Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (Fox 7/13-14)

Topics: Generic House Vote , National , poll

Fox News / Opinion Dynamics
7/13-14/10; 900 registered voters, 3% margin of error
332 Democrats, 5% margin of error
343 Republicans, 5% margin of error
166 independents, 8% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Fox News: Immigration, Stimulus)
Update: Generic Ballot

National

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
41% Republican, 37% Democrat (chart)

Obama Job Approval
43% Approve, 48% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 76 / 15 (chart)
Reps: 13 / 80 (chart)
Inds: 40 / 48 (chart)
Oil Spill: 40 / 51

Continue Bush tax cuts or allow to expire at end of 2010
27% allow to expire, 64% continue going forward

If the Congress had not passed the economic stimulus and spending bill and instead done nothing, do you think the nation's economy would be in better shape than it is today, worse shape, or would the economy be in about the same shape as it is today?
22% better, 31% worse, 43% about the same

Do you think the federal government's economic stimulus plan has created a lot of new jobs, some new jobs, a few new jobs or hardly any new jobs at all
5% a lot, 29% some, 23% a few, 40% hardly at all

Do you think are more responsible for the current condition of the economy?
30% Democratic policies, 41% Republican policies, 21% both equally

Do you think are more likely to improve the condition of the country?
37% Democratic policies, 40% Republican policies, 9% both equally

The federal government is suing the state of Arizona because it says its new immigration law is unconstitutional. Do you favor or oppose the federal government's lawsuit?
29% Favor, 59% Oppose

Would you favor or oppose YOUR state passing an immigration law like Arizona's new law?
55% Favor, 34% Oppose

Party ID
37% Democrat, 38% Republican, 18% independent (chart)

 

Comments
iVote:

The Catch: For the first time, Fox News decided to poll more Republicans than Democrats. How convenient.

Way to be obvious, Fox.

____________________

Xenobion:

At least Fox is transparent. We understand these results based on the Party ID %. I could say less about other pollsters.

____________________

iVote:

Very true, Xeno. Fox shifts their ID by several point to favor the Republicans, and as a result approval shifts as well.

____________________

Mike E:

Ouch. Another low for Obama. And apparently more registered voters are calling themselves Republican then Dem.

Its going to be a slaughter of progressives in Nov.

____________________

Publius:

That's a small number of independents. Also, Democratic approval at 76% is low. I think that number moves higher as we move toward November.

____________________

melvin:

President Obama have got to be the most polled President in American history.Where was these polls during the Bush years? Where was you Pollsters? Oh i know why because there is a Black man in the WH.

____________________

iVote:

I don't think that's a fair assessment, Melvin. I would look more to advancements in technology, an increased interest in polls, and the rise of the Internet as the root causes for more polling.

In fact, the more polls out there the better. More data prevents any one poll/polling firm from driving the narrative.

____________________

iVote:

For example, while we have this Fox poll that has Obama's approval at 43/48, we also have a TIME poll that has it at 49/45. For every Rasmussen poll we have that puts it at 45/54, we have a Bloomberg poll that shows it 52/44. From the abundance of polling, we can conclude that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, near 47/47.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Fox at least shows their polling methods. Of course I won't expect as much when I see as many Repubs polled compared to democrats.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I find it interesting, that by an 11 point margin the voters think GOP Policies are responsible for the current financial mess, yet they want the Bush tax cuts to continue. That goes to show, just how the middle class has declined because they have bought into this crap. I don't understand why there is such a love in this country to protect the very rich.

____________________

dpearl:

"I don't understand why there is such a love in this country to protect the very rich."
FL&P: They didn't ask for opinions on the administration's proposal to keep the tax cuts only for those with incomes below $250K - that might have been even more popular.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Looks like this pollster takes the first 900 registered voters every time they poll, and don't manipulate the data to adjust for their perception of "normal" demographic distribution. If you look at the bottom of their survey, party ID fluctuates freely. I respect that. They had Dem 41, GOP 34 last months. I thought the left supports natural selection.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/071510_ObamaStimulus.pdf

OTOH, 37 Dem, 38 Repub is completely realistic THESE DAYS. Gallup aggregates a massive amount of polling to track party ID. Their most recent quarter average is Dem 46, GOP 45. That's including leaners. This ain't 2008 no mo', when Dems had that sweet 53-39 advantage.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127499/party-affiliation-gap-u.s.-narrowest-2005.aspx

____________________

obamalover:

so a plurality of people think Republican policies caused the crisis, but a plurality thinks that Republican policies are the solution. Sometimes I wonder what is going on in my fellow Americans' heads.

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

"President Obama have got to be the most polled President in American history.Where was these polls during the Bush years? Where was you Pollsters? Oh i know why because there is a Black man in the WH."

