Open Left - Polls

Versailles Vs. America, Part #305,693

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:00:00 GMT

That title may be a bit out of date, as I started this diary before last weekend, then held it back in hopes of getting cross-tabs that I've yet to receive. But the prospect of a jobs bill now seems a good deal more hopeful than it did just 11 days ago, and these poll numbers--only from the 11 Confederate states--are a powerful reminder that doing a jobs bill now would be politically very smart: favored 3-1 by all voters, and by a whopping 32-1 by Democrats. Aid to states is also favored strongly: 2-1 by all voters, and more than 5-1 by Democrats. From the latest Winthrop Poll:

On the flip: Who's to blame for the financial situation.
Surprise, surprise, the winner is: the banks! Equally surprising: Only Republicans manage to blame the Obama Administration more then the Bush Administration! What genuinely is surprising is how little difference there is between Democrats, Republicans and independents in their assessments of blame for all non-political actors. The figures very only slightly in virtually every category--around 10 points at the high end, usually five or less:

More Republicans think Obama stole election than Democrats think Bush stole either 2000 or 2004

Chris Bowers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:07:03 GMT

A new survey from PPP (PDF) shows that 26% of Americans, most of whom are Republicans, think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama.

For the sake of comparison, a Gallup poll immediately following Gore's concession in the 2000 election showed that 18% of the county, a significant percentage of whom were African-American, believed that Bush stole the election.

In 2004, the numbers for Bush were even lower. Back then, in the wake of Kerry's concession, a Gallup poll showed only 13% of the country believed that Bush stole the election. (FWIW, I was among the 5% or so that shifted from 2000 to 2004.)

This is simultaneously a demonstration that hard-core conservatives live in an entirely different reality than the rest of the country, and that the hardcore conservative base is as much as twice as large as the hardcore progressive base. As both a media figure and a political organizer that operates primarily in the hardcore progressive world, I'd be lying if I didn't admit the size of the hardcore conservative base made be pretty jealous.

With the exception of 1995, polling has consistently shown that there are more Americans who believe Republicans are too liberal than there are Americans who believe Democrats are too conservative. Further, a larger percentage of Americans are Republicans who would prefer less-electable candidates with whom they largely agree on issues, than are Democrats who hold the same belief (source, PDF). And there are even more conservatives who think the 2008 election was stolen than there are progressives who think the 2000 election was stolen, which is pretty remarkable given the difference in margin between the two elections.

Many dismiss the importance of an active, engaged, ideological base, but such a base seems to have far more benefits than negatives. The base provides the resources to win elections. They provide turnout in low attention and enthusiasm elections. They fuel the primary challenges that keep party members in line, and thus allow you to pass legislation. They make your entire party appear to believe in something, rather than being wishy-washy and attempting to win for its own sake. The continuing base gap between conservatives and progressives is a major factor in why progressive governance remains so much more difficult than conservative governance.

A graphic showing just how little has changed over the past year

Chris Bowers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Since August 15th, President Obama's job approval rating has mirrored the results of the 2008 election almost precisely. By superimposing the results of the 2008 election over Pollster.com's graph of Obama job approval rating since August 15th, you can see just how little has changed politically over the past year:

The graph adjusts for the undecideds in Pollster.com's job approval rating by multiplying the 2008 results, Obama 52.87%--45.60% McCain, by 0.9633. (This figure is derived by taking the 5.2% undecided in the Pollster.com graph, subtracting the 1.53% that voted for a third-party candidate in 2008, and then subtracting the resulting 3.67% from 100%.)

For the past 95 days, President Obama's approval rating has hovered in a very tight range, between about 50.5% and 52.0%. Similarly, his disapproval has also hovered in a narrow range, from about 42.5% to 45.0%. Both narrow ranges are neatly bisected by the results of the 2008 election, when those results are adjusted for undecideds.

For President Obama, essentially nothing has changed politically since November 4th, 2008. He has as many supporters as he did back then, and as many opponents. From November 5th through August 14th, his approval rating was unnaturally inflated by soft supporters who had actually backed McCain in 2008. Now, however, his coalition has shed all of those soft supporters, and has entered a period of balance nearly identical to that just before the 2008 elections.

