Emily Swanson |
February 9, 2010
Public Policy Polling (D)
2/4-7/10; 400 likely Democratic primary voters, 4.9% margin of error
423 likely Republican primary voters, 4.8% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)
Texas
2010 Governor: Republican Primary
39% Perry, 28% Hutchison, 24% Medina
(Medina supporters only) Would your second choice for Governor be Kay Bailey Hutchison or Rick Perry?
43% Perry, 39% Hutchison
2010 Governor: Democratic Primary
49% White, 19% Shami, 5% Alvado, 2% Aguado, 1% Glenn
Emily Swanson |
February 9, 2010
University of New Hampshire Granite State Poll
1/27-2/3/10; 500 adults, 4.4% margin of error
444 likely voters, 4.7% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(UNH release)
New Hampshire
2010 Senate (trends)
Ayotte 41%, Hodes 33% (chart)
Hodes 36%, Bender 27%
Hodes 34%, Binnie 30%
Hodes 38%, Lamontagne 29%
Favorable / Unfavorable
Jeanne Shaheen: 48 / 39 (chart)
Judd Gregg: 54 / 23 (chart)
Paul Hodes: 32 / 27
Kelly Ayotte: 38 / 12
Jim Bender: 6 / 2
Bill Binnie: 10 / 4
Ovide Lamontagne: 12 / 9
Emily Swanson |
February 9, 2010
Magellan Strategies
2/4/10; 449 likely Republican primary voters, 4.6% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Magellan release)
New Hampsrhie
2010 Senate: Republican Primary
37% Ayotte, 23% Binnie, 12% Lamontagne
2010 Governor: Republican Primary
18% Kimball, 5% Testerman
Emily Swanson |
February 9, 2010
Gallup
2/1-3/10; 1,025 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)
National
Obama Approval / Disapproval
Foreign Affairs: 51 / 44 (chart)
Health Care: 36 / 60 (chart)
Economy: 36 / 61 (chart)
Education: 54 / 36
Terrorism: 48 / 49
Afghanistan: 48 / 47
Iraq: 47 / 48
Iran: 42 / 50
Federal Budget Deficit: 32 / 64
Emily Swanson |
February 9, 2010
Rasmussen
2/5-6/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Ohio
2010 governor
47% Kasich, 41% Strickland (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Ted Strickland: 44 / 51 (chart)
John KasichL 47 / 30
Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Strickland: 46 / 53 (chart)
Emily Swanson |
February 8, 2010
Rasmussen
2/4/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Colorado
2010 Governor (trends)
49% Hickenlooper (D), 45% McInnis (R)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Scott McInnis: 52 / 29
John Hickenlooper: 56 / 36
Emily Swanson |
February 8, 2010
Sarah Dutton breaks down polling on Sarah Palin pre-Tea Party Convention.
Del Ali defends his survey of Republican voters for DailyKos.
Carl Bialik examines how errors permeated Census micro-data.
Survey Practice releases their February issue.
Emily Swanson |
February 8, 2010
Democracy Corps (D) / Common Cause / Change Congress / Public Campaign Action Fund
2/2-4/10; 805 likely voters, 3.5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Democracy Corps: toplines, Summary)
National
State of the Country
35% Right Direction, 58% Wrong Track (chart)
Obama Job Approval
47% Approve, 47% Disapprove (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Republican Party: 33 / 43
Democratic Party: 38 / 44
Barack Obama: 49 / 40 (chart)
2010 Congress: National Ballot
46% Democratic candidate, 45% Republican candidate (chart)
Emily Swanson |
February 8, 2010
Rasmussen
2/3/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Nevada
2010 Governor (trends)
44% R. Reid (D), 35% Gibbons (R)
45% Sandoval (R), 33% R. Reid (D)
40% R. Reid (D), 36% Montandon (R)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Jim Gibbons: 35 / 63 (chart)
Mike Montandon: 39 / 29
Brian Sandoval: 53 / 30
Rory Reid: 40 / 52
Emily Swanson |
February 8, 2010
Marist
2/1-3/10; 1,072 adults, 3% margin of error
910 registered voters, 3.5% margin of error
(all questions asked of registered voters unless otherwise marked)
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Marist release)
National
Obama Job Approval
44% Approve, 47% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 81 / 10 (chart)
Reps: 15 / 80 (chart)
Inds: 29 / 57 (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 50 / 44 (chart)
State of the Country (asked of all adults)
38% Right Direction, 54% Wrong Track (chart)
2012 President
44% Obama (D), 29% Palin (R), 15% Bloomberg (i)
If the 2010 election for congress were held today, would you support your current congressperson who represents your district in Washington D.C. or would you vote for someone else?