Wow how do your posts even make it past the civil and intelligent requirement? That has to be the stupidest thing i've ever read. Perhaps Melvin you were just a kid during most of the Bush years and didn't pay any attention to politics? I can't believe the psychotic obsession with race among some of you. Perhaps you might want to go see a doctor.

____________________

tjampel:

Gotta agree that the very worst question asked was on the Bush Tax Cuts. I favor leaving them in place, with one exception....for the richest 5%. Therefore how do I and many like me answer this question? Indeed how would Obama answer it if he were polled? He'd have to say "yes" too since he supports mainly leaving the cuts in place for of 95% of Americans.

____________________

Stillow:

OL - I noticed that too and I think I understand why. I might also have answered the same way. I, like many blame GOP spending policies the past 8 years for some of the woes right now. But, if republicans actually presneted and support policies like they did in the 90's, then its deifnatley the better way to go rather than Dem policies which are basically doubling down on spending fro mthe past 8 years.

That might explain that difference. There's no doubt the GOp spent to much money the past 8 years which angered much of their base, myself among them....so if they return to more fiscally conservative policies then we'd be better off than just more of the same old game of who can spend the most money the fastest.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Aha, it's starting already.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365482705270718.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond

Considering where her favorables are, she'd probably crush any GOP'er.

A remarkable transformation really. Her unfavorables stayed above 50 for years and years and years. All pundit, Dems and Repubs alike, always claimed that she could never win the WH because of her high and incredibly stable unfavorables.

She is so popular, she may even have a chance as an Indie/3rd party candidate? Naw, that's pushing it.

This was no overnight sensation, but nevertheless a good lesson. Not sure in what tho. Shifting of the winds? Skilled political strategery do matter. Voters have short memories? All of the above?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

While I don't agree that it has anything to do with being black, Melvin's point that Obama has been polled more than any other president is a good one. Obama has indeed been polled quite a bit. I looked into it one time and Obama in his first year was polled something like 6 to 9 times as much as Bush was in his first year.

"I can't believe the psychotic obsession with race among some of you."

Psychotic? Race is a serious issue that deserves study. Americans are notorious cowards when it comes to discussing it cadidly (but then again so are many nations).

If you think we have gotten over our race issues simply because Obama has been elected, you are sorely mistaken. I see & hear racism used every day - in commercials, songs and yes, politics. You don't think there is racial division in the U.S.? Just look at the top 40 - who do you think is listening to P. Diddy (#27) and who is listening to Train (#12)? Or Rihanna / Taylor Swift?

Although I disagree with the interpretation of people like Melvin or lat who think it's solely republicans that engage in racism.

Plus I strongly disagree that racism drives opposition to Obama. The people who disapprove of Obama because he's black and out of his place (they are there - my dad is one) were probably incorporated into the 20% or so disapproval he had starting out.

So the racism is there, but it is not the primary driver of his opposition. A more general form of bigotry is behind that, same as it was for Bush, same as it was for Clinton, etc... Americans have a problem accepting that everyone does not think like them.

I actually think race is a benefit to Obama, like JFK's catholicism was a benefit to him even though CW said it would be a net drag (a lot of the people said opposition to JFK was solely because he was catholic...also not true).

I think any other democrat president would be several points lower than Obama right now. Hillary, Biden, Edwards, any of them would be lower. Obama's probably buffered 2-4 points thanks to higher than normal support among minorities. His numbers among whites are normal for a democrat. Obama does not have a white person problem. Democrats have had a white person problem since the 70s.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Considering where her favorables are, she'd probably crush any GOP'er."

Yes, she was the most hated woman in America up until about March/April 2008 after the NC/IN primaries.

I think it's just a 'grass is greener' effect. Her unfavorables dropped considerably once it was clear she couldn't get the nomination. It's the same thing that happens to every politician once they leave the limelight.

Exactly how is she different from Obama ideologically? I watched the primary campaign between those two extremely closely. There was little difference between them that wasn't stylistic. The main difference was that Obama was vague and Hillary occasionally had trouble keeping her story straight.

I think you would have liked Hillary less. It was clear she was going to take a more strident no-nonsense line with the republicans than Obama and would have been far more of a fighter when it came to health care.

Do you not remember the hearing about Guantanamo early in 2009? A republican senator asked Hillary something based on some report Cheney's office had put out year or so earlier. She replied that she didn't consider anything from him a legitimate source and therefore the question was irrelevant.

There would have been no "sensing sessions" with the republican caucus if Hillary was president. No health care conferences.

Obama, I think, was much like G.W. Bush coming in. He had been able to work with republicans in IL. Bush had been able to work with democrats in TX. They both naively thought that the opposing party in D.C. would go along to get along like they do in state politics.

