If you are in power, voters will think you're corrupt.
That's one of the lessons from a question we asked on our most recent North Carolina poll that we had also asked in July of 2008. When asked whether they thought Washington Democrats, Washington Republicans, Raleigh Democrats, or Raleigh Republicans were the most corrupt group of politicians DC Dems led the way with 36% to 33% for DC Republicans.
That's a reversal from when we asked it 13 months ago and found Washington Republicans in the lead with 43% to 35% for Washington Democrats.
There really haven't been any major scandals for President Obama or Congressional Democrats since the party gained power but having control in and of itself seems to have been enough to move those numbers.
One thing that hasn't changed at all is that despite a rash of scandals or quasi scandals at the state level, voters are still considerably more likely to associate corruption with Washington DC than Raleigh. 69% of respondents said that either the Democrats or Republicans in Washington were the most crooked, compared to just 15% picking one of the groups in Raleigh.
Asked straight up about corruption in the state capital though 44% of respondents said it applied more to Democrats while 26% said Republicans. That's a bit of a change from past polling that's been conducted on the issue and may be a reflection of Mike Easley's woes. Voters didn't know who Jim Black was but they do know who Easley is and even if what he's been accused of are comparatively benign offenses it does seem to have increased public perceptions that Democrats are the more corrupt party in Raleigh.
As you might expect Democratic voters think Republicans are more corrupt and Republican voters think Democrats are more corrupt. Independents deliver a split verdict, saying that Republicans are more corrupt in Washington but that Democrats are more corrupt in Raleigh.
Full results here
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The Daggett Effect
Independent Chris Daggett is polling at 13% in our New Jersey survey this week. That's obviously an eye opener but keep this in mind: while 84% of Chris Christie's supporters and 81% of Jon Corzine's supporters say they will definitely vote for them, only 47% of Daggett's say they'll do the same for him. A lot of folks saying they're going to support him right now are voters who dislike both major party candidates and are more or less 'parked' with Daggett but will probably end up voting for Christie or Corzine in the end. It's unlikely Daggett will really end up pulling double digits, but it does seem likely he'll have an impact on the race.
So what exactly is that impact?
There's a strong argument both that he's hurting Christie and that he's hurting Corzine.
Let's start with the incumbent. Daggett's voters say they went for Corzine 55-37 over Doug Forrester in 2005 and that they voted 57-32 for Barack Obama last fall. 47% of them are Democrats and just 18% are Republicans. Based on all that you would think they're taking from Corzine.
But we also asked Daggett supporters who their second choice would be. And 48% of them said Christie to just 32% for Corzine, seeming to indicate that it's actually the Republican being hurt by the unusually strong independent.
The answer may be a little more nuanced than a simple conclusion that Daggett is hurting either Christie or Corzine. It looks like he's picking up disaffected progressives who can't quite bring themselves to vote for a Republican. So he's hurting Corzine because these voters should be his base but he's also hurting Christie because if he wasn't in the race those voters might be eager enough for change that they would cross over and vote for him.
All things considered his presence in the race may come out to just about a wash.
Full results here
So what exactly is that impact?
There's a strong argument both that he's hurting Christie and that he's hurting Corzine.
Let's start with the incumbent. Daggett's voters say they went for Corzine 55-37 over Doug Forrester in 2005 and that they voted 57-32 for Barack Obama last fall. 47% of them are Democrats and just 18% are Republicans. Based on all that you would think they're taking from Corzine.
But we also asked Daggett supporters who their second choice would be. And 48% of them said Christie to just 32% for Corzine, seeming to indicate that it's actually the Republican being hurt by the unusually strong independent.
The answer may be a little more nuanced than a simple conclusion that Daggett is hurting either Christie or Corzine. It looks like he's picking up disaffected progressives who can't quite bring themselves to vote for a Republican. So he's hurting Corzine because these voters should be his base but he's also hurting Christie because if he wasn't in the race those voters might be eager enough for change that they would cross over and vote for him.
All things considered his presence in the race may come out to just about a wash.
