George Bush Polls Under 50 Percent–Why Would People Support A GOP Candidate Who Wants To Resume His Policies?

George W. Bush is the  only living ex-president with favorability under 50%. So why would people support a candidate who wants to resume his economic policies?

From CNN:

More than three years after leaving office, former President George W. Bush remains unpopular with the public, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/ORC International poll also indicates that two-thirds of Americans have a positive view of Bush’s predecessor, former President Bill Clinton.

According to the poll, released Thursday morning, 43% of people questioned had a favorable opinion of Bush, with 54% saying they had an unfavorable view of the former president. Bush’s 43% favorable rating is the same as it was in 2010 in CNN polling, but is up from his mid-30′s favorable rating during 2009, his first year out of the White House.

Current Electoral College Predictions Favorable For Obama

Click for www.electoral-vote.com

While the national polls seem to be receiving more attention, it is the electoral college which determines the winner. Electoral-vote.com has a handy map of projections based upon the latest polls. The image above is linked to the latest data, and will probably be different from what is discussed here over time. A significant move nationally for either candidate will change some of the battle ground states, and some might change even if the national race remains tied.

At the time this is being posted, Obama is projected to win 294 electoral votes with 9 tied and 235 for Romney. For the sake of discussion I will start from each candidate’s strong and  likely states without the states barely in their column. At the moment, while the national polls show a virtual tie, Obama still has a significant lead in the electoral college. With a tied national race, the Republicans do not do as well in the electoral college since many of their supporters are in strong Republican states where there is no additional benefit to winning by larger margins. Should Romney take a meaningful lead nationally, he will also probably win some of the states now barely leaning towards Obama, and possibly some now listed as likely for Obama.

Looking at just the Strongly Dem or Likely Dem states, Obama already has 258 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Add either Michigan or Virginia from the Barely Dem list and Obama wins, giving him a margin should he not be able to hold on to all the states in this projection.. Another possible route to victory without either of these states would be Oregon (Leaning Dem) and Colorado (tied). Even if Romney should manage to pick up Ohio or Pennsylvania, which now are listed as likely Democratic, Obama could still win if he holds on to the these states which are now leaning towards him.

While Romney might have a chance to pick up some of the states which are now listed as being Democratic, Obama also has a chance to take away some of the states listed as Likely GOP, such as Florida and North Carolina.

The current projection also has the Democrats holding the Senate with fifty Democrats, forty-eight Republicans, and two races now listed as ties. An Obama victory would leave Democrats in control of the Senate in the case of a fifty-fifty tie.

Update: New polls out today show Obama leading in Michigan and Colorado. His lead is 53-39 in Michigan–looks safe, while his four point  lead in Colorado at the margin of error.

Standing Up For Principle May Pay Off

Democrats far too often move to the center and avoid matters of principle, possibly out of fear of losing votes. I’ve often thought that their compromising has been counterproductive. With the failure of Democrats to stand up for liberal principles, Republicans are allowed to promote their views without challenge. Democrats might increase their support if they made a stronger case for what they believe.  It appears that Obama’s statement of support for gay marriage has changed some opinions according to a Washington0Post-ABC News poll:

Public opinion continues to shift in favor of same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, which also finds initial signs that President Obama’s support for the idea may have changed a few minds.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago, when just 36 percent thought it should be legal. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal…

The poll comes two weeks after Obama unexpectedly endorsed same-sex marriage after a year and a half of “evolving” on the subject. Gay rights groups predicted the president’s announcement would have a far-reaching impact on public opinion, in part because Obama described how he came to his own decision, referring to his gay friends and the influence of his young daughters, Sasha and Malia.

I am also happy to see White House Press Secretary Jay Carney trying to debunk the false right wing claims that Obama has greatly increased government spending:  “Do not buy into the B.S. that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness.”

While greater public support for same-sex marriage is good news, there is also potentially bad news on social issues in today’s polls. Gallup found that the number of Americans who call themselves pro-choice is at a record low at 41 percent, with 50 percent calling themselves pro-life. Looking at the full poll, the meaning of this is questionable. It might partially be a matter of labels. A majority still believe that abortion should be legal under some circumstances and only 20 percent agree with the Republican line that it should never be legal. I also question how much support there would be for laws which subject either women seeking an abortion or doctors providing abortions to criminal charges.

 

Global Investors Believe Obama Is Better For The Economy

The reactionaries who have taken control of the Republican Party have shown they are incapable of governing in a modern society, but it is undeniable they have one skill–conning people into voting for them contrary to their self interest. The most commonly discussed manifestation of this is getting middle class voters to vote for Republicans, contrary to their financial interests, because of religious matters which have no place in public policy. It is less commonly noted that even many affluent voters are voting Republican contrary to their self interest. While the stock market and economy have done better under Democrats than Republicans, for reasons which should be obvious with any consideration of actual economics as opposed to Republican Voodoo Economics, many affluent voters vote for Republicans, mistakenly believing this to be in their self interest.