Hillary would never even have tried that.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"All pundit, Dems and Repubs alike, always claimed that she could never win the WH because of her high and incredibly stable unfavorables."

I think her EV performance would have been lower than Obama's, although she still would have won. It would have been very hard for any democrat to have lost that year.

The map would have been different. Almost no way she wins IN and NC, and might have been a tougher sell in CO, NV, NM where the Clintons were never particularly popular. Would have been weaker in WI, MN, MI, and the west coast, but still won those. FL might have been questionable. But she probably could have gotten MO, WV, maybe even KY and AR. OH and PA would have been locks making it very difficult for McCain to win.

I also think McCain would have never picked Palin if Hillary was the nominee - Palin cost him a few EV's or at least did not help in any state he was not already going to win. The McCain camp was very prepared for a run against Hillary. The Palin pick was desperation and McCain wouldn't have been desperate vs. Hillary. Republicans had been preparing for that fight ever since she won her senate seat in 2000. If the McCain ticket had included someone like Romney or Pawlenty he probably would have done better. Lieberman would have been a better choice - he could have helped put pressure on some blue states and reinforced the McCain narrative he'd built for himself the last 10 years. With Palin he sabotaged it. People like maverick independence. They don't like maverick recklessness, which was what McCain showed us in 2008.

A McCain/Lieberman ticket vs. Hillary/whoever would have been a much closer fight.

____________________

A & F (Abercrombie & Fitch) in the summer 2010 launch of a variety of shirt Oh! There is popular in recent years, retro striped checkered shirt, casual shirt are a variety of styles, whether you are office workers or trendsetters, are equally enthusiastic that can find their own section, or a shirt if you control, then not to miss, and both boys and girls were oh!
Abercrombie&Fitch

____________________

GoTo123:

Hehe this poll makes me laugh. More people think that the Republican policies are responsible for the condition of the economy yet at the same time, more people think that the Republican policies will be better for the economy. Got to admit, those are some pretty funny results.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Aaron_in_TX

The main reason for the enormous number of Obama approval polls is because of the media's obsession with him. That is it. The mainstream media is completely enamored with Obama and that is why there is constant polling done on him. It has nothing to do with the man's ethnic background (other than the mainstream media considers him incredibly important and "transformative" because he is a black man).

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

"Race is a serious issue that deserves study"

Not to the point of obsession or where lefties see the racial boogeyman behind every little thing.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Well, I am certainly not a Hillary fan. I was pulling for BO during primary. I'd still probably vote for BO over Hill, if I was forced to choose one of them at gun point:-) Just pointing out that she has a great chance to beat him should she choose run. Yeah, it the greener grass thing. He is old news now, and she is suddenly a bright new face. It's like finding old bell-bottoms in your great-grandpa's attic. And selling them on E-bay. Is that a form of donation to Meg? Alright it's getting late and I am getting off subject.

You make some good points on McCain's choice of Palin. He ran behind BO all summer, and decided to make a bold move. He did not necessarily undermine his maverickness, since Palin was known for being hated by Alaska's GOP establishment, since she really took it to them earlier by busting up their cozy relationship with Big Oil, but he did undermine his experience argument, which was his most effective weapon against BO. But still, right after he picked Palin, McCain surged ahead for the first time since March, and stayed ahead right up to the Lehman Bro's collapse. I think the massive panic that ensued would have taken down any Repub candidate at that point in time. Be it Reagan, Ike, Teddy or Abe.

Look at the chart. Palin was introduced Aug 29 and gave her famous convention speech Sep 3. Lehman filed for bankruptcy Sep 15.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ StatyPolly

A good bit of the McCain "surge" was the normal bump a candidate for President gets during and after his convention. Maybe McCain got an extra 1-2% of Palin, but that is about it. I agree with you that the race was even (or maybe even McCain up by a point or two) until September 15th and the beginning of the financial collapse. Of course, September 15th or 16th was the day that McCain stated that the "fundamentals of the economy are sound" and the Obama campaign and the media ran with it. It was over after that.

What would have been interesting is what would have happened if Lehman Brothers had not failed until November 15th instead of September 15th? Would McCain have won? I think he still would have lost, but it would have been much closer, probably 50.0%-48.5%, instead of 52.9%-45.6%.

____________________

Stillow:

On polling of Obama. Maybe someone has looked this up, but hasn't polling of presidents increased with every new administration? Was Clinton not polled more than Reagan, Bush more than Clinton? Obama more than Bush. The numnber of media outlets and polling firms is always growing, so the pool of polling grows with it. In addition information becomes more accessible every year, so increase in the amount o finfromation is to be expected. It has nothing to do with race or political beleifs, its simply the normal progression of things.

aaron is correct, race is important. But the abuse of the world "racist" has done serious harm to the discussion. genuine acts of racism are now clouded over by the routine accusations of racism when none exist. Presidents are hated by some and loved by some, this has been the case since G. washington. Obama is not expereincing anything that every other president has not expereinced.