42% Current Congressperson, 44% Someone else
Emily Swanson |
February 8, 2010
Rasmussen
2/5-6/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Ohio
2010 Senate
Portman (R) 43%, Fisher (D) 39% (chart)
Portman (R) 42%, Brunner (D) 38% (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Rob Portman: 45 / 24
Lee Fisher: 38 / 39
Jennifer Brunner: 43 / 32
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 49 / 51 (chart)
Gov. Strickland: 46 / 53 (chart)
My column this week looks at the controversy over a series of surveys conducted by SurveyUSA for the liberal web site Firedloglake. Please click through to read the whole thing.
Lost in the attack memos and other questions raised is an important question facing nearly every telephone survey conducted in House, Senate and Gubernatorial races this year: Are we at the point where the majority of true "likely voters" under the age of 35 are out of reach of landline telephone samples? And at what point is simply "weighting up" those younger voters that pollsters can still reach inadequate to solve the problem?
The table below, produced by the Pew Research Center and based on their national surveys, shows that by 2006 their unweighted landline samples were under-representing roughly a third of adults under age 35. And that was as of three years ago, when the percentage of all adults living in landline-only households was estimated at 12%, nine percentage points lower than the most recent estimate:
Now consider the estimated growth in the cell-phone-only population over the last three years. As shown in the chart below (which comes from a report last year by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), landline-only samples are most likely to miss voters under age 35.
Now consider this additional statistic reported on Pollster.com by Mike Mokrzycki in December. On the most recent CDC report covering the first half of 2009, nearly two thirds (63.5%) of people age 25-29 live in households with either no landline phone (45.8%) or in "cell-mostly" households (17.7%), those were "all or almost all calls are received on cell phones."
So what should a pollster do if they reach so few 18-to-34-year-old voters that they make up just 1% of the likely voters sample for an election where past turnout suggests that age group should make up roughly 10% of the electorate? If the pollster believes they have under-represented younger voters, can they simply weight to correct the problem? Not if the shortfall is that extreme. In a sample with only 400 or 500 completed interviews, such a weight would multiply 4 or 5 interviews by a factor of 10. As I wrote in the column, you don't need to be a statistician to imagine how those "super respondents" might crate greater error and volatility in the results, especially those produced by cross-tabulations of demographic subgroups.
Let's remember that we are able to pick at SurveyUSA because they were willing to disclose the weighted demographics of their sample and because they opted against any such extreme weighting in this case. So rather than beat up on SurveyUSA, we might do better to ask: How many polls have we seen in recent months that involved a similarly sparse number of younger likely voters and were simply weighted up by factors of 5 or greater to conceal the shortfall? How would we know?
Finally, whatever we want to make of the Firedoglake surveys, it is important to remember that SurveyUSA has maintained an outstanding record of final-poll accuracy, especially in U.S. House elections and in hard-to-model primary elections. For House races, the company's own scorecard -- which I have no reason to doubt -- shows that their average error on the margin in polling 27 House races in 2006 (3.4) was roughly half that of all other pollsters combined (6.3). Their error rate was also significantly lower than the three most prolific public pollsters that year, Research2000 (5.5), Zogby (5.9) and RT Strategies (5.9).