Full results here
Christie continues to lead
New Jersey voters have a dimmer view of both Jon Corzine and Chris Christie since PPP last polled the state in late July but the overall picture remains the same with the Republican challenger holding a 44-35 lead over the Democratic incumbent.
The race has tightened a little bit since the last poll when Christie led 50-36. Independent Chris Daggett is polling at 13%.
There are several major reasons for Corzine's deficit:
-Christie has a 48-29 lead with independents. 74% of them say they have an unfavorable opinion of Corzine.
-Christie is winning 79% of the Republican vote while Corzine is at just 64% with Democrats.
-Just 62% of respondents who report having voted for Corzine in 2005 say they plan to do so again, while he's won over only 4% of Doug Forrester's voters.
-Perhaps due to a lack of enthusiasm for Corzine with the Democratic base it appears the electorate will be much more Republican than is typical for New Jersey...likely voters for this fall say they voted for Barack Obama by a margin of only 48-46 even though he won the state 57-42 last year.
Negative attacks appear to be succeeding in hurting both candidates' standing with the voters. Christie's favorability is now 45/41, after it was 42/32 in July. Corzine's gone from 33/56 to 32/60.
How susceptible are these numbers to change? 28% of voters are either undecided or open to changing their minds between now and the election. If you look at the race just among voters who say they've absolutely decided who they're going to vote for Christie leads with 37% to 29% for Corzine and 6% for Daggett.
Those persuadable voters are a pretty Democratic leaning group. They voted for Barack Obama 53-36 last year, supported Corzine 56-29 in 2005, and 39% of them are Democrats compared to just 20% who are Republicans.
You'd think all that would add up to them being more inclined to vote for Corzine. But 61% of them have an unfavorable opinion of him. Of course 44% of them have an unfavorable opinion of Christie too, which is why a lot of them say they're planning to vote for Daggett right now.
So what's the bottom line here? It's unlikely at this point that Corzine's going to be able to convince voters to pick him because they like him. And while his initial salvos against Christie have helped tighten the race, it hasn't been nearly enough. So he's going to need to do two things to pull this one out. First is hit Christie with something in October that has a stronger impact than any of the attacks so far. Corzine probably can't win unless more than half the voters have an unfavorable opinion of Christie too. And the second is to change the electorate by getting Democrats more excited about his candidacy.
It's an uphill battle but if there's one state where Democrats should never be counted out to make a late comeback it's New Jersey.
The race has tightened a little bit since the last poll when Christie led 50-36. Independent Chris Daggett is polling at 13%.
There are several major reasons for Corzine's deficit:
-Christie has a 48-29 lead with independents. 74% of them say they have an unfavorable opinion of Corzine.
-Christie is winning 79% of the Republican vote while Corzine is at just 64% with Democrats.
-Just 62% of respondents who report having voted for Corzine in 2005 say they plan to do so again, while he's won over only 4% of Doug Forrester's voters.
-Perhaps due to a lack of enthusiasm for Corzine with the Democratic base it appears the electorate will be much more Republican than is typical for New Jersey...likely voters for this fall say they voted for Barack Obama by a margin of only 48-46 even though he won the state 57-42 last year.
Negative attacks appear to be succeeding in hurting both candidates' standing with the voters. Christie's favorability is now 45/41, after it was 42/32 in July. Corzine's gone from 33/56 to 32/60.
How susceptible are these numbers to change? 28% of voters are either undecided or open to changing their minds between now and the election. If you look at the race just among voters who say they've absolutely decided who they're going to vote for Christie leads with 37% to 29% for Corzine and 6% for Daggett.
Those persuadable voters are a pretty Democratic leaning group. They voted for Barack Obama 53-36 last year, supported Corzine 56-29 in 2005, and 39% of them are Democrats compared to just 20% who are Republicans.
You'd think all that would add up to them being more inclined to vote for Corzine. But 61% of them have an unfavorable opinion of him. Of course 44% of them have an unfavorable opinion of Christie too, which is why a lot of them say they're planning to vote for Daggett right now.