But racism and accusations of racism have become a political tool the two sides now url at one another...and its sad because it degrades us all. We have no heros today, there are no Abe Lincolns or MLK Jr's to stand up against this type of abuse. We liv ein a time of vapid selfishness, where the objective is no longer to help everyone, but rather to tear down your opponents by any means necessary. We have very few statesmen left and no heros to speak of...and that is soemthing America is not used.

As for Palin...she was not a bad pick for Mccain. She delivered one of the best convention speeches of all time. Palin I think really exposed the media bias non-liberals are always referring too. In my multiple decades of watching politics, I have never seen anyone attacked as viciously as palin has...and it is not limited to her, her kids have been attacked...and on personal levels. Palin has been destoryed by the media in this country. The left unleashed every barrel they had on her. Which is unfair, because she seems to be a very kind lady, a good mom and all around decent human being. More than you can say about most politicans.

The media treated her unfairly...and they threw everything they had at her. Had she been a Democrat the treatment by the media would have been very different.

So it was not a mistake for Mccain to choose her. McCain was the perfect candidiate in 2008 to lose. A republican was not going to win in 2008...in large part Mccain took one for his team.

As for Hillary, she probably will challenge Obama. She wants to be president. With Obama struggling, her window will be coming soon. With all the talk about double dip recessions o nthe way, record year for forelcosures, etc....she will not let an opportunity go by if it presents itself. Wheather or not she can win, who knows. She did not run in 2004 because she knew she could not defeat Bush, 2008 was her moment and Barry stole it. A woman scorned is very very dangerous to the scorner.

____________________

real_american:

I am old enough to remember the race riots in the 60's. If morons like you race baiters here and the new black panthers who want to kill white babies and the NAACP who declares that people who want tax cuts are racists, there will be violence in the streets again.

I don't own a gun but I'm extremely close to getting one. You idiots don't know how badly you are setting back race relations. Someone somewhere is going to start shooting people and I want to be prepared when that starts.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Melvin
You are a despicable piece of race baiting shit and a poor example of a black man. Everyday you spew your hatred of whites on this site in a most ignorant and illiterate way, and frankly you are need to go. If I were black I would punch you in the face and tell you to keep your stupid racist comments to yourself because you are a drag on all blacks. My advice to you is stop using the words black and racist from your post, but then you probably wouldn't have anything else to say. Second, take a third grade spelling and grammar class, you seriously need it. Third, apologize to everyone here for your irresponsible behavior and ask for forgiveness.

____________________

Paleo:

More Republicans than Democrats? Right. Nice job, Faux.

____________________

Paleo:

"What would have been interesting is what would have happened if Lehman Brothers had not failed until November 15th instead of September 15th? Would McCain have won? I think he still would have lost, but it would have been much closer, probably 50.0%-48.5%, instead of 52.9%-45.6%."

I think McCain would have won. Obama was slipping in part because of a convention bounce, but more importantly because of a Dukakis-like refusal to fight back against the Republicans. We see the same thing while in office. He lets teabaggers spread every slanderous accusation against him, Republicans obstruct him in congress, and righties in general act as if history started on January 20, 2009. They advance the same proposals that got us into this mess, and act as if the financial collapse did not occur on their watch, without barely a peep from Obama.

____________________

jack:

As other readers have noted, all bush's tax cuts are NOT created equal. Fox knew that if they asked "Do you want tax cuts for the rich extended," the answer would have been very different.

But then, what else can you expect from a Republican TV channel?

____________________

Field Marshal:

Of course people are going to say no to the question Jack. As long as they are getting something from the government and someone ELSE is paying, they are all for it.

I saw on CNBC the other day that if Obama lets the tax cuts on people earning $250k and up expire, then the top 1% will be paying more than 55% of all income taxes and the top 5% paying over 80%. The bottom 55% will be paying zero.

And is there a problem with ONE republican leaning channel when there are a half dozen or more democratic ones?

____________________

efrick:

The weighting of this poll is highly suspect. Thirty-eight per cent Republican? Hmmmm.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Libs read this a weep!

PPP: Obama, Palin tied 46/46 in 2012 polling

____________________

lat:

JMS,

I like you ( I like Stillow and FM too, but they probably don't believe me). You are a conservative with a brain and you are not nuts. I have always respected conservative thinking that is based on intellectual thought (even though I don't agree with it) and not dogma or relgious drive. I miss reading William F. Buckley although I was too young when he was truly in his prime, but he would be an example of what I am talking about.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR