To be sure, Democrats are in trouble. To be sure, according to pollster.com's tracking, the generic ballot is trending Republican when you aggregate all polling outlets. But why is one poll (+10) covered so extensively, while another (+0) hardly at all? Why is the former considered important, and the second, perhaps an outlier? This new data point is receiving far less coverage. (Media Matters has a very good summary of the difference in coverage here.)

It's hard to know exactly what is causing the fluctuation--whether it's simple poll fluctuation, or "real" movement. But looking at Gallup's breakout of the generic by party, we see most of the movement comes from Democrats consolidating the base. In the current poll, 93% of self-identified Democrats say they are voting for the Democratic candidate, up from 88% in the previous wave. Republican support for the Republican candidate dropped just slightly (96% to 93%). The difference in base consolidation is now even, for the first time in a month. The chart below shows this metric since Gallup began nightly tracking in March.

That remaining Democratic holdouts would begin to come home as we head into the final stretch is not a surprise. Will this pattern hold, and how it translates into actual House seats, remains to be seen. But for those following campaign twists and turns, the latest Gallup poll is a twist worth a bigger mention.

Americans view obesity, particularly among children, as a huge problem worthy of government investment.  A recent GQR survey for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found nearly three-fourths (73%) cite childhood obesity as an important government priority.  It's not just a problem, but something that deserves real attention and "investment" (i.e., spending).   Half said we should invest more in the problem right now, with only 37% arguing "we should wait until the economy improves."

And voters welcome tighter restrictions on companies & school nutrition.  The GQR survey showed clear support for a wide range of tighter restrictions on companies to help combat childhood obesity.  Posting calorie counts in fast food stores is unsurprisingly popular (73% favor).  And clear majorities favor higher nutrition standards for school lunches and vending machines (69% strong favor).  But even limits on advertising unhealthy food to children (66% favor) receive strong support from half of voters.   

But "taxes" on one's own food fall flat.  A CBS survey from earlier this year found a "special tax on junk food" to be quite unpopular (60% oppose).   NPR conducted a survey even more recently and found similar results.  This mirrors what we see a lot in policy polling--restrictions on others are more tolerable on than restrictions on oneself.

Perhaps because people tend to feel obesity is within someone's individual control.  Despite rising obesity rates, and increases in the percentage of people who say they are trying to lose weight, Americans overwhelmingly (89%) believe obesity "is something people can control."  And this poll for the University of Georgia shows few fault marketers for these trends. 

And when it comes to personal assessment, there are inconsistencies.  Far fewer parents describe their children as overweight or obese than we see in the actual population.  Specifically, the GQR poll showed even parents who volunteer their children's height and weight underreported whether they also view them as overweight or obese.  Similarly, this McClatchy-Ipsos poll shows far fewer reporting a personal obesity issue or one in their own family than is actually true among the population. 

With a child nutrition bill passing in the House and under debate in the Senate, Congress is taking some needed steps forward.  But we look forward to seeing more polling on other proposed ideas, such as  changing farm subsidies to reward growing healthy food, restricting what food stamps can purchase, minimizing food deserts, limiting ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup, or giving health insurance breaks to people who lose weight and develop healthy habits.   The public seems ready for action.

Both motherhood itself and the unique economic pressures mothers face are also at work in these results. Of the women we surveyed, 35% were moms, and 86% of those moms shop at Walmart at least once a month. Below are some key findings about these Walmart moms:

They are younger than women overall, but with similar incomes and education. These women are younger, naturally, because they have young children. And they are less white (67%) than women overall (75%). But they are very similar along economic and educational lines.

They are true swing voters--they support Obama and an involved government, but lean Republican in the Congressional ballot. Like women overall, they lean Democratic (+4 Dem advantage), they voted for Obama (+7), and they are currently favorable toward Obama (+6). However, unlike women overall, they lean slightly toward voting Republican in the upcoming Congressional election (-3). These advantages are small--this group could go either way in November.

They see an active role for government. Six in ten (60%) agree with the statement "government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people." While they oppose the recent health care reform (-14), it's unlikely to be a vote driver this November when compared to the economy. Two-thirds (63%) say the economy and jobs are their first or second priority, compared to just a third (35%) for health care. In fact, Walmart moms who support health care reform are actually more interested in health care as an issue (40%) than are Walmart moms who oppose health care (31%).

They are middle of the road on social issues, although they support gay rights more than the Tea Party. Nearly half of Walmart moms are moderates (46%). As such, they are in the middle of the road on social issues. They are more likely to support "the Gay Rights movement" (51%) than the "Tea Party movement" (46%). They are also nearly evenly divided on whether they support "conservative religious groups" (51%).

These moms are also feeling a real personal squeeze across the board. To be sure, given that large numbers of the moms surveyed also shop at Walmart, motherhood itself seems to covary with both more swing political views and personal economic pressures. In this recent Gallup poll (and in the slightly older studies in this Pew report), mothers report more stress, less time, and less rest than fathers. Our findings below about personal economic insecurity and household task division are consistent with this.

While these moms may be similar to women we surveyed in income and education, yet they feel economic pressures more acutely. Unlike women overall, they are both affected by the current economic downturn, and dissatisfied with their personal economic situation. They are also more likely to identify as working class (or lower), and are more likely to feel anxious about slipping out of that class. In fact, middle- or upper-class Walmart moms are even more likely to feel that anxiety, a pattern not found among women overall. In this swing group, anxiety extends across social strata.