So what's the bottom line here? It's unlikely at this point that Corzine's going to be able to convince voters to pick him because they like him. And while his initial salvos against Christie have helped tighten the race, it hasn't been nearly enough. So he's going to need to do two things to pull this one out. First is hit Christie with something in October that has a stronger impact than any of the attacks so far. Corzine probably can't win unless more than half the voters have an unfavorable opinion of Christie too. And the second is to change the electorate by getting Democrats more excited about his candidacy.
It's an uphill battle but if there's one state where Democrats should never be counted out to make a late comeback it's New Jersey.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Enthusiasm Gap in New Jersey
There's been a lot of discussion of the enthusiasm gap in Virginia and the possibility that Creigh Deeds might lose not because a lot of Obama voters support Bob McDonnell but because they don't show up to vote period.
The New Jersey poll we'll be releasing tomorrow finds that's part of the problem for Jon Corzine as well.
Last year Barack Obama beat John McCain 57-42 in New Jersey, winning a little over 2.2 million votes to a little over 1.6 million for his opponent.
When it comes to the likely voters for this year's election though, they report having voted for Obama by a margin of just 48-46.
Let's put that into some additional perspective. There are about 2.2 million voters in your average New Jersey Gubernatorial election. So if our numbers are right 1,056,000 of them would be Obama voters and 1,012,000 of them would be McCain voters.
1,056,000 out of the 2,200,000 people who voted for Obama in the state last year means about 48% of his voters are planning to come back out. But 1,012,000 of the 1,600,000 who voted for John McCain means roughly 63% of his supporters are planning to vote this fall.
That in and of itself would be a pretty big problem for Corzine. But unlike in Virginia where Creigh Deeds has the Obama voted locked up pretty much as well as Bob McDonnell has the McCain vote locked up, Corzine is winning only 63% of the Obama vote while Christie is taking 76% of the McCain vote.
So it's certainly an uphill battle for Corzine to get reelected.
The New Jersey poll we'll be releasing tomorrow finds that's part of the problem for Jon Corzine as well.
Last year Barack Obama beat John McCain 57-42 in New Jersey, winning a little over 2.2 million votes to a little over 1.6 million for his opponent.
When it comes to the likely voters for this year's election though, they report having voted for Obama by a margin of just 48-46.
Let's put that into some additional perspective. There are about 2.2 million voters in your average New Jersey Gubernatorial election. So if our numbers are right 1,056,000 of them would be Obama voters and 1,012,000 of them would be McCain voters.
1,056,000 out of the 2,200,000 people who voted for Obama in the state last year means about 48% of his voters are planning to come back out. But 1,012,000 of the 1,600,000 who voted for John McCain means roughly 63% of his supporters are planning to vote this fall.
That in and of itself would be a pretty big problem for Corzine. But unlike in Virginia where Creigh Deeds has the Obama voted locked up pretty much as well as Bob McDonnell has the McCain vote locked up, Corzine is winning only 63% of the Obama vote while Christie is taking 76% of the McCain vote.
So it's certainly an uphill battle for Corzine to get reelected.
Burr leads in crossover support
Richard Burr's approval rating with Democrats is 20%. That's not very good. But it's good enough to make him by far the politician with the greatest amount of bipartisan support among North Carolina's top statewide officials.
That's because Republicans in the state like all of the Democratic politicians even less. Barack Obama's rating with them is 9%, while Bev Perdue and Kay Hagan are both at 8%.
Since Jim Hunt won reelection with 62% of the vote in 1980, nobody's crossed 56% in a Gubernatorial or Senate election in the state, showing an amazing level of parity between the parties.
These numbers are a good prism into that. North Carolina Republicans are hyper partisan and almost never cross over to support Democrats in races for major offices like Governor and Senator. North Carolina Democrats are at least a little bit more inclined to do so, and that's why Republicans tend to remain competitive in statewide elections despite the continuing strong Democratic registration advantage.
Kay Hagan won an unusually lopsided victory last year by the recent standards of statewide elections but it wasn't because she got an inordinate amount of Republican votes- rather it was because she kept Elizabeth Dole to a not good enough 14% of the vote among registered Democrats. If Dole had been up around that 20% where Burr is the race would have been a toss up.