The same can not be said for Congressional Democrats. One year ago, House Democrats won the national popular House vote by 8.88%, but are currently leading Republicans by just 3.19% in the national House ballot. Similarly, the Democratic edge is partisan self-identification stood at 10% (39%-29%) on Election Day, 2008 (according to exit polls), but now stands at 6% (40%-34%).

So, it would appear that President Obama has been able to maintain a bit more buoyancy than the rest of his party. This could perhaps be viewed as a political benefit to taking a relatively hands-off, "congressionalist" approach to major legislation such as the stimulus, climate change and health care. Then again, one could counter that passing that major legislation earlier, and making that legislation stronger, would have been more of a political benefit and could have been accomplished with a more hands-on approach.

Rasmussen pro-Palin spin #fail

Chris Bowers — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:10:47 GMT

Rasmussen emailed me this morning to let me know that Sarah Palin is way in touch with her own party. I mean, a full 59% of Republicans think that she share their values! Emphasis mine:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% of Republican voters disagree and think the 2008 vice presidential candidate does not share their values. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.

Wow! Just 21% of Republicans think that Palin does not represent their values! That's, like, almost as good as Bob Dole! Back in 1996, just 19% of Republicans voted for either Clinton or Perot.

If McCain had been opposed by just 21% of his own party, then he would have only lost by another 3.8% to 7.7%!

And if Bush had been opposed by just 21% of his own party in 2004, he would have only lost Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio! He would hae still managed 213 electoral votes--that's like, pretty good!

Oh wait--I'm forgetting the 20% of Republicans who are undecided about Palin. Hmmm... maybe she isn't quite closing in on bob Dole's level of national viability yet.

Only 7.2% of Americans who approve of President Obama's job performance are Republicans

Chris Bowers — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Americans who self-identify as Republican, and who approve of President Obama's job performance, compose only 3.8% of the American population.

Among the 52.2% of the population that approves of President Obama's job performance, only 7.2% self-identify as Republican.

These numbers come from Pollster.com, which allows readers to examine President Obama's job approval rating by partisan self-identification, and to view the partisan self-identification of the country as a whole.

According to Pollster.com, among all American adults President Obama has a 52.2% approval rating. Further, among all American adults, only 22.8% self-identify as Republican. Finally, among self-identified Republicans, only 16.5% approve of President Obama's performance in office. Simple multiplication of these numbers shows that 3.8% of American adults both approve of President Obama's job performance, and self-identify as Republican. It also shows that President Obama's current coalition of supporters is only 7.2% Republican.

If one looks only at registered and likely voters, the Republican composition of President Obama's current coalition does not increase much. Even then, only 5.8% of the county are both self-identified Republicans and Obama job approvers, and President Obama's coalition is only 11.4% Republican.

By contrast, self-identified Democrats who approve of President Obama are 28.7% of all American adults, and 55.0% of President Obama's current coalition. Among registered and likely voters, Democratic self-identifiers soar to 65.2% of President Obama's coalition.

There are many implications of these numbers, but the primary one is that we are still a partisan, polarized nation, and not just in D.C. To this point, all attempts at bi-partisan, national coalitions have continued to prove futile. That really shouldn't be surprising, given that no presidential candidate or political party one has ever won more than 61.05% of the vote in a national election in about 200 years.

We can complain all we want about the broken promises of politicians, but at this point any voter who believes any politician when that politician says that s/he will bridge the divide between the parties--well, that voter is simply being foolish. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me eight zillion times, shame on me.

2008 Electorate: "Americans" - You Might Be Surprised

dreaminonempty — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:00:00 GMT

In this diary series, we've cycled through just about every ethnic group with available data. But there's one left: "Americans" - and the quotation marks are there for a reason.

In practice I am defining this group as whites who did not list an ancestry or listed American or United States as ancestry on the census form. Very few non-whites list American as an ancestry. There is also a correlation between the percent whites who list American ancestry and whites who do not list any ancestry, which is why I lumped them all together.

Who are these "Americans"? We can't tell, but there's lots of possible reasons to fall into this category: too many ancestries to list, unknown ancestry, patriotism, annoyance with labels, privacy concerns, getting bored filling out the census form, and sheer contrariness come to mind.

No matter, one thing is clear: nationwide, on average, the more whites describe themselves as "Americans" in a county, the less support for Obama among whites.

Click to enlarge.
Ten Second Summary

Those who identify as "American" generally did not support Obama very strongly, and typically less so than other whites in their region; this is true to varying degrees in different parts of the country. There are two exceptions. First, the Northeast, where "Americans" supported Obama. Second, Appalachia, where support was split, and greater than support from other whites.

Support Among Whites

This analysis relies on location-specific estimates of Obama's support among non-white racial categories to estimate Obama's support among whites in each county. This estimate gets shaky when the percent white is below around 75%, and pretty lousy below 50%. The map below shows all the results - negative values (I told you the estimate can get shaky!) are plotted as zero. Counties less than 50% white will not be considered further for this analysis.

Click to enlarge.

Examples

When we plot percent support for Obama among whites against percent of whites who are "American" in individual states, most states show graphs that are rather dull, partly because many states have a small range of variation in the percent "American." Here's an exception - the state with the best regression, Florida:

Click to enlarge.

Florida shows a very wide range in values on the x-axis that could be attributed to a rural/urban, born-and-raised/retiree cultural split.

Regional Differences
First, where are these "Americans" located?

Click to enlarge.

There's not a uniform distribution, nor is their uniform behavior, as one might expect from such a catch-all category.

In fact, we can loosely group states and regions according to where on the original plot their data fall, although some areas could easily fall into several categories. When we do this, we find remarkable differences across the country, although the regressions are a little rough. Here are the results of these groupings, just showing the regressions:

Click to enlarge.

You may notice something very strange: only one line is going steeply up. In Central Appalachia, support for Obama increases as the population becomes more "American." Elsewhere it decreases or is flat (the Northeast). Yes, folks, this part of Appalachia is, indeed, different from the rest of the country - because they were far more supportive of Obama than we might have expected based on this variable. The Northeast also stands out, in that support for Obama among whites is essentially independent of percent "American" - and high.

We can use these graphs to generate support levels for different groups of "Americans" based on their (rather poorly-defined) region. These regions are not the same as what is plotted above, but related. For example, both Old South and New South have at one endpoint of their regression very high levels of white 'Americans' with very low support for Obama, dubbed here Confederacy 'Americans'. The difference between Old South and New South is at the other end of the regression; Old South has low support among whites who identify an ancestry, but New South has high support among those who identify an ancestry.

Click to enlarge.

Defining the Regions

Let's take a closer look at the regions. Each map below shows how well one of the lines above can predict Obama's performance. We're looking for yellow. If counties on the Yankee map are yellow, it means they sit pretty close to the Yankee regression line. Green means a pretty poor prediction, and blue means lousy. The numbers refer to the residual - the difference between what the lines predict, and what the election results were.

Click to enlarge.

Starting in the Northeast, many counties from Maryland on up to Maine sit on the line. There's a concentration of counties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, however. If we look at New England - essentially a more pro-Obama subset of Yankee - we see, well, New England. An area more or less on the West of the Connecticut River (Vermont and Western Massachusetts) is mostly green/blue - this area is even more pro-Obama.

Click to enlarge.

Moving South and West, the Heartland region has some pretty sharp boundaries on the West. There's low support for Obama among "Americans" here, but not abysmally low. We see some old friends show up as blue spots here and there - the counties with high concentrations of those with Dutch ancestry, for instance. Note especially how state borders are not always followed. The border states on the Southern side are mostly green - meaning they don't fit all that well on the Heartland line.

Click to enlarge.

So we move on South to Real America. This regression describes mainly areas of Appalachia and the Upland South on over to the Ozarks (and parts of Florida?). Support for Obama among "Americans" here was higher than in the Heartland. But we see some blue patches in Central Appalachia...

Click to enlarge.

In Central Appalachia, support for Obama was split among "Americans," and far higher than everywhere else except the Northeast. The map shows the counties that are described well by this regression stretching from Pennsylvania down into Southern Ohio and Northern Kentucky, and some in Tennessee as well. There's a good deal of yellow in the region where two regressions meet, and a county could be predicted by either the Central Appalachia line or the Real American line. What is unique about Central Appalachia is the central region (in Central Appalachia) of high percent "American" and about 50% support for Obama.

Click to enlarge.

Finally we come to the Confederacy and Old West. Looking at the maps, there's no clear demarcation, and not much difference, just a fade from one to another around the Southern Plains. There's actually a little lower support among "Americans" in the Old West. We can gain a few more insights from the Old West map, however. First, there appears to be another region - the Pacific Coast, essentially the Northern California coast and Oregon and Washington west of the Cascades - where support among "Americans" is about 10 percentage points higher than the rest of the Old West. Then we have the Mormon Corridor, where support is lower. And finally, the New West - blue spots here and there, including many cities.

All these maps put together - and they more or less look like this. (For more maps of cultural regions, go here.) In other words, politics among "Americans" more or less follows previously described cultural boundaries in the United States.

________________________________________________
This diary is the twelfth in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change.

Previous diaries:

Looking Back
Alternate History
Why Republicans Should Be Really Scared
African-Americans - We Are Not All of Us Alike
East and South Asian Americans - Diverse and Growing
West Asian Americans - Rapid Change
Native Americans - Increasing Participation
Islander Americans - In Need of More Representation
Alaskan Natives - An Economic Factor?
Latino Americans - Increasing Influence
European Americans - Tribal Politics Persist

Tomorrow: The Appalachian Electorate: Surprisingly Democratic

Cross posted at DailyKos.

2008 Electorate: European Americans - Tribal Politics Persist

dreaminonempty — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Take a look at the map below and see if you can figure out what the circled counties have in common:

Click to enlarge.

If you think these counties each had the best showing for McCain in their respective states, you're darn close, but not exactly right. Here's a hint: this diary is about the politics of European Americans - that is, those who identified a specific European ancestry in the 2000 census.

Answer on the flip.
Ten Second Summary

Those who identify their ancestry as European are a diverse group, too. Even after generations, ethnic identity is related to politics in ethnic enclaves at least.

The Answer

Each county circled above has the highest percentage of those with Dutch ancestry (first listed ancestry) in its state. Here's a map of Dutch ancestry to compare to the electoral results:

Click to enlarge.

Turns out this is a pretty heavily Republican demographic - about 10-20% support for Obama. This leaves heavily Dutch counties in the Midwest looking a fair bit redder than their neighbors. And it's not because there's large differences in other demographic variables, such as race, income, or education.

These communities have maintained the culture of the original immigrants to at least some extent as Dutch ethnic enclaves. In 1847, two conservative Reformed pastors founded Holland, Michigan and Pella, Iowa. The percent of residents who are Reformed adherents (map) is pretty close to the percent who describe their ancestry as Dutch, indicating a substantial amount of cultural continuity. Holland, Michigan, for example, appears to take great pride in its Dutch heritage.

Not all people who indicate a European ancestry in the census may be as affected (politically) by their cultural heritage as those in these Dutch communities. There's bound to be a spectrum, from those who have a profound identification with the culture, language, religion, and values of their ancestors to those who only dimly recall their ancestors' origins.

European Americans - The Results

Here's the voting preferences of various groups of European ancestry, estimated from the November election results and census data:

Click to enlarge.

Broadly speaking, there's some tribal divisions to be seen here: Nordic descendants were more likely to support Obama, while other Germanic descendants were more likely to support McCain. Slavic descendants and immigrants also were likely to support Obama.

We Are Not All of Us Alike. Yet Again.

Of course, just as with other (typically more recent) immigrant groups, we would not expect all communities with origins in one country to have similar political tendencies. I would suspect recent immigrants from the Netherlands, for instance, would be more likely to vote for Obama than McCain, given that the Netherlands was the most pro-Obama European country (6th in the world), with 74% preferring Obama and 10% preferring McCain in a Gallup poll.

We see this above for those of Swedish heritage. In Minnesota, I estimate strong support for Obama among those of Swedish heritage; in Wisconsin, somewhat less, although it's hard to tell; but in Kansas, support is low, and similar to other Kansans. We can also see this to a lesser extent for those of German heritage, where support for Obama is higher in Wisconsin than in other states. And, we can see a role for religion, with those in Utah of English origin - which in that state is correlated to the percent of adherents to the Mormon religion - less likely to support Obama than those of English ancestry in New England. Perhaps the biggest differences are seen between those in the Northeast with French ancestry, and those in Louisiana with Cajun or French ancestry. In this case, the differing historical journeys of these two populations is quite clear, despite the common French thread.

We can also see strong differences between ethnic groups within a state - in North Dakota and Minnesota, for instance, there's a large difference in support between those of German and Norwegian ancestry that shows up in the election results map:

Click to enlarge.