We dug a little deeper to examine what specifically were women's top economic concerns. Daily expenses top the list for these moms, with three-fourths rating them an 8,9, or 10 on a 0-10 scale. But concerns about the future also loomed large, with majorities concerned about their retirement or future job loss. Nearly half expressed strong concern about their credit card debt, and a third say they use their credit cards to get by during this crisis. Taking all concerns together, about half (47%) of Walmart moms rated most of these items as top concerns, compared to only a third of women overall. And candidates should take note that those Walmart moms with more interest in the election are even more likely to have multiple strong concerns. 

Economic challenges beget personal and family challenges. This economic insecurity leads to personal and household strain. Over four in ten Walmart moms (42%) said the economic crisis has put strain on their relationship with their spouse or partner, and younger women even more so. It's not surprising given how many cost-cutting actions these women are taking. When read a list of activities one might do to deal with the economic crisis, two-thirds of Walmart moms (66%) said they had done most or all of them. A majority even said they have put off getting health care. 

Along with these daily economic challenges, Walmart moms feel even more of a burden when it comes to household tasks. Nearly four in ten Walmart moms say they alone are responsible for nearly every item from a series of tasks like "doing laundry" or "cooking at home." Even married Walmart moms were more likely to do most of these tasks (31%) than married women overall (26%). 

Swing moms view the political climate through a personal, economic lens.

What we began to do in this survey is something we don't see much of--an exploration of both women's personal and family concerns along with their political views. Personal financial insecurity, broader economic concerns, and swing political views are all related. In order to better talk to women, swing moms, Walmart moms, or however we define them, it's crucial to understand the link between the personal and the political. Other advice includes the following:

• Acknowledge the continued tough economic climate, and that more work needs to be done.


• Personalize a candidate's own narrative and personal journey, to demonstrate relatability, and an understanding of hard times and sacrifices.


• Remember this group is likely not following the daily squabbles of Washington, as they are preoccupied with concerns about daily expenses and family life.


• Focus more on the economy and jobs, less on divisive social issues.


• Put policy positions in the context of how they would affect women and families. Something I've written about here, and elsewhere.

This Rasmussen survey drastically summarizes the Arizona law to only one of its provisions, and finds clear majority support (60%). Nate Silver critiqued it further here. Last week's Gallup survey doesn't even describe the bill at all. It shows voters who self-report reading or hearing something about the bill supported it more (51% favor/39% oppose) than those who had not heard or read anything (39% favor/30% oppose/31% don't know). Without a bill description in the question, voters are responding to what they think they think the bill contains, and so likely have widely divergent perceptions of it. Chuck Todd and Media Matters criticized that survey over the weekend. Despite their flaws, both polls have informed subsequentmedia coverage.

This online Angus Reid poll does examine some of the individual components of the Arizona bill. Putting aside potential objections to online methodology, these questions at least describe the bill in some detail. However, it lacks a single question on the entire Arizona bill, and leaves out some key provisions, like making it easier to sue the state for insufficient enforcement. Despite these differences, the Angus Reid poll shows widespread support for tougher restrictions on immigration, much like the Rasmussen and Gallup surveys.

But to get a full picture of national attitudes, a survey should test supporting and opposing arguments to the bill, and see how, if at all, the arguments change voters' opinions. The goal should be to explore how a protracted national debate on immigration policy might affect voters' views, as well as measure the importance of questionnaire wording and policy details. For example, how do voters evaluate the costs of implementation? What about questions about racial profiling, or judgments based on clothing or shoes? How would support for Arizona's bill compare to support for moderate, yet comprehensive, federal legislation? As Tom Schaller wonders here, do poll respondents simply react to something sweeping being done?

These are all important research questions as we continue the national conversation
on immigration. As always, it's important for media outlets, bloggers and pundits to examine questionnaire language before taking a poll's results at face value. To describe national attitudes based only on the post-Arizona polling so far would be a mistake.

CORRECTION: The original version of the post incorrectly identified results from the Gallup poll collected among all adults as representing those who had not heard about the bill.

And so it's been in the wake of Health Care Reform's passage (HCR). Many have jumped into the debate. Does it help or hurt Democrats? Has it given Democrats back their "mojo"? Has it done nothing whatsoever?

But if we look at pollster.com's tracking of key political measures, we don't see a whole lot of movement beyond those specific to health care (and even then, the movement is gradual).

Let's start with Obama's approval from March 1st till now (HCR passed on March 21st). This chart, to me, could not say "no movement" more clearly. (We see a bit more movement on Obama's ratings on health care, as his approval ratings have increased just slightly.)

Much has been made about Republicans overtaking Democrats in the generic Congressional ballot in this recent Gallup survey. But even in Gallup's own writeup, the change is within the margin of error. It's too soon to tell whether this represents a new pattern, or simply usual variance. The current pollster.com average shows Republicans leading by less than two points, as illustrated in this chart.

This is not to say that voters' views can't be volatile. The average of favor/oppose HCR does in fact move quite a bit, although not very dramatically in the weeks before and after passage. And, of course, views toward Obama and Democrats have softened considerably since the 2008 election. But these movements are generally slower, rather than the quick, dramatic lurches suggested by poll-watchers.

Finally, it's worth putting recent numbers in the context of long-time tracking. While attitudes indeed fluctuate, some things hold true over the long haul. The Washington Post tracks favorable and unfavorable impressions of the two parties (using not only their own polling but some older data from Gallup and CBS News/NYT). The chart below illustrates net favorable (favorable minus unfavorable) for each party. Two things jump out. First, the Democratic Party is always net favorable, while Republicans are sometimes not. Second, the gap in favorability is much larger now, in Democrats' favor, than in 1994. The oft-floated premise that HCR has damaged the Democratic party is just not borne out by the data.