So since we have picked at their work mercilessly, I want to give SurveyUSA's Jay Leve the last word and reproduce the full email he sent me last week in response to my questions about the Firedoglake surveys:
In August 2002, SurveyUSA released a poll showing US Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) trailing. No survey to that point had showed Torricelli trailing. An hour after the poll was released, SurveyUSA's client, CBS-TV in Philadelphia, called SurveyUSA and said, "Put your helmets on. The DSCC is coming after you." And the DSCC did. The DSCC found a journalist willing to write the smack that the DSCC was shoveling, and the message went forth: Nothing wrong with Robert Torricelli, plenty wrong with SurveyUSA.
A few weeks later, Torricelli dropped out of the race. Other polls had the same results as SurveyUSA.
Fast forward to today: In a poll conducted in January 2010, at a time the Democrats were losing the state of Massachusetts, SurveyUSA finds an incumbent Democrat in a tight fight in New York state. The DCCC is unhappy. Partisans start shoveling smack. "Sources" start providing willing journalists with leaked memos. Nothing wrong with Democrat Tim Bishop. Plenty wrong with SurveyUSA.
The highway to high office is littered with the road kill of political operatives who find it easier to campaign against a poll than an opponent.
Lost in the hurly burly is an opportunity for real reflection. To my knowledge, there has never (ever) been a publicly released telephone poll conducted in a U.S. congressional district that included a known subset of interviews with respondents who did not have a home (aka: landline) telephone. An acknowledged limitation of SurveyUSA's work in NY-01, and a known limitation to date of all congressional district polling, is that voters who do not have a home phone are under represented. At a statewide-level (in contrast to the CD level), only one pollster in the 2009 election included a known subset of cellphone-only respondents in its sample (at extraordinary expense, because of the theoretical justification), and that pollster's results were worse than many polling firms who did not include a known subset of cell-phone-only respondents. Whether one anticipates that in 2010 young voters will turn out in record numbers of stay home in record numbers, the problem of how to count those voters is real, and right before us.
Emily Swanson |
February 5, 2010
Ron Brownstein reviews the demographics of Congressional Districts (don't miss the interactive map).
Gallup releases data showing 36% of Americans have a positive view of socialism and adds Obama job approval to their "State of the States" feature.
Matthew Yglesias thinks ideological self-reports are not very useful.
Frank Newport takes questions on the public's state of mind, the Tea Party Convention, and how elected officials can benefit from polling.
Joshua Tucker adds his caveats to the Daily Kos Republicans poll.
Chris Bowers finds little support for cutting government.
Jonathan Bernstein considers the limits of polling on health reform (via Sullivan).
National Journal's insiders project big losses for Democrats in 2010.
Andrew Gelman shares more back-and-forth with David Runciman.
PPP sees a partisan divide in Super Bowl allegiances.
Marist finds 49% think issue ads aren't appropriate for the Super Bowl.
Zogby says 59% of Americans plan to watch the Super Bowl.
Emily Swanson |
February 5, 2010
Economist / YouGov
1/31-2/2/10; 1,000 adults, 3.7% margin of error
Mode: Internet
(Economist release)
National
Obama Job Approval
46% Approve, 48% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 75 / 20 (chart)
Reps: 12 / 86 (chart)
Inds: 39 / 58 (chart)
Economy: 41 / 53 (chart)
Health Care: 40 / 54 (chart)
Congressional Job Approval
10% Approve, 67% Disapprove (chart)
2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
43% Democrat, 38% Republican (chart)
State of the Country
32% Right Direction, 53% Wrong Track (chart)
Overall, given what you know about them, do you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by Congress and the Obama Administration?
46% Support, 54% Oppose (chart)
Emily Swanson |
February 5, 2010
Rasmussen
2/2/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Nevada
2010 Senate (trends)
45% Lowden, 39% Reid (chart)
47% Tarkanian, 39% Reid (chart)
44% Angle, 40% Reid
44% Krolicki, 41% Reid
Favorable / Unfavorable
Harry Reid: 44 / 55 (chart)
Sue Lowden: 48 / 27
Danny Tarkanian: 50 / 35
Sharron Angle: 37 / 30
Brian Krolicki: 40 / 33
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 46 / 54 (chart)
Gov. Gibbons: 39 / 59 (chart)
Emily Swanson |
February 5, 2010
DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
2/1-3/10; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Kos release)
New Hampshire
2010 Senate: Republican Primary
36% Ayotte, 27% Lamontagne, 4% Binnie
2010 Senate: General Election (trends)
46% Ayotte, 39% Hodes (chart)
46% Hodes, 36% Lamontagne
45% Hodes, 35% Binnie
2010 Governor: General Election (trends)
59% Lynch, 13% Kimball
Favorable / Unfavorable
Paul Hodes: 47 / 29
Kelly Ayotte: 54 / 24
Ovide Lamontagne: 34 / 39
William Binnie: 31 / 30
Barack Obama: 55 / 38 (chart)
Emily Swanson |
February 5, 2010
Rasmussen
2/2/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Colorado
2010 Senate (trends)
Norton 45%, Romanoff 38%
Norton 51%, Bennet 37%
Wiens 42%, Romanoff 40%
Wiens 45%, Bennet 40%
Buck 45%, Romanoff 39%
Buck 45%, Bennet 41% (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Ken Buck: 43 / 26
Michael Bennet: 42 / 40 (chart)
Andrew Romanoff: 40 / 37
Tom Wiens: 35 / 30
Jane Norton: 49 / 31
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 45 / 53 (chart)
Gov. Ritter: 40 / 56 (chart)
Emily Swanson |
February 5, 2010
Rasmussen
2/1/10; 500 likely votrs, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Connecticut
2010 Governor (trends)
40% Lamont, 37% Foley
37% Malloy, 36% Foley
41% Lamont, 33% Fedele
36% Malloy, 35% Fedele
Favorable / Unfavorable
Michael Fedele: 39 / 22
Tom Foley: 42 / 22
Ned Lamont: 43 / 35
Dan Malloy: 43 / 29
Emily Swanson |
February 5, 2010
DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
2/1-4/10; 2,400 adults, 2% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Kos release)
National
Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 56 / 42 (chart)
Nancy Pelosi: 40 / 51
Harry Reid: 26 / 64
Mitch McConnell: 20 / 62
John Boehner: 20 / 62
Democratic Party: 39 / 56
Republican Party: 32 / 59
State of the Country
39% Right Direction, 60% Wrong Track (chart)
Emily Swanson |
February 5, 2010
McLaughlin & Associates (R)
1/13-14/10; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(McLaughlin release)
Florida
2010 Governor
41% McCollum (R), 30% Sink (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
February 5, 2010
US: Palin, Tea Parties (CNN 1/22-24)
CNN / Opinion Research Corporation
1/22-24/10; 1,009 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CNN release)
National
Favorable / Unfavorable
Sarah Palin: 43 / 46 (chart)
Tea Party Movement: 33 / 26
Emily Swanson |
February 4, 2010
Fox New / Opinion Dynamics
2/2-3/10; 900 registered voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Fox release)
Update: Tea Party and 2010 Elections
National
Obama Job Approval
46% Approve, 47% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 81 / 12 (chart)
Reps: 14 / 82 (chart)
Inds: 45 / 47 (chart)
Congressional Job Approval
22% Approve, 69% Disapprove (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 51 / 43 (chart)
George W. Bush: 38 / 55
Rahm Emanuel: 14 / 24
Nancy Pelosi: 24 / 52
Democratic Party: 42 / 48
Republican Party: 42 / 46
Party ID
36% Democrat, 36% Republican, 22% independent (chart)
Another update, this one on the volunteer exit poll conducted this week in Cook County Illinois by the recently launched Chicago Current. Current editor Geoff Dougherty posted a refreshingly candid postmortem on their efforts:
At 6:11 p.m. yesterday, before the polls closed, I wrote that our exit polling suggested Toni Preckwinkle had the Cook County Board president's race locked down.
And I was right. Our survey honed in on Preckwinkle's strong performance early in the day, and continued to highlight her lead as the election progressed.
And yet ... our poll was wrong. I predicted Preckwinkle would snag 69% of the vote, and noted that the poll had an 8% margin of error. Preckwinkle ended the day with 49% of the vote -- well outside that margin.
Such are the joys and pains of exit polling.
There's more, and it's worth clicking through to read the rest.
I would give the Current an "A" for effort and transparency, but we need to be realistic about the quality of the survey they ultimately produced. Dougherty says it cost just $200, "most of which went for a $100 rental car," and don't think he would argue with the conclusion that they got what they paid for. The poll managed to collect just 93 completed interviews at only 9 of 25 precincts (presumably) selected at random. As Dougherty reported at 1:32 p.m. on Tuesday:
So far we've got about 30 responses. We'll be taking a pause here as our field crew relocates to new spots and starts talking to voters.
We'd originally planned to survey 25 precincts, but logistics are interfering, and we'll probably wind up with about half that. We'd targeted 600 voters, but low turnout will probably leave us with about half of that count.
Never mind the very small sample size. How truly random was the sample? It's hard to tell from this description, but the execution clearly fell short of ideal.
Dougherty says that the "networks often pay tens of thousands of dollars for these things." That's not quite right. I'm not sure how it translates into a per-state cost, but the every-two-year National Election Pool (NEP) exit polling operation has a multi-million dollar budget (Voter News Services, VNS, the forerunner to NEP, operated in 2000 on a budget of over $35 million; my understanding is that current costs are much lower but still in the millions). Note that in most states of interest, NEP will sample 20 to 50 precincts. As the scale of what the Current was attempting in a single county was in line with the exit poll that NEP conducts in each state.
I write this post not to beat up on the Current -- again, I give them credit for enterprise and transparency -- but to remind my media colleagues that all "exit polls" are not created equal. Not by a long shot.
Update: The cost statistic I cited for VNS from 2000 is accurate but potentially misleading. VNS was responsible for both exit polls and reporting final vote counts for every race (the latter function is now provided by the Associated Press). The costs also vary considerably between presidential and off-year elections. Finally, the NEP exit operation still includes more than just exit polls, it also collects vote results at samples of key precincts and provides statistical modeling and analysis used to "call" races.
Emily Swanson |
February 4, 2010
Gallup updates their "State of the States" interactive feature (via Lymari Morales).
David Hill says the GOP resurgence is more about candidate images than a sudden surge in brand appeal.
Chris Weigant points to a leveling off of Obama's approval in January.
Matt Continetti thinks avoiding a fall in Obama's approval ratings might not save Democrats in November.
Jim Geraghty finds the results of the Daily Kos Republicans poll not "that surprising or even that troubling."
Keith Olberman catches something ironic in the Frank Luntz memo on how to defeat financial reform (via Atlantic wire).
Andrew Gelman challenges David Runciman's views on public opinion toward health reform.
Gary Langer shares polling data from a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan.
Pew finds that 93% of 18-29 year olds and 75% of 12-17 year olds own cell phones (via Susannah Fox).
Today we have yet another odd epilogue to story of Strategic Vision, LLC. Apparently not satisfied with their history of setting the low bar for basic disclosure about the surveys they claim to have conducted since 2004, the company is now attempting something new: Attempting to retroactively withdraw previous disclosure.
