it would be a mistake to count him out. Most of the interviews for this poll were conducted before he went on the air in Washington DC, and reports yesterday showed that he has almost as much money as his two opponents combined for the final week of the campaign.
There are a couple ways to look at that. You could argue that since McAuliffe has had a huge fundraising advantage all along and has not been able to put the race away that his stretch run spending won't be able to put him over the top, especially with Deeds and Moran having enough to run active campaigns in the final week as well. On the other hand the electorate in this race is remarkably fluid. We're still showing 26% of voters undecided and even among voters with a preference 44% say they could change their minds. There are a lot of folks who do plan to vote who have not been paying much attention and will tune in to make their decision in these closing days, and McAuliffe may have more of an ability to reach them. It's very hard to say how this will all play out.
Here are two key issues for each candidate in the final week:
Creigh Deeds:
-Black voters are undecided at a much higher rate than white voters, 36% compared to 22%, and he is running in third with that demographic. Can he capture enough of those voters for his lead among whites to hold off McAuliffe and Moran?
-Can he continue to build the momentum from the Post endorsement in northern Virginia? Moran is still going to win the region and McAuliffe is now running very expensive tv ads there. Deeds will need to at least hold onto the support he's built up there in recent weeks while trying to continue to build it.
Terry McAuliffe:
-Can he still afford to stay positive about his primary opponents? Some argue he's already broken that vow, but he could break it a lot more directly over the airwaves if he wanted to. He's seen his support drop as the only candidate in the race having attack ads run against him, and with his negatives higher than his two opponents combined he may need to knock them down to prop himself up. There's no virtue in being the good guy if it costs you the nomination.
-Is there any way he can win over independent voters? McAuliffe actually leads the race among Democrats with 26% to 24% for both Deeds and Moran. But with little reason to vote in the Republican primary it appears about 20% of the electorate next week will be independent voters, and Deeds is up 40-17 on him with those folks. Bob McDonnell's lack of opposition for the GOP nomination could have the unintended effect of hurting McAuliffe's chances.
Brian Moran:
-Can he translate his attacks on McAuliffe to votes for him? He seems to be having some success in driving down the front runner's support, but it seems to be benefiting Deeds at least as much if not more than he's helping himself. He needs to show voters not just why they shouldn't vote for McAuliffe, but also why he's the better alternative. In the last poll Moran led Deeds 40-35 among voters with an unfavorable opinion of McAuliffe. Now Deeds has the 47-36 advantage with that group.
-Is there any way he can do more to connect with the more conservative, rural part of the electorate? He's running at 5% Southside and only has the support of 9% of voters who describe their ideology as conservative. Those may not be huge voter blocs in a Democratic primary, but in a race as tight as this one every little thing has the potential to make a big difference.
In the Lieutenant Governor's race Jody Wagner has extended her lead to 27-11 over Michael Signer.
PPP will release numbers looking at how the Democratic electorate views each of the Gubernatorial candidates when it comes to the general election tomorrow, and a final primary poll either late Sunday night or Monday.
Full results here.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Virginia Poll Tomorrow
Our penultimate Virginia poll will come out tomorrow morning. Two major trends appear to have driven movement in the race over the last week and a half and it's safe to say any of the candidates could win next week.
When Terry McAuliffe first talked about entering this race last summer, my immediate thought was that it reminded me of Janet Reno's run for Governor of Florida in 2002. Although she had much stronger ties to that state than McAuliffe does to Virginia, it was still an instance of somebody who had built their name in Washington hoping that would translate into votes back at the state level, a formula that doesn't have a lot of successful precedents.
The arc of this primary contest has been pretty similar to Reno's. Reno had a large lead in the polls over competitor Bill McBride for most of 2002, just as McAuliffe held a lead between 9 and 16 points in every independent public poll conducted between April 25th and May 21st. But Reno's lead proved to be fragile, polls in the week before the election surprisingly showed the contest within the margin of error, and McBride ended up winning a most unexpected victory.
The fact that McAuliffe has bought expensive air time in Washington DC for this final week seems to be a clear indication he knows he doesn't have this race wrapped up- it will be interesting to see if this celebrity candidate can avoid Reno's fate and pull it out in the closing days.
When Terry McAuliffe first talked about entering this race last summer, my immediate thought was that it reminded me of Janet Reno's run for Governor of Florida in 2002. Although she had much stronger ties to that state than McAuliffe does to Virginia, it was still an instance of somebody who had built their name in Washington hoping that would translate into votes back at the state level, a formula that doesn't have a lot of successful precedents.
The arc of this primary contest has been pretty similar to Reno's. Reno had a large lead in the polls over competitor Bill McBride for most of 2002, just as McAuliffe held a lead between 9 and 16 points in every independent public poll conducted between April 25th and May 21st. But Reno's lead proved to be fragile, polls in the week before the election surprisingly showed the contest within the margin of error, and McBride ended up winning a most unexpected victory.
The fact that McAuliffe has bought expensive air time in Washington DC for this final week seems to be a clear indication he knows he doesn't have this race wrapped up- it will be interesting to see if this celebrity candidate can avoid Reno's fate and pull it out in the closing days.
More on Sin Taxes
In April we looked at Bev Perdue's proposals for increases in the alcohol and cigarette taxes and found 53-60% support for them.
We did a poll last week asking about them again, specifically asking voters if they would be supportive if such hikes could help reduce cuts to early childhood education. When you put it that way 67% of voters in the state are supportive.
When you poll about taxation you're always going to get lower levels of support if you don't provide any context about what the benefits of an increase could be. The fact that the alcohol and cigarette proposals got majority support in April without any of that information, and that support increases to 2/3rds when you name a potential positive of such a raise, is a clear indication that sin tax increases would be pretty safe politically.
This most recent poll also found that only 21% of voters in the state think that early childhood education is a good place to cut funding this year, that 87% of voters in the state think public funding for it is at least somewhat important, and that 74% of voters believe cuts to early childhood and higher education should be equitable. North Carolina's last two Governors made this issue a hallmark of their administrations, and it appears that even in tough times it remains a top priority for the state's voters.
Full results here
We did a poll last week asking about them again, specifically asking voters if they would be supportive if such hikes could help reduce cuts to early childhood education. When you put it that way 67% of voters in the state are supportive.
When you poll about taxation you're always going to get lower levels of support if you don't provide any context about what the benefits of an increase could be. The fact that the alcohol and cigarette proposals got majority support in April without any of that information, and that support increases to 2/3rds when you name a potential positive of such a raise, is a clear indication that sin tax increases would be pretty safe politically.
This most recent poll also found that only 21% of voters in the state think that early childhood education is a good place to cut funding this year, that 87% of voters in the state think public funding for it is at least somewhat important, and that 74% of voters believe cuts to early childhood and higher education should be equitable. North Carolina's last two Governors made this issue a hallmark of their administrations, and it appears that even in tough times it remains a top priority for the state's voters.
Full results here
Obama not popular in WV, state officials are
Last year Barack Obama got just 43% of the vote in West Virginia and now a little more than four months into his Presidency his approval rating lags even that. Just 39% of voters in the state give him good marks with 50% saying they disapprove of his performance.
Obama's trouble here, as it was in November, is that there are an abnormally large number of Democrats who aren't supporting him. While his approval rating nationally within the party is in the 80s or higher, just 61% of West Virginia Democrats say they approve of him. He also has unusually poor reviews from independents with 53% disapproving and just 33% approving. He has a pretty standard low approval from Republicans of 11%.
Some observers might look at these numbers and be tempted to just declare that West Virginia is racist, but Obama's numbers among white voters here are almost identical to what they are in North Carolina where his overall approval numbers are quite good. The simple difference is that more than 20% of North Carolina's population is black while less than 5% of West Virginia's is, and in conservative states with small African American populations Obama just isn't going to get particularly favorable reviews.
The state's Governor and Senators all enjoy strong approval from their constituents. Joe Manchin has a 53% approval rating with 34% dissenting. In a time when many Governors are taking a hit in the court of public opinion as they share in the blame for the economy, Manchin ranks 3rd out of 11 for popularity among the Governors PPP has polled on in the last year. Manchin has less of a partisan gap in his approval numbers than almost any politician PPP has polled on recently, as 62% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans give him good reviews. Often that disparity is more like 80% among Democrats and 20% among Republicans.
Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller are both in the top third of approval ratings among 26 Senators PPP has polled on recently, with Byrd at 53% and Rockefeller at 52%. Their patterns of popularity are very similar, both meeting with support from about 75% of Democrats, 25-30% of Republicans, and 35-40% of independents.
Full results here
Obama's trouble here, as it was in November, is that there are an abnormally large number of Democrats who aren't supporting him. While his approval rating nationally within the party is in the 80s or higher, just 61% of West Virginia Democrats say they approve of him. He also has unusually poor reviews from independents with 53% disapproving and just 33% approving. He has a pretty standard low approval from Republicans of 11%.
Some observers might look at these numbers and be tempted to just declare that West Virginia is racist, but Obama's numbers among white voters here are almost identical to what they are in North Carolina where his overall approval numbers are quite good. The simple difference is that more than 20% of North Carolina's population is black while less than 5% of West Virginia's is, and in conservative states with small African American populations Obama just isn't going to get particularly favorable reviews.
The state's Governor and Senators all enjoy strong approval from their constituents. Joe Manchin has a 53% approval rating with 34% dissenting. In a time when many Governors are taking a hit in the court of public opinion as they share in the blame for the economy, Manchin ranks 3rd out of 11 for popularity among the Governors PPP has polled on in the last year. Manchin has less of a partisan gap in his approval numbers than almost any politician PPP has polled on recently, as 62% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans give him good reviews. Often that disparity is more like 80% among Democrats and 20% among Republicans.
Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller are both in the top third of approval ratings among 26 Senators PPP has polled on recently, with Byrd at 53% and Rockefeller at 52%. Their patterns of popularity are very similar, both meeting with support from about 75% of Democrats, 25-30% of Republicans, and 35-40% of independents.
Full results here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