As long as Republicans in the state continue to completely hate Democrats and Democrats continue to be somewhat more open to crossing over, we're going to keep on having hyper competitive elections every time around.
That's because Republicans in the state like all of the Democratic politicians even less. Barack Obama's rating with them is 9%, while Bev Perdue and Kay Hagan are both at 8%.
Since Jim Hunt won reelection with 62% of the vote in 1980, nobody's crossed 56% in a Gubernatorial or Senate election in the state, showing an amazing level of parity between the parties.
These numbers are a good prism into that. North Carolina Republicans are hyper partisan and almost never cross over to support Democrats in races for major offices like Governor and Senator. North Carolina Democrats are at least a little bit more inclined to do so, and that's why Republicans tend to remain competitive in statewide elections despite the continuing strong Democratic registration advantage.
Kay Hagan won an unusually lopsided victory last year by the recent standards of statewide elections but it wasn't because she got an inordinate amount of Republican votes- rather it was because she kept Elizabeth Dole to a not good enough 14% of the vote among registered Democrats. If Dole had been up around that 20% where Burr is the race would have been a toss up.
As long as Republicans in the state continue to completely hate Democrats and Democrats continue to be somewhat more open to crossing over, we're going to keep on having hyper competitive elections every time around.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
And the finalists are...
It's time for another round of 'vote on where we poll.' Thanks for all the great nominations. Voting will be open until Wednesday, then we'll do the survey next weekend and start releasing it a week from Tuesday.
The finalists are:
-Arizona. This is my personal favorite, as it was last month, because I think there's a lot of interesting material here. Number one is the Governor's race- Jan Brewer may be vulnerable both in the primary and in the general election. Number two is Obama's standing- for the most part I'm not into state level 2012 Presidential polling right now but we'd make an exception here because without John McCain at the top of the ticket this might be one of the most flippable states. And I'm also interested in McCain himself- how strong is his primary challenge and does he have any general election vulnerability? We'll test Janet Napolitano against him because nothing's ever impossible, but are there any more realistic people worth testing?
-California. I'm still interested in whether the Rasmussen poll showing Carly Fiorina within four points of Barbara Boxer had any merit to it and obviously the Governor's race is interesting too.
-Georgia. For most of the first half of 2009 I felt this was the Senate pick up possibility for 2010 that Democrats should have been paying attention to but weren't. That's mostly because we found Johnny Isakson with a 30% approval rating last fall and a high level of ambivalence toward him- very Burr like numbers. The downward trend for Democrats nationally has me less bullish on the potential competitiveness there but if things go back in the other direction I want to see if it's still a race worth watching. We'd probably look at some of the candidates in the crowded Democratic field for Governor against Isakson.
-Missouri. We haven't seen any polling on the Robin Carnahan-Roy Blunt match up since the Democratic recession started and I'm curious as to whether she's feeling it like everyone else.
-Ohio. We polled here three months ago and found John Kasich within the margin of error against Ted Strickland. I wouldn't be surprised given the way everything else has shifted since then if the GOP has the lead in that race now. Jennifer Brunner and Lee Fisher had solid leads over Rob Portman back then, and I wonder if that's changed as well.
Vote at the top of the page by 11 AM Wednesday morning!
The finalists are:
-Arizona. This is my personal favorite, as it was last month, because I think there's a lot of interesting material here. Number one is the Governor's race- Jan Brewer may be vulnerable both in the primary and in the general election. Number two is Obama's standing- for the most part I'm not into state level 2012 Presidential polling right now but we'd make an exception here because without John McCain at the top of the ticket this might be one of the most flippable states. And I'm also interested in McCain himself- how strong is his primary challenge and does he have any general election vulnerability? We'll test Janet Napolitano against him because nothing's ever impossible, but are there any more realistic people worth testing?
-California. I'm still interested in whether the Rasmussen poll showing Carly Fiorina within four points of Barbara Boxer had any merit to it and obviously the Governor's race is interesting too.