Until a few weeks ago, the content published at the company's web site, strategicvision.biz, had been automatically archived by the non-profit Internet Archive along with hundreds of thousands of other web pages. In my December column, I linked to two such pages (displaying polls conducted during 2005 and 2007**). As of today, however, if you search the Internet Archive for strategicvision.biz or try either of the links I used previously (and be forewarned: their heavily trafficked site is notoriously slow), you will encounter this error message:
Robots.txt Query Exclusion.
We're sorry, access to http://www.strategicvision.biz has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.
What that means is that sometime in January, someone at Strategic Vision added some code ("User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: /") to a file on their web site that specifically blocks the Internet Archive from searching and displaying pages from their company web site. Let's be clear that Strategic Vision is well within its rights in blocking such searches, and has done nothing illegal or particularly nefarious. As explained on their Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page, the Internet Archive "is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection," and thus provide instructions on how to "exclude any historical pages."
That said, given the swirl of accusations about Strategic Vision arising from a failure to disclose basic information about their methods, this new effort to scrub previously disclosed information from what is essentially a public library for the Internet is more than a little creepy. Combined their apparent blocking of access to strategicvision.biz to me and my colleagues at the National Journal, and we get a story of a company that keeps digging a deeper and deeper hole for itself.
By the way, all credit for spotting this latest twist in the story goes to Michael Weissman, the retired University of Illinois physics professor who previously published a "Fourier analysis" of Strategic Vision's results on FiveThirtyEight.com. His son Jonathan realized that Strategic Vision might delete their archive, and thus downloaded everything he could before it disappeared. So the archived pages live on -- undoing previous disclosure is harder than it looks.
**As of this writing we were still able to load some of the 2005 page (sporadically), and if you experience as similar result it is probably because of something gone awry at archive.org. The code in the robots.txt file on the Strategic Vision site shows that they want Internet Archive to remove stop displaying their content.
Emily Swanson |
February 4, 2010
Rasmussen
2/2/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Kentucky
2010 Senate
49% Grayson (R), 35% Mongiardo (D)
48% Paul (R), 37% Mongiardo (D)
44% Grayson (R), 40% Conway (D)
47% Paul (R), 39% Conway (D)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Trey Grayson: 61 / 18
Dan Mongiardo: 45 / 43
Rand Paul: 54 / 26
Jack Conway: 47 / 32
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 42 / 57
Gov. Beshear: 49 / 48
Emily Swanson |
February 4, 2010
SurveyUSA / KWCH-TV / KCTV-TV
1/29-31/10; 519 likely Republican primary voters, 4.4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(SurveyUSA release)
Kansas
2010 Senate: Republican Primary
40% Jerry Moran, 33% Todd Tiahrt
Emily Swanson |
February 4, 2010
Rasmussen
2/3/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Illinois
2010 Senate
46% Kirk (R), 40% Giannoulias (D)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Mark Kirk: 55 / 33
Alexi Giannoulias: 46 / 39
Job approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 54 / 45
Gov. Quinn: 45 / 53
Emily Swanson |
February 4, 2010
Rasmussen
2/1/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Connecticut
2010 Senate (trends)
54% Blumenthal (D), 35% Simmons (R)
56% Blumenthal (D), 36% McMahon (R)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Richard Blumenthal: 70 / 27
Rob Simmons: 60 / 26
Linda McMahon: 51 / 34
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 51 / 49 (chart)
Gov. Rell: 67 / 33 (chart)
Emily Swanson |
February 4, 2010
Ipsos / McClatchy
1/28-31/10; 1,127 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Ipsos release)
National
State of the Country
37% Right Direction, 57% Wrong Track (chart)
Obama Job Approval
50% Approve, 46% Disapprove (chart)
Dens: 79 / 19 (chart)
Inds: 53 / 31 (chart)
Reps: 19 / 79 (chart)
Congressional Job Approval
21% Approve, 74% Disapprove (chart)
As of right now, do you favor or oppose the healthcare reform proposals presently being discussed?
37% Favor, 51% Oppose (chart)
Party ID
30% Democrat, 26% Republican, 45% independent (chart)
