Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (Pew/National Journal 7/22-25)

Topics: National , poll

Pew / National Journal
7/22-25/10; 1,004 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Pew release, National Journal article)

National

Job Approval / Disapproval
Republican leaders in Congress: 33 / 53
Democratic leaders in Congress: 35 / 56

What do you think would do more to improve economic conditions in the country over the next few years?
46% Following the economic policies of Barack Obama's administration
29% Following the economic policies of George W. Bush's administration

Which comes closer to your view about the tax cuts passed when George W. Bush was president?
30% All of the tax cuts should remain in place
27% Tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, while others stay in place
31% All of the tax cuts should be repealed

Party ID
31% Democrat, 29% Republican, 33% independent (chart)

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

This is an interesting poll. It shows that 31 percent actually think tax cuts for everyone should be repealed. I would say that for starters the tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed and when Afghanistan winds down, Obama can give a new tax cut for people making just under 150,000 a year.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I wonder how much in taxes the "All of the tax cuts should be repealed" respondents paid last year? My guess is not much.

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

Is there someone with voodoo dolls in CO trying to cause mischief in both major races? Now I see Tancredo is jumping in and Romanoff is mortgaging his house. This after all the other insanity. What gives here?

____________________

melvin:

This poll is ridiculous. The Republicans are going around trying to make the Bush administration look good,like for instance this morning Art Fletcher the former press secretary of Bush was on Morning Joe this morning claiming Bush left a Debt of 5.8 trillion dollars,but no one on Morning Joe question him on that big lie.The truth is Bush inherited a 5.8 trillion dollar Debt,but doubled it to 11 trillion dollars.I was so surprised no one on Morning Joe caught him on that big fat lie.The GOP is going on Mainstream Media trying to rebuild the Bush legacy,what Artie Fletcher did this morning have to be called out by Democrats before he spread that ridiculous lie to other Major networks.

____________________

Dave:

Ah yes, Art Fletcher. Couldn't have been Ari Fleischer could it?

____________________

Matt Sheldon:

That Party ID spread is as close as I have seen.

This more or less confirms what Rasmussen is seeing.

If the Party ID is 31-29-33 and the Independents are going 2-to-1 to the GOP, then the GOP will win in November by ~10 points.

It all comes down to how the independents break...

____________________

Field Marshal:

lat,

The CO republican party has been in complete disarray ever since Owens left office. None of the more well-known and popular republicans in the state want to run. No idea what Tancredo's angle is here.

Romanoff is a nutcase. He reminds me of the really smart guy that has devious motives- almost a Lex Luther-type personality. He is not going to win the primary.

Its going to be Bennet vs Norton in the Senate race and Hick is going to win the Gov race, easily i think.

melvin,

Get back on your meds!

____________________

Bukama:

The Colorado Republican Party has been in disaray for at least 4 years. I started being disgusted when Bob Beuprez left his solid 7th District seat for an ill-advised run for Governor. He was challenged in the primary, badly damaged, and lost to Bill Ritter, who turned out to be such a poor Gov. that he declined to run for a second term.

Meanwhile, Pete Coors decides he deserves Ben Nighthorse Campbell's Republican Senate seat, even though he's never run for anything. He undercuts a really good guy, a tested CO Republican in Bob Schaffer, and then gets trounced in the election.

Colorado is a relatively conservative state, but they do not tolerate incompetence. So now we have two incompetent candidates for Governor. Now, it was going to be a hard road anyway - Denver mayor Hickenlooper was odds on favorite the moment he declared. He is popular in Denver, and is not an outspoken liberal (though I suspect privately he is very liberal - probably moreso than Ritter). maybe this is why the Republican's could field a strong candidate - who wants to run an uphill race.

So Tom Tancredo, who is very divisive but has a strong base of support, figured Republicans will lose anyway whether Maes or McGinnis is the nominee. He asked both candidates to promise to step down from the nomination if, on the day of the primary, the nominee is behind in the polls to Hickenlooper. This would allow the Republican to name a replacement candidate with a better chance of winning (not Tancredo - more likely Josh Penry) ala Torticelli/Lautenberg in New Jersey a few years ago. I thin the Republicans might have done this, except Tancredo said if I do not getthis guaranty by July 26th, I will run on a 3rd Party ticket (ensuring that no republican can win, and virtually ensuring Hickenlooper will win). What a mess!

The only hope is that the Republicans will replace the wimmer of the primary with someone who could win (John Elway?), and Tancredo will recant his promise and drop from the race (which would screw the Constitution Party whose ticket he is heading).

____________________

StatyPolly:

Speaking of Romanoff, how about that Bubba endorsement? WOW!

Why? He's been a good little soldier for BOBO ever since primary. Why break ranks now on this particular race? Points to Hillary's plans, I would guess.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Matt, party ID stats I've been seeing lately have GOP closing in to within 2-3 points.

Here's Gallup's chart:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141080/Democratic-Affiliation-Stable-Second-Qtr-Recent-Slide.aspx

You can play with party ID chart on this site.

/polls/us/party-id.html

Using filter option under tools, you can narrow it down to individual pollster. That's where you really separate men from boys. Shops like Gallup and Ras track each other very closely, while a few other (MSM) exhibit incredible bias in their reporting. For example, Ras and Gallup both show stable number of GOP, while Dems decline and Indies increase by an equal amount. AP-GFK polls, on the other hand, show a sharp decline in Indies, and a slight decline in Dems. Over the same Sep-08 to now time frame. And these are not party ID polls. These are reported party ID in polls of issues and candidates. Makes it easy to spot narrative drivers.

____________________

melvin:

The GOP needs 61% of the White vote to beat Obama in 2012.That has only happen twice in the Republican 160 year history.Reagan did it in 1984,and Nixon did it in 1972 in they both won in landslides by getting over 500 Electoral votes.If the Republican candidate gets over 60% of the White vote in 2012,he would be lucky to get 280 Electoral votes,it just shows you how big the Minority vote have gotten since Ronald Reagan was the President.John Mccain got more White votes then any Republican in history,but still got walloped by Obama because Mccain couldn't get over 19% of the Minority vote.In order for the GOP to win back the White house,they have to get over 30% of the Minority vote.George W Bush is the only Republican to who did OK with the Minorities,he got 27% in 2004,but before that the Republicans have always gotten below 20%.Now tell me do you see any Republican out there who can get 30% of the Minority vote in 2012?

____________________

StatyPolly:

Hey Melvin, more bad news. Now even Hispanics prefer Whites over other Hispanics. What is this world coming too?

/polls/us/party-id.html

____________________

StatyPolly:

Wrong link, Melvin. This is the one that proves Hispanics prefer whites.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=adf9b20f-3136-4546-a7a9-ff5912aa73b1

____________________

melvin:

StatyPolly if you think the GOP is going to get over 40% of the Hispanic vote in the near future you are smoking something,its not going to happen period.The only thing the Democrats have to do is run ADS on Telemundo showing Hispanics what will happen if the Republicans get back power.(1) The GOP would pass a law taking away the Citizenship of illegal immigrants American born children(2) The GOP would pass a law keeping the kids of illegal immigrants from attending public schools or getting medical treatment at any hospital in the Country.Now after the Hispanic community here about this what makes you think they're going to give the GOP almost half of they're votes?

____________________

melvin:

A State Senator from Utah was on the Michael Salvage radio show last week saying if the GOP pass a law stripping Citizenship from illegal immigrants children it would lower the Hispanic vote 50%,and keep the Republican party competitive in the near future.

____________________

nick283:

Melvin, believe it or not, most hispanics (especially hispanic voters) are not illegal immigrants. Latest PPP (democrat pollster) poll has obama with over 30% disapproval from hispanics and over 60% disapproval from whites. Also, obama got more votes from white voters than every other racial group combined. I know you seem to like dividing people up by race, but probably not a smart move for democrats considering whites will almost definitely still account for over 65% of the vote for the next few cycles.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Melvin, I do think GOP wil get over 40% of Hispanics this Nov. No matter what I smoke.

Even my Hispanic weed dealer is going GOP this time.

____________________

Dave:

Melvin, you do realize that the GOP has heard of Telemundo as well right? It's not like Democrats have this secret platform to advertise to Hispanics that no one else knows about. For every liberal lie pushed on Telemundo, I would hope the RNC would be smart enough to respond with one stating the actual facts.

____________________

melvin:

nick283: Do your math if Whites is only 65% of the vote come 2012 the Republicans wont have a chance in hell of beating Obama,because they would have to get over 72% of the White vote to win.The White vote wont be that low until about 14 years.

____________________

real_american:

Hey melvin - don't worry about Obama and the white vote in 2012. He won't be the nominee.

But even if he is the nominee, the republicans are going to take over the house and the senate, and are going to pass laws to make it illegal for blacks to vote. I heard someone say that on the Michael Savage show so it must be true.

____________________

nick283:

yes Melvin, thats why i said the next few cycles... Obama might just be able to push republicans up to 70+% of the white vote. He is that pathetic of a president. Your 72% assumes republicans will get no more than about 10% of the non-white vote... Not really seeing where you are getting that kind of a number considering McCain did far better than that and he wasn't exactly a strong candidate. Also, I agree with you, against Obama in 2012, the White vote will probably be more like 70-75% of the vote. Keep trying to race bait though... its obviously a good idea to antagonize white voters...

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Obama might just be able to push republicans up to 70+% of the white vote. He is that pathetic of a president. Your 72% assumes republicans will get no more than about 10% of the non-white vote..."

LOL! Not even Reagan did that. He got the most white votes of anyone since WWII - 64% in 1984.

"against Obama in 2012, the White vote will probably be more like 70-75% of the vote."

FYI, the white share of the electorate was 74% in 2008. It was 89% in 1980.

The racial voting patterns have been very stable since 1988 (especially among whites, where it's stayed in a 4 point range, the smallest range of any group) they will probably be in the same ballpark in 2012. There were no dramatic shifts in 2008, Obama was just the beneficiary of demographic trends since the 90s that are now carrying some weight. The only thing that's really changed is the hispanic share. It increased from 5% to 9% since 2000 and the real bulk of hispanics have yet to hit the electorate since they are overwhelmingly young, and the younger ones that did vote were more democratic than their older counterparts by anywhere from 5-15 points, depending on the state.

Since 1992 the white share of the electorate has declined by 3 or 4% every 4 years. Given that the white birthrate has been at or below replacement level for some time, I don't see how that will reverse itself.

If republicans continue to get 30-40% of the hispanic vote that will simply not be enough when you factor in their growth PLUS white decline. Other than 2004 that is what they have always gotten. 2008 was actually a 4-5 point decline from what Clinton got among hispanics.

Now as our republican friends will point out - they are not monolithic. That third of hispanic support for republicans is about as stable as the 40% of white support is for dems. The immigration debate hasn't hurt that, but it hasn't helped either and the current path is disaster for dems in the future.

They should look at what Bush did right - he was an immigration dove and always was as governor.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"the current path is disaster for dems in the future."

**I meant current path is a disaster for republicans in the future.

But think about it...

ALL the issues and ALL the arguments and ALL the venom spewed by both sides in every election since 1988, and the patterns are remarkably stable, only the relative strength has changed.

Hispanics voted for Dukakis with 69%. They voted for Obama with 67%. Only now they are 9% of voters instead of 3%.

If I were a republican I'd be more worried about the Asian vote. In 1992 they voted 55% republican. They shifted in 2000 and in 2008 voted 62% democrat, and it happened in a very linear fashion. Republicans can deal with the hispanic vote - it is still fairly well contained in the southwest and has turnout problems. But the Asian vote too? That means the electoral votes in CA, OR, WA, and HI are out of reach until they do better.

____________________

ndirish11:

"What do you think would do more to improve economic conditions in the country over the next few years?
46% Following the economic policies of Barack Obama's administration
29% Following the economic policies of George W. Bush's administration"

What a horrible question. Bush's economic policies were not ones a of a true free marketeer, or of a fiscal conservative. They were pretty liberal. The government was heavily involved in the economy and the economy was more centrally planned then ever and was spending out of control. Obama's economic policies are ultra liberal, socialist-lite. It's the diet version of socialism. Heavy spending and a government more involved in the economy then ever before and more centrally planned than Bush's.

Obama's idea of "change" is no different from Bush's economic policies failures except for the fact that he is doing ever thing 10x larger. Bigger Stimulus, More Spending and More Bailouts is the change for Stimulus, Spending and Bailouts.

We need the opposite of those things. We need to stop "stimulating" spending and start stimulating savings and production. We need to grow our way out of this mess, not consume our way out. The basic fundamental problems in our economy is that we are over consuming, borrowing too much, and spending too much. We need to stop consuming so much and live within our means. We can't just spend, borrow and consumer forever.

Bush and Obama were both wrong on economics.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Looking at the Republican EV count over the last 22 years is not impressive. They haven't gotten over 300 EVs since 1988 and I don't see how they do except in a perfect world they might get 305.

The only electoral-rich state they have is TX, and those counties in the west and east that vote republican by 60-80% are set to implode demographically in the next decade. In 15 years TX will be 3 blobs of Los Angeles-type sprawl with big city democratic politics with Kansas in the middle. The shifts in the three biggest cities in just the last 10 years should be very distressing to republicans. Harris county used to be the political base of George H.W. Bush.

____________________

Huda:

ndirish11, its only a horrible questions if Republicans actually had a viable coherent economic policy/platform. The question is exactly mimicking what both House and Senate minority leadership and its emerging conservative stars are touting, same Bush redundant crap that collapsed the economy.

In other words, American still prefer the devil they can trust than the one tried and tested for 8yrs. Obama might be in the mid 40s of job approval, yet Republicans have yet to match him in national standing. Its easy to reduce the approval rating of your opponent, the key component of any political party is to bring theirs higher....and Republicans have yet to show anything for it.

qoute: "Obama's idea of "change" is no different from Bush's economic policies failures except for the fact that he is doing ever thing 10x larger. Bigger Stimulus, More Spending and More Bailouts is the change for Stimulus, Spending and Bailouts."

Huda: hmm, again fact challenge much?.....You can argue Obama is a big spender, but Bush economic policy it is NOT. While Bush economic version of stimulus was tax cuts to 4% of the country's elite that added $1.3 trillion to the debt and pointless Iraq war that added $800 billion again to the national debt. Obama spending habit has been domestically focused, where it was more about passing legislative policies that has yet to be felt by the average Joe/Jane.

FYI: Stimulus funding should be credited to Bush, it was passed before Obama was elected. Don't understand why anyone would assume it was Obama who saved the economy. His admin has yet to show any lasting impact on real viable or disastrous economic policies....and no right wing talking heads bs isn't one worth listening to. If only Obama was the socialist they keep screaming about, then tax payers would not be footing the bill for bankers, insurance giants and auto industry.

____________________

Huda:

By the way, why are we debating White v Hispanics? 1/2 of Hispanics regardless of their history consider themselves white. Heck, even black Hispanics do not call themselves of African or black connotation. It might help to consider the ethnic and political demographic, instead of the old made up 20th century racial alignment that has a root in America' racist history. Statistically the 74% of White America includes Hispanics, Cubans, Arabs, Persian and certain Asian segments from India and Afghanistan.

Its about political ideology v.s social perception. Both African American and Hispanics are much more socially conservative than their fellow Americans of European heritage. They tend to vote largely for the Dems, because politically they identify with them and feel such a party holds their best interest at heart, rightly or wrongly.

For the Republican party to be viable in the next 10 yrs or so, heck starting in 2012, they need more voters than the ever reliable 58-60% white voter...otherwise it will be one party country and its unhealthy for any functioning democracy.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"1/2 of Hispanics regardless of their history consider themselves white."

Depends on where you're from.

I grew up on the border where the pop. was 80-85% hispanic. They definitely did not consider themselves "white," even if they were financially well-off. The white minority knew who they were and held power for a very long time. It took till the 90s for a hispanic to become mayor of the town, despite being a majority of the population since the early 60s.

Of course, in other states certain white ethnics were not considered "white;" my mom remembers growing up in RI and her parents hated the Italians.

In any case, I was going off of the exit polls, so those people are self-reporting themselves "hispanic." I admit that word is a poor description but it seems to be the most convenient.

"If only Obama was the socialist they keep screaming about, then tax payers would not be footing the bill for bankers, insurance giants and auto industry."

Yes, he is a very dyslexic socialist.

____________________



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