There are, of course, many exceptions. As was seen in the 2008 primaries, Obama does have a strong base of support from affluent, better educated voters. Bloomberg shows that internationally investors are more astute than American investors. While polls show American investors support Republicans, internationally investors support Obama:

Global investors increasingly prefer President Barack Obama to Republican challenger Mitt Romney and most say they believe the incumbent will remain in the White House for another four years.

Asked who would be the better leader for the global economy, 49 percent favor Obama against 38 percent for Romney, according to a quarterly Bloomberg Global Poll. In January, the two candidates tied on the question.

By the same margin, they say Obama has a better vision for the U.S. economy, according to the survey of 1,253 Bloomberg customers, who are investors, analysts or traders.

Obama “managed the U.S. economy pretty well, solving a lot of imbalances created by the previous administration,” says poll respondent Mario Di Marcantonio, 35, a senior portfolio manager at Eurizon Capital in Milan.

“I believe the second Obama term will be better than having a U-turn with Romney,” he says. “More stability will mean more visibility and more investment in the future.”

The American presidential election is dividing foreign investors and those based in the U.S., where Romney is favored across the board. U.S. investors choose the Republican candidate as best for the global economy by more than 2-to-1. Respondents outside the U.S. prefer Democrat Obama by almost 3-to-1 in the poll, conducted May 8.

Why such a huge difference between the views of global versus American investor? My bet is that this is largely based upon where they get their “news.” American investors are probably influenced by the Republican-dominated media which pushes false narratives such as that Republicans are more fiscally responsible and Democrats spend more, along with false claims blaming the deficit on Democrats. Of course a tiny increase in the top marginal tax rate goes a long way towards losing the support of the wealthy in this country. Even affluent voters making around $300,000, who would see a modest tax increase of a few hundred dollars a year under Obama’s tax plans, are easily scared into voting against him and believing Republican falsehoods.

Reasons The Obama Campaign Is Optimistic

While the polls show the presidential race as close, First Read described one advantage for Obama (and weighted in on the claims from Republicans that Obama is suffering from poor turn out):

By the way, speaking of what happens in “close” races; one other thing that jumped out at us at the weekend rallies was just how far ahead the Obama campaign is of the Romney campaign when it comes to organizing on the ground. It’s not even close on this front; It’s amazing how in just eight short years, the Republicans have allowed one of their great strengths from 2004 (field organizing) to simply disappear. If a close election is decided on mechanics: advantage Obama. By the way, with all this back-n-forth on crowd sizes — it’s fair to say Obama ’08 would have out-drawn Obama ’12 in both cities. But the problem for the GOP is that Obama ’12 still outdraws Romney ’12… and by a LOT. Will Romney address a crowd as large as Obama did on Saturday before Tampa?

Hopefully the Obama campaign uses its advantages in the ground game to solve the problem of large numbers of potential Obama voters not being registered to vote.

Mark Halperin gave his take on why the Obama campaign is optimistic:

In a series of interviews with campaign officials in Chicago, it is clear that the entire re-elect operation likes its odds of winning a second term. The informal slogan is essentially “Be confident, but take nothing for granted.” Presidential senior adviser David Plouffe, the 2008 campaign manager now overseeing the enterprise from his perch steps away from the Oval Office, Jim Messina, Plouffe’s 2012 titular successor in Chicago, and their deputies in both cities believe that, despite the dangers of high unemployment and gas prices, Mitt Romney faces four major barriers to winning the big prize.

First, in the view of the Obamans, Romney is still a weak candidate. His stump skills continue to be uneven at best, with speeches plagued by awkward jargon and passionless rhetoric. They believe his tenure as head of Bain Capital and his term as governor of Massachusetts conceal vulnerabilities yet to be unveiled. “No one’s ever looked at Romney’s record, and there’s a lot there,” said one senior campaign official. “He developed this set of values at Bain about what the economy is all about … Whatever it took to make money … He took that same philosophy to Massachusetts [as governor].” Obama’s team is sitting on a multimedia treasure trove of research about both phases of Romney’s career and expects to launch powerful missiles at key moments throughout the campaign, discombobulating the Republican each time.

Second, they maintain, their research suggests Romney has exactly one rhetorical path to victory, as a can-do businessman able to fix what’s broken. Chicago intends to focus as much of its formidable firepower as necessary to dismantle Romney on that front and prevent the election from becoming a referendum on the President’s economic tenure.

Third, the Obama team argues, Romney has taken many positions to the right of public opinion. The President’s team plans to throw two years’ worth of provocative statements in Romney’s face, using sophisticated micro-targeting to impacted demographics. On an unrelenting messaging loop, Hispanics will hear about Romney’s ties to the country’s most controversial anti-illegal immigration leaders and laws. Senior citizens dependent on Medicare will be told again and again about Romney’s backing of Paul Ryan’s House budget plan. Women will be warned about the threat to reproductive freedom. And on and on.

Fourth and finally, presidential politics, in the end, is all about the Electoral College. The Obama campaign’s analysis, matching recent media number crunching, indicates that Romney has a paper-thin margin of error to get to the magical 270. The map is littered with states the Republicans must take from the 2008 Democratic column in order to win, and in many of them, such as Ohio and Virginia, they are behind.

 

Mitt Romney Remains A Weak Candidate, Except Among The Very Religious

Last night’s primaries, occurring after Rick Santorum left the race, turned out to give pretty much the same picture as when there was more of a contest: Mitt Romney will be the nominee, but many Republicans would prefer to vote for someone else. Smart Politics points out the weakness of Romney’s victories:

Over the last 40 years there have been nearly 80 contests in which the presumptive Republican nominees played out the string after their last credible challenger exited the race.

In every one of these contests, the GOP frontrunner won at least 60 percent of the vote, even when ex- and long-shot candidates remained on the ballot.

But on Tuesday, Romney won only 56 percent of the vote in Delaware and 58 percent in Pennsylvania, home to Rick Santorum who dropped out on April 10th.

While Romney avoided the embarrassment of winning with a mere plurality, never has a presumptive nominee won a primary contest with such a low level of support at this stage of the race with his chief challenger no longer actively campaigning.

Clearly the author doesn’t consider either Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul to be a credible challenger, and the assumption looks valid. Even Newt Gingrich has realized this, dropping out of the race. While Ron Paul’s chances at winning are still the same as at any other point in time,  zero, it will be interesting to see if he manages to receive more primary votes as the last candidate standing, allowing him to take a larger block of delegates to the convention than would otherwise occur.

Jimmy Carter says that, while he would prefer Obama, he would feel comfortable with Romney:

“I’d rather have a Democrat but I would be comfortable — I think Romney has shown in the past, in his previous years as a moderate or progressive… that he was fairly competent as a governor and also running the Olympics as you know. He’s a good solid family man and so forth, he’s gone to the extreme right wing positions on some very important issues in order to get the nomination. What he’ll do in the general election, what he’ll do as president I think is different.”

I would refer Carter to yesterday’s post on this subject. There is certainly a reasonable chance that Romney is more moderate than he now claims to be. It is really impossible to tell what opinions Romney has, or if he even has any, considering the way he can sound sincere while taking either side of any issue. Unfortunately Romney has painted himself into a “severely conservative” corner and will have difficulty moving out. Even should he prefer more moderate positions, it is hard to see him resisting the wishes of a far right wing Congress, which is the most likely result should conditions in the fall favor a Romney victory.

It is clearly far too early to predict who will win. Polls now favor Obama, but they can change by November. I am encouraged by Obama’s strength in most of the battleground states, although he is likely to lose some states he won in 2008. Republicans who were encouraged by a narrow Romney lead in Gallup’s daily tracking poll will not want to see that Obama has jumped to a seven point lead. I suspect that this is more a measure of the uncertainty among many voters as opposed to a major change in positions, but does emphasize the weakness of Romney as a candidate.

Gallup has also found that the usual partisan breakdown along religious lines still holds in a race between Obama and Romney:

Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by 17 percentage points, 54% to 37%, among very religious voters in Gallup’s latest five-day presidential election tracking average. Obama leads by 14 points, 54% to 40%, among the moderately religious, and by 31 points, 61% to 30%, among those who are nonreligious.

If this is viewed purely based upon religion, the results might not make any sense considering Obama’s religious views. There are two additional factors in play. Many Republicans are still fooled by the attacks from the right wing noise machine, with a meaningful number still believing Obama is a Muslim. The other factor is that the concern among many on the religious right is not whether a candidate is religious but whether they will use government to impose their religious views upon others. In this case, perhaps the religious right has a better understanding of the outcome of a Romney presidency than Jimmy Carter shows.

Romney, No Obama, Leads In Polls; Romney Leads In Unpopularity

Gallup shows Romney leading 47 percent to 45 percent in their initial daily tracking poll. CNN shows Obama leading by nine points. This primarily shows that it is way too early to believe the polls. Gallup put this in perspective:

History shows that the candidates’ positioning in the spring of an election year is not necessarily good at forecasting the election outcomes. For example, in an April 20-22, 1992, Gallup poll, incumbent President George H.W. Bush was ahead with 41% of the vote, compared with 26% for Bill Clinton and 25% for Ross Perot. And in an April 11-14, 1980, poll, incumbent President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by 42% to 34%, with John Anderson receiving 18% support. Both Bush and Carter, of course, ultimately lost their re-election bids.

One more piece of poll history. ABC News/Washington Post found that Romney sets a new record for unpopularity for a presumptive nominee:

Mitt Romney has emerged from the Republican primary season with the weakest favorability rating on record for a presumptive presidential nominee in ABC News/Washington Post polls since 1984, trailing a resurgent Barack Obama in personal popularity by 21 percentage points.

Thirty-five percent of Americans see Romney favorably, while 47 percent have an unfavorable opinion of the former Massachusetts governor. He’s the first likely nominee to be underwater — seen more unfavorably than favorably — in ABC/Post polls in eight presidential primary seasons over the past 28 years.

Independent Voters Can Be Won By Democrats–With the Right Arguments

A swing state poll from Global Strategy Group has some good news for Obama, and a lesson as to how Democrats should concentrate on attracting more independent voters. They found that swing state independents prefer Obama by six points, but over a third remain undecided. The generic Congressional ballot is tied, with six in ten remaining undecided.

There is a key finding which I am totally unsurprised by but which I fear many Democratic strategists don’t get:

We find that Swing Independents are “opportunity” voters—preferring an optimistic, opportunity framework on the economy over one based on fairness. Why? Opportunity addresses their anxieties about the future, concerns that America is slipping, doubts about how the next generation will succeed, and questions over how we will strengthen our economy.

We all know that Republican voters are motivated by greed, in their case by promises of lower taxes. Other voters are also motivated by self-interest. There are strong arguments as to why Democratic policies lead to a stronger economy and higher incomes. These arguments will win votes, but arguments based upon fairness will not. Sure there are strong arguments that the increase in income disparity, unprecedented since the gilded age, is harmful to the economy as well as unfair. That just doesn’t make a clear enough “elevator pitch” to win elections.

Republicans Show Little Enthusiasm For Romney Nomination And It Appears Mutual On Mitt’s Part

It is now as official as it is going to get for a while. Barack Obama has obtained enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination and it would take a rather major and unpredictable event to change the trajectory of the Republican race to deny Mitt Romney the Republican nomination. It remains possible that Romney might fall slightly short of the number of committed delegates to win, but there are likely to be near 600 unbound delegates, making it easy for Romney to pick up enough to win the nomination.  This is ensured by the manner that the party leadership is increasingly backing him, seeing his nomination as inevitable. On the other hand, Joe Scarborough says that nobody in the GOP establishment believes Romney can win. Republican voters are accepting the reality of his nomination, feeling satisfied but only eleven percent are actually excited by this outcome. The same poll also shows that a majority of Republican voters realize that Romney says what he thinks people want to hear as opposed to what he believes.

With Romney’s nomination having been fairly certain for the last few weeks, we are starting to get some inside information about the campaign. After all, Americans have become too inpatient to wait until after a campaign is over as might have been the case in the past. According to the National Review, Mike Allen and Evan Thomas’ e-book, Inside the Circus says that “Romney didn’t even have an oppo book on Rick Santorum a few days before the Iowa caucuses.” Personally I think they were foolish to totally write him off, not that it mattered in the end. With the other conservative candidates rising and then falling, I expected Santorum to pick up enough conservative votes to achieve some victories over Romney. Ultimately Romney did have a winning strategy:

[O]n March 14 and 15, Romney had raised over $3 million in New York and Connecticut. … The Romney campaign had a clever pitch for the event. Schmoozing with his money pals before the events, a Romney fund-raiser pointed out that “slightly more than half the delegates” to the GOP convention at Tampa “are evangelicals.” These true-believer conservatives are averse not only to Romney but to semi-reasonable types like Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels. As a result, said this fund-raiser, the “responsible Republican guys” are “starting to realize” that at a brokered convention “it’s not going to be Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, a ticket they could really love. It’s probably Huckabee-Palin or Palin-Huckabee.” That was enough to scare the Wall Street crowd into getting out their checkbooks.

With Republicans already showing little enthusiasm for Mitt Romney’s probable nomination, I wonder how the Huckabee and Palin supporters in the party accept this characterization of Huckabee and Palin as not even making his “semi-reasonable” list.

Women Give Obama Big Lead In Swing States

A USA Today/Gallup poll gives Obama a nine point lead over Mitt Romney after trailing by two points in their last survey. The change appears to be a consequence of Republicans recently stressing anti-women positions:

The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney’s support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group..

Romney’s main advantage is among men 50 and older, swamping Obama 56%-38%…

In the poll, Romney leads among all men by a single point, but the president leads among women by 18. That reflects a greater disparity between the views of men and women than the 12-point gender gap in the 2008 election.