-Georgia. For most of the first half of 2009 I felt this was the Senate pick up possibility for 2010 that Democrats should have been paying attention to but weren't. That's mostly because we found Johnny Isakson with a 30% approval rating last fall and a high level of ambivalence toward him- very Burr like numbers. The downward trend for Democrats nationally has me less bullish on the potential competitiveness there but if things go back in the other direction I want to see if it's still a race worth watching. We'd probably look at some of the candidates in the crowded Democratic field for Governor against Isakson.
-Missouri. We haven't seen any polling on the Robin Carnahan-Roy Blunt match up since the Democratic recession started and I'm curious as to whether she's feeling it like everyone else.
-Ohio. We polled here three months ago and found John Kasich within the margin of error against Ted Strickland. I wouldn't be surprised given the way everything else has shifted since then if the GOP has the lead in that race now. Jennifer Brunner and Lee Fisher had solid leads over Rob Portman back then, and I wonder if that's changed as well.
Vote at the top of the page by 11 AM Wednesday morning!
Friday, September 11, 2009
An important finding
A couple weeks ago I wrote that among poll respondents who approved of Barack Obama's job performance support for him on health care was only in the 70s. At the same time opposition to it ran from 95% on up.
The latter fact hasn't changed. But 88% of Obama fans said they approved of his health care plan on the SC-2 poll. That's nine points higher than anywhere else we polled on it recently. We'll see if New Jersey holds up that trend, but if it's real then the enthusiasm gap we've been seeing between Democrats and Republicans on this issue could be a thing of the past.
The latter fact hasn't changed. But 88% of Obama fans said they approved of his health care plan on the SC-2 poll. That's nine points higher than anywhere else we polled on it recently. We'll see if New Jersey holds up that trend, but if it's real then the enthusiasm gap we've been seeing between Democrats and Republicans on this issue could be a thing of the past.
More on the SC Poll
So much to digest on this poll, which is why we usually release them over multiple days:
-Mark Sanford's approval rating is 31% in the district with 59% of voters disapproving of him. SC-2 voted pretty similarly to statewide trends last year so I'm guessing that's about where his numbers are statewide. A slight 51% majority thinks he should resign. 70% of Democrats and 47% of independents but only 37% of Republicans think he needs to go. Wonder what those same folks thought about Bill Clinton?
-Less than half of Republicans think Obama's speech to the schoolchildren on Tuesday was appropriate. 46% say it was, 40% say it wasn't. 93% of Democrats and 69% of independents think it was fine, making the overall numbers 68% thinking it was appropriate and 22% thinking it was not. The 22% thinking it was not perhaps not so coincidentally aligns with the 22% of respondents who thought Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
-Voters give pretty contradictory answers to health care questions. They narrowly support a public option, 44-39. When you instead describe it as 'a health insurance plan that would allow people who can't afford health insurance elsewhere to purchase it' created by the federal government, and don't use the public option terminology support is 55-35. But when you ask about Barack Obama's health care plan folks oppose it 48-45. I think the public supports what Obama wants to do, he's just losing the messaging battle so far. We'll see if that changes in the coming weeks.
-81% of Democrats and 74% of independents but only 57% of Republicans say they watched Obama's speech Wednesday night, more evidence that he was inevitably going to do well in the instant polls. Not much you can do about that. Also there's no way 70% of SC-2 really watched Obama's speech but if there's one thing lie to pollsters about, even automated ones, it's their level of engagement. We find results like this all the time about whether people watched debates or speeches, plan to vote, are knowledgeable about an issue, etc.
-Mark Sanford's approval rating is 31% in the district with 59% of voters disapproving of him. SC-2 voted pretty similarly to statewide trends last year so I'm guessing that's about where his numbers are statewide. A slight 51% majority thinks he should resign. 70% of Democrats and 47% of independents but only 37% of Republicans think he needs to go. Wonder what those same folks thought about Bill Clinton?