Sometimes We Are Alike. Coincidence?

One intriguing finding is that seven different Polish-American communities (Sherman County, NE and Morrison and Lincoln County, MN not shown) all showed similar (and strong) support for Obama. Here's a few more details on four of these communities; census data from 2000:

Greenpoint, Brooklyn, NY: Population 37,000. Urban working class community; Polish immigration from the 1890s to present day. 17,000 list first ancestry as Polish; 15,000 speak Polish (2000 under age 18) and 14,000 were born in Poland.

Cook County, IL: Population 5,000,000. The largest Polish community in the nation, urban and suburban, continuing immigration. 425,000 list first ancestry as Polish; 160,000 speak Polish (23,000 under age 18) and 121,000 were born in Poland. The census tracts used to estimate support for Obama were suburban, and around half to two-thirds of those with Polish ancestry were born in Poland.

Portage County, WI: Population 67,000. Rural communities, settled partly by Polish farmers starting in the 1850s. About 19,000 list first ancestry as Polish; 1,000 speak Polish (40 under age 18) and only 80 were born in Poland.

Luzerne County, PA: Population 303,000. An old industrial and mining center with a strong union history. The only county where a plurality of residents has Polish ancestry; immigration began 150 years ago. 60,000 list first ancestry as Polish; 2700 speak Polish (200 under age 18) and 400 were born in Poland.

Urban, suburban, and rural; recent immigrants, or longstanding American families; agricultural or industrial: were these communities all strongly supportive of Obama for different reasons or because of cultural similarities?

Ethnic Whites

I heard a lot about the Ethnic White vote during the 2008 election. A brief search does not yield a clear definition, but a look at immigration patterns might help:

Click to enlarge.

Until the late 19th century, voluntary immigration to this country was almost entirely from Germanic Northern European countries, with the major exception of Ireland. Then there was a large influx from Southern and Eastern Europe, and plenty of social strife to go with it. In 1924, immigration quotas shut down immigration from these areas (and others).

So let's tentatively define "Ethnic White" as Eastern and Southern European, plus Irish (Catholic). This is essentially the upper half of the chart shown in the Results section above.

One thing stands out immediately: ethnic whites are not a monolithic group at all. Nationwide, as a group, it's quite likely that they tilt towards Republicans a bit, although remember that estimates from one geographic area aren't necessarily representative of a nationwide sample. However, there is a large amount of variation, from a generally strong support for Obama among Polish Americans to very low support among Italian Americans in portions of New York City and New Jersey.

Warning

These results are all from areas with high concentrations of people identifying with a particular ancestry - ethnic enclaves. Just as with other groups we've seen, it would be reasonable to assume those identifying with a European ancestry probably vote in a more uniform manner living within an ethnic enclave than outside of one.

________________________________________________
This diary is the eleventh in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change.

Previous diaries:

Tomorrow: The 'American' American Electorate: You Might Be Surprised

Cross posted at DailyKos.

2008 Electorate: Islander Americans - In Need of More Representation

dreaminonempty — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:30:54 GMT

Hawaii, of course, is a state. And there's 600,000 Pacific Islanders on the mainland, along with 3.4 million Puerto Ricans, 1.2 million Cubans, 0.8 million Dominicans, and 1.7 million from the West Indies. So there's actually a large number of Pacific Islanders and Caribbean Americans who, if citizens, can vote in the United States federal elections and do have representation.

But Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are all United States Territories, and they do not have voting representatives in Washington DC, nor can they participate in the electoral college. (Additional US Territories have populations ranging from none to a handful.)

Click to enlarge. Exact locations here.
Ten Second Summary

Expanding the electorate is a good thing. Territories that want federal representation - voting federal representation - should be able to get it. And chances are, they would elect Democrats in a nice little progressive feedback loop.

To Vote

What if all these Territories wanted federal representation? Whether through statehood or some other status (which would require a constitutional amendment), let's just look at the numbers for a minute and ignore the politics of achieving representation or whether it is desired.

Puerto Rico: Easy. About the population of Oregon or Kentucky, it clearly deserves two Senators, a half dozen representatives, and 7 or 8 electoral votes.

The rest: Harder. The biggest, Guam, has less than half the population of Wyoming at 170,000; the smallest, American Samoa, has 57,000. Right now we have the Senators from California representing 70 times the population as the Senators from Wyoming, which isn't all that great, but they would represent 646 times the population of a theoretical State of Samoa. That just seems out of whack.

If we lumped the remaining territories all together it's 423,000 people, still 100,000 less than Wyoming, but not that out of line. However, creating one state that spans half the globe is absurd in so many ways.

A combination of Guam and Northern Mariana Islands is more realistic geographically, culturally, and politically, and would result in a state with a population about half that of Wyoming - not too bad.

Another possibility entirely would be to have non-state entities with fractional votes, and current political boundaries would stay the same. So for instance, the Virgin Islands would get one Senator and one Representative, but the Senator would only have, say, 0.5 votes and the Representative would have 0.25 votes.

That, of course, is just the simple mathematical view that ignores people completely.

Let the People Speak

What do people want?

Puerto Rico: 47% voted for statehood in 1998 ("none of the above" actually won); 57% said they preferred statehood over the status quo or independence in a 2008 poll - 77% preferred statehood if independence were the only other choice; and the party advocating statehood won major victories in the 2008 elections, although this is not necessarily because of their stance on statehood. (It's possible these numbers overstate support for statehood because the first choice of many may not have been listed as an option.) In other words, at most about half the population supports statehood, but this number may be increasing. Political status aside, there seems to be greater support for voting in presidential elections, however, as elected officials quickly voted to do so when given the chance in 2000.

US Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa: The webpage of Representative Donna Christensen (VI) prominently features a proposed amendment, supported by Madeleine Bordallo (GU) and Eni Faleomavaega (AS), which gives territories the right to vote for president.

Northern Mariana Islands and Guam: Some distant rumblings of statehood.

Democratic Leaning

The chart below shows how Pacific Islanders and Caribbean Americans voted in 2008; in the cases of American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands, other competitive races were used instead of the presidential race. (Yes, Guam voted for president; their votes just didn't count for anything in the electoral college.) All non-voting delegates to the US House from territories caucus with the Democrats.

Click to enlarge.

Except for Cuban-Americans, we have a bunch of Democratic-leaning populations here - this year. Native Hawaiians and Chamorros are likely showing a bit of a home state (ocean?) bias towards Obama, as he grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, although a contested Democratic primary in Guam probably helped too. Among the entire population (not just Pacific Islanders), Obama improved over Kerry's performance by 27 points in Guam and 18 points in Hawaii, far more than the national average; I estimate about a 20-25 point improvement among Native Hawaiians as well.

Puerto Ricans aren't guaranteed to vote the same way as their relatives who live in New York, either. It's still a strong indication that they would be likely to vote Democratic at the federal level, however.

Because there can be a disconnect between party politics on a local and national level, the estimates for American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands have an extra factor of uncertainty in them. The Republicans seem near extinction in the Virgin Islands, however, and would seem unlikely to improve their lot much in this majority Afro-Caribbean territory. American Samoa, on the other hand, appears to have had (judging on fundraising) a real race for the House delegate in 2008, with the Democrat winning with 60% of the vote.

________________________________________________
This diary is the eigth in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change.

Previous diaries:

Tomorrow: The Native Alaskan Electorate: An Economic Factor?

Cross posted at DailyKos.

The 2009 elections were actually about Iraq and Afghanistan

Chris Bowers — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:15:00 GMT

Well, no they actually weren't. However, there is more basis to claim that this election hinged on overseas wars and national security than there is for the numerous claims that it hinged on government spending and the national deficit. This is because a higher percentage of the country cites wars and national security as the top problem facing the country than cites government spending and the national deficit.

National Priorities, 8/31-current

Poll	Date	Economy	Health Care	War / Security	Deficit	Energy / Climate	Other / All
Mean		40.6	20.2	15.0	13.2	2.0	7.2
Gallup	Oct 19	41	17	18	14	2	7
CBS	Oct 08	45	20	12	3	--	20
NBC	Sep 20	30	21	22	18	4	5
Bloomberg	Sep 14	46	23	10	16	2	3
CNN	Aug 31	41	20	13	15	2	1

With only 13.2% of the country identifying the federal deficit and government spending as their top issue, compared to 15.0% for wars and national security, claiming that the 2009 elections are a mandate against expanding the government is preposterous.

Then again, many of the same people making that claim also don't believe in evolution, or that Obama was born in America. So, it isn't as though numbers like these will dissuade them from their delusions.

2008 Electorate: West Asian Americans - Rapid Change

dreaminonempty — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Here's a picture of Republicans shooting themselves in the foot:

Click to enlarge.

This shows the dramatic change in support from the Arabic-speaking community in Dearborn, Michigan. In 2000, Bush won with around 70%; in 2008, the community voted nearly 100% for Obama. I found no other community with change this stunning. This is what happens when you demonize a group of people: they stop voting for you. Quickly.

Of course, for those of you who read the previous diaries in this series, you know what I'm going to say next: we are not all of us alike. The Arab-American vote is not as monolithic nationwide as it is in Dearborn. We'll also explore communities with ties to other parts of Western and Central Asia below the fold.
Ten Second Summary

Change can happen fast, politically speaking. Previous trends are not guaranteed to continue, and can reverse themselves. There is also an easy lesson to learn here that hopefully most Democrats didn't need in the first place: avoid demonization. And, finally - of course - those with West Asian ancestry are a diverse bunch.

The Western Asian Electorate

I've defined Western Asia in a very broad way here. Immigration data are only available for a few countries, but show a growing amount of immigration like most non-European countries, with a peak of Turkish immigration around 100 years ago. Electoral preferences - some with very large errors indeed - are shown below.

Click to enlarge.

Michigan and Beyond - Arab Americans

As it turns out we have some nationwide polling commissioned by the Arab American Institute to help clarify things. A Zogby poll of about 500 was completed by phone in October 2008, using a list of Arabic surnames. Nationally, support for Obama was around two-thirds of those who expressed a preference. Support for Obama among Catholics and Protestant/Orthodox Christians was somewhat less, and support among Muslims was near 100%. Comparing to the 2000 Zogby poll, the most dramatic changes were among Muslims. Asked what the most important issue was in 2008, Jobs/Economy came in first (79%).

This poll also had data on party affiliation going back to 1996, shown here:

Click to enlarge.

Nationwide, the trend is not as dramatic as we saw in Dearborn, but significant nonetheless. Dearborn, I should note, has a large population of Arab Americans who are recent immigrants, and more likely to be Muslim, along with an older, more established Lebanese Christian community.

Michigan Again - Chaldean Community

Using the census category Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac, a Catholic ethnic group that makes up 10% of the Iraqi population, we get stronger numbers (60-100%) for Obama in Chaldean Town, in Detroit, but weaker numbers in the suburbs further to the north (30-50%). As you can tell from the numbers, I'm pretty uncertain about these communities. However, there's some key differences. More established communities (in the wealthier suburbs) can be traced back to Chaldean-speaking immigrants from rural areas nearly 100 years ago, whereas Chaldean Town has more recent immigrants, who are more urban, educated, speak Arabic, and may have stronger ties to Iraq. Unhappiness with the Iraq war may have been an important factor for those who did support Obama - indicating, once again, self-inflicting injury on the part of the Republican party.

That Foot's Getting Sore - Armenians in Los Angeles

To continue with the theme, another shot in the foot came with respect to the Armenian-American community. Apparently the community used to support Republicans but this year the records of Obama and Biden on the Armenian genocide greatly helped them among Armenian American voters, while McCain had a bit of a 'problem'. In Los Angeles, I estimate Obama had 75-90% of their votes. Pre-election polling (methodology unavailable) had support at 80-85%. Obama's popularity in this community may be slipping recently though, as the anniversary of the Armenian genocide passed without what some believed to be adequate recognition.

Those Feet Are Kind of Obliterated Now - Iranians in Los Angeles

So how does a politician best win the support of Iranian Americans? A little music, that's all it takes. Yeah. It turns out 13% of Californian Iranians think the US should bomb Iran and 7% nationwide favored military action. It should come as no surprise, then, that Iranian-Americans also turned from a solid Republican voting bloc to one with a Democratic edge nationwide. In Los Angeles, I estimate the vote was split, but Los Angeles is apparently home to a more Republican community. The surveys linked to above showed a registration edge of 42% Democratic to 23% Republican in California, and 47% Democratic and 12% Republican nationwide. And while we're on the topic I'd like to point out the religious diversity in the Iranian-American community in California: 35% Muslim, 15% Jewish, 13% Christian, 4% Bahai, and 4% Zoroastrian.

