We've been uncovering a remarkable level of anger toward Barack Obama in a lot of our recent polling so for New Jersey we decided to go a step further in determining how extreme some people's feelings are about the President and asked respondents if they think he is the Anti-Christ.
8% said yes. 13% aren't sure. Among Republicans 14% said yes and 15% weren't sure.
Pretty eye popping numbers. The extent to which some people already hate Obama is amazing. We'll test that question nationally this weekend.
The extremism in New Jersey isn't limited to the right though. 19% of voters in the state, including 32% of Democrats, think that George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.
Beyond that 21% of respondents, including 33% of Republicans, express the belief that Obama was not born in the United States.
Combine the birthers and the truthers and you've got 37% of the electorate. And the 3% of voters who really need to get their heads checked are the ones who are both birthers and truthers.
These findings are in no way unique to New Jersey. In fact it's the least 'birther' of five states where we've looked at that question. But it's a reminder that high levels of extremism are in no way limited to the south.
Full results here
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Obama struggling in New Jersey
Barack Obama's approval rating with likely voters for this fall's election in New Jersey has sunk to just 45%, with 48% of voters disapproving of him. That makes you wonder just how effective tying himself to Obama is really going to be for Jon Corzine this fall.
When PPP looked at New Jersey in late July Obama's approval came down at 53/39. Since then he's steady at an 80% approval rating with Democrats but has seen a decline with Republicans and particularly independents. Where he was at a positive 48/42 with unaffiliated voters then, that's now dropped to 36/56. What's particularly interesting about that is over the same period of time Corzine has seen his deficit to Chris Christie among those voters fall from 28 points to 19. With Republicans what was a 20% approval rating is now just 12%.
New Jersey is the first state where PPP has found more people who voted for Obama saying they disapprove of him than people who voted for John McCain that think he's doing a good job. 11% of Obama voters are now unhappy with him while just 6% of people who didn't support him last fall express approval for the job he's doing.
The health care issue doesn't seem to be doing him any favors in the state. Only 39% of voters say they support his plan while 50% are opposed.
It's important to remember that this poll was conducted of the 2009 electorate, which supported Obama just 48-46 last year. If the survey was reweighted to reflect an electorate that voted for him 57-42, his approval spread would be 51/43. That's certainly better, but nevertheless much weaker than his performance on election day last year.
New Jersey's Senators aren't too popular either. Perhaps most worrisome for Democrats in the state are Robert Menendez's numbers. Only 27% of voters express approval for his job performance while 40% disapprove. Even within his own party just 47% give him good marks. Frank Lautenberg's numbers are somewhat better, coming in at 38% approval to 44% disapproval.
Full results here
When PPP looked at New Jersey in late July Obama's approval came down at 53/39. Since then he's steady at an 80% approval rating with Democrats but has seen a decline with Republicans and particularly independents. Where he was at a positive 48/42 with unaffiliated voters then, that's now dropped to 36/56. What's particularly interesting about that is over the same period of time Corzine has seen his deficit to Chris Christie among those voters fall from 28 points to 19. With Republicans what was a 20% approval rating is now just 12%.
New Jersey is the first state where PPP has found more people who voted for Obama saying they disapprove of him than people who voted for John McCain that think he's doing a good job. 11% of Obama voters are now unhappy with him while just 6% of people who didn't support him last fall express approval for the job he's doing.
The health care issue doesn't seem to be doing him any favors in the state. Only 39% of voters say they support his plan while 50% are opposed.
It's important to remember that this poll was conducted of the 2009 electorate, which supported Obama just 48-46 last year. If the survey was reweighted to reflect an electorate that voted for him 57-42, his approval spread would be 51/43. That's certainly better, but nevertheless much weaker than his performance on election day last year.
New Jersey's Senators aren't too popular either. Perhaps most worrisome for Democrats in the state are Robert Menendez's numbers. Only 27% of voters express approval for his job performance while 40% disapprove. Even within his own party just 47% give him good marks. Frank Lautenberg's numbers are somewhat better, coming in at 38% approval to 44% disapproval.
Full results here
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Did the speech make a difference or not?
So we've seen polling now from CNN and Research 2000 that would seem to indicate things are headed in the right direction for Obama after last week, polling from Gallup/USA Today showing that they aren't, and polling from Rasmussen first showing that they were and then showing that they weren't. And I'm sure I'm missing other polls that fall into one or another of those categories as well.
We'd love to give you some clarity...but we can't. We've conducted two polls since last Wednesday night. The one in SC-2 looked great for Obama and health care. The one in New Jersey we'll release in full tomorrow looks terrible.
The day after the speech I suggested the two swing groups he needed to win over were conservative Democrats and moderate independents. I said if he was in the 60-70% support range on health care with those groups it would show the game had changed but that if it was still 45-55% it would indicate we were right where we were before.
It's a limited sample size but here's what we've found on those fronts:
-In SC-2 support for him among moderate independents on health care is at 55%. Not bad, but not where he needs to get it. But it's a much happier story than New Jersey, where it's just 30%
-In SC-2 among conservative Democrats it's at 79%...but you need to keep in mind there that 71% of the folks who fall into that group are African American. In New Jersey it's at 53%.
So based on the metrics we had laid out Obama's speech probably did not give support for him on health care the boost it needed. But we'll see where it looks nationally this weekend, where we have data from last month that we can compare it to, as well as looking at it in whatever state we end up polling.
I think the truth is going to end up being that we're right where we were a week ago and that the SC-2 numbers may be a reflection of voters there feeling like they have to be nicer to Obama because their Congressman was a jerk.
We'd love to give you some clarity...but we can't. We've conducted two polls since last Wednesday night. The one in SC-2 looked great for Obama and health care. The one in New Jersey we'll release in full tomorrow looks terrible.
The day after the speech I suggested the two swing groups he needed to win over were conservative Democrats and moderate independents. I said if he was in the 60-70% support range on health care with those groups it would show the game had changed but that if it was still 45-55% it would indicate we were right where we were before.
It's a limited sample size but here's what we've found on those fronts:
-In SC-2 support for him among moderate independents on health care is at 55%. Not bad, but not where he needs to get it. But it's a much happier story than New Jersey, where it's just 30%
-In SC-2 among conservative Democrats it's at 79%...but you need to keep in mind there that 71% of the folks who fall into that group are African American. In New Jersey it's at 53%.
So based on the metrics we had laid out Obama's speech probably did not give support for him on health care the boost it needed. But we'll see where it looks nationally this weekend, where we have data from last month that we can compare it to, as well as looking at it in whatever state we end up polling.
I think the truth is going to end up being that we're right where we were a week ago and that the SC-2 numbers may be a reflection of voters there feeling like they have to be nicer to Obama because their Congressman was a jerk.
The Price of Power
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