-Less than half of Republicans think Obama's speech to the schoolchildren on Tuesday was appropriate. 46% say it was, 40% say it wasn't. 93% of Democrats and 69% of independents think it was fine, making the overall numbers 68% thinking it was appropriate and 22% thinking it was not. The 22% thinking it was not perhaps not so coincidentally aligns with the 22% of respondents who thought Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
-Voters give pretty contradictory answers to health care questions. They narrowly support a public option, 44-39. When you instead describe it as 'a health insurance plan that would allow people who can't afford health insurance elsewhere to purchase it' created by the federal government, and don't use the public option terminology support is 55-35. But when you ask about Barack Obama's health care plan folks oppose it 48-45. I think the public supports what Obama wants to do, he's just losing the messaging battle so far. We'll see if that changes in the coming weeks.
-81% of Democrats and 74% of independents but only 57% of Republicans say they watched Obama's speech Wednesday night, more evidence that he was inevitably going to do well in the instant polls. Not much you can do about that. Also there's no way 70% of SC-2 really watched Obama's speech but if there's one thing lie to pollsters about, even automated ones, it's their level of engagement. We find results like this all the time about whether people watched debates or speeches, plan to vote, are knowledgeable about an issue, etc.
A game changer?
Barack Obama's approval rating in South Carolina's 2nd Congressional District is 50%, with 46% of voters there disapproving of him. Obama received 45% of the vote there last fall. This is the first time since June that PPP has polled anywhere and found the President's approval five points higher than his share of the vote last November. If these numbers are in any way indicative of the country as a whole Wednesday night's speech may have been a game changer.
Particularly noteworthy are Obama's numbers among independents. They've tanked lately nationally and that's been particularly true in the south, but in this Republican leaning district 52% of them like the job he's doing to 43% disapproving.
Full results here
Particularly noteworthy are Obama's numbers among independents. They've tanked lately nationally and that's been particularly true in the south, but in this Republican leaning district 52% of them like the job he's doing to 43% disapproving.
Full results here
Wilson in Trouble
In a matter of seconds Wednesday night Joe Wilson went from being pretty safe for reelection to one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents in the country.
Wilson trails Democratic challenger Rob Miller 44-43 in a PPP survey conducted Thursday night and Friday morning. Last year Wilson defeated Miller 54-46.
62% of voters in SC-2 disapprove of Wilson's actions while just 29% think they were ok. By a 48-41 margin Republicans think what he did was fine, but independents are opposed to it by a 66/25 margin and Democrats are 84/10.
While there is a pretty strong consensus among respondents that the way Wilson expressed his opinion is inappropriate, they are almost evenly divided about whether the substance of his comment was correct. 42% think that Obama was lying when he said illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered by his health care plans, while 46% think he was telling the truth.
Overall 49% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Wilson in the future because he called Obama a liar, while 35% say they are more likely to do so. 56% of Republicans say that Wilson's calling out the President makes them more likely to support him.
It will be interesting to see if there is a push now for Wilson to not seek reelection. In a Republican climate there's no reason this seat should be competitive next year, but as long as Wilson is the GOP candidate it will be. If he stepped aside it would probably go back to being safe Republican.
Full results here
Wilson trails Democratic challenger Rob Miller 44-43 in a PPP survey conducted Thursday night and Friday morning. Last year Wilson defeated Miller 54-46.
62% of voters in SC-2 disapprove of Wilson's actions while just 29% think they were ok. By a 48-41 margin Republicans think what he did was fine, but independents are opposed to it by a 66/25 margin and Democrats are 84/10.
While there is a pretty strong consensus among respondents that the way Wilson expressed his opinion is inappropriate, they are almost evenly divided about whether the substance of his comment was correct. 42% think that Obama was lying when he said illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered by his health care plans, while 46% think he was telling the truth.
Overall 49% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Wilson in the future because he called Obama a liar, while 35% say they are more likely to do so. 56% of Republicans say that Wilson's calling out the President makes them more likely to support him.
It will be interesting to see if there is a push now for Wilson to not seek reelection. In a Republican climate there's no reason this seat should be competitive next year, but as long as Wilson is the GOP candidate it will be. If he stepped aside it would probably go back to being safe Republican.
Full results here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