It Takes Talent

This part of Asia is full of ancient enmities exacerbated by The Great Game, stirred up by colonialism, and brought to a boil by the Cold War. It is simply astounding that Republicans have been able to take their relationship with several different communities who have ties to this region and alienate so many, so well, so quickly.

The theme of this diary is that political preferences can change quickly and dramatically. As it happens, of the four groups from Western Asia discussed so far, Arab-Americans showed monumental changes and the rest showed large change based on anecdotes of previous voting behavior. I also included two more groups of recent immigrants found in New York with historical ties to the region - Bukharian Jews and Eastern European Jews (mainly Russian and Ukrainian) - and Americans living in Israel. All three groups showed low support for Obama; for Eastern Europeans, this support is little changed from 2004. So not all communities with ties to this region behaved in the same way - something which should not surprise any reader of this series.

Here's the Elephant

We can't forget Israel and Palestine while we're here. But we do know that only a paltry 5% of Arab-Americans did not vote for Gore (mainly voting for Nader instead) because of the presence of Lieberman on the ticket. Meanwhile, despite Obama being a secret Muslim, Jewish support of Obama does not seem to have changed much from that of Kerry (more on this later). Finally, when asked to name the two most important issues in the 2008 election, less than 1% of Arab Americans mentioned Palestine. Only 8% of Jews said Israel. So, thankfully, perhaps we can forget Israel and Palestine for the purposes of this diary at least.

________________________________________________
This diary is the sixth in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change.

Previous diaries:

Looking Back
Alternate History
Why Republicans Should Be Really Scared
African-Americans - We Are Not All of Us Alike
East and South Asian Americans - Diverse and Growing

Tomorrow: The Native American Electorate: Increasing Participation

Cross posted at DailyKos.

National House Ballot Monitor

Chris Bowers — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:08:10 GMT

Today, I am excited to announce a new feature on Open Left that will be updated every weekday between now and the 2010 midterm elections: the National House Ballot monitor. It is simply a small button that will appear over Quick Hits, providing my latest forecast of the national House vote. The button will link to a table, like the one below, that includes all of the polls I used to produce the forecast.

The current forecast shows Democrats with a 5.3% advantage in the National House Ballot. For the sake of comparison, Democrats won the 2008 House national vote by 8.9% and the 2006 House national vote by 7.9%. Republicans won by 2.6% in 2004, and by 4.6% in 2002.

In terms of predicting seat totals, the National House ballot is, at best, a crude and inexact measure. As the 2010 elections approach, a far more detailed, seat by seat forecast will take prominence over the national House Ballot monitor. However, it is still a useful stat to see where the current national political environment stands.

The forecast is based on a new and improved electoral forecasting methodology that I will be using in 2010. My preliminary research--which I hope to complete this weekend and release next week--indicates that this new method is about 7-8% more accurate in terms of mean error, and 15-16% more accurate in terms of median error, in predicting the final margins of 2008 statewide elections than Pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com. Further, the method actually performed slightly better in 2006 than in 2008, showing that its strong performance in 2008 was not a fluke. I have yet to examine how this method would have fared in 2004, which is why I still consider the research preliminary.

The methodology is pretty straightforward, and I explain it in the extended entry. For now, here are the polls used in creating the current forecast:

National House Ballot, 2010
(Polls can be found here and here)

Pollster	Dates	Democrats	Republicans
Total	10/29	41.9	36.3
NBC / WSJ	10/22-25	46	38
Rasmussen	10/19-25	38	42
Daily Kos	10/19-22	37	28
YouGuv	10/18-20	45	36
PPP	10/16-19	48	40
ABC / WaPo	10/15-18	51	39
Rasmussen	10/12-18	37	42
Daily Kos	10/12-15	35	29
YouGov	10/11-13	47	37
Rasmussen	10/5-11	39	41
CBS	10/5-8	46	33
Daily Kos	10/5-8	34	28
YouGov	10/4-6	47	37
Gallup	10/1-4	46	44
Rasmussen	9/28-10/4	43	39
Daily Kos	9/28-10/1	35	29

Methodology:

Until the final six weeks of the election, take the simple mean of virtually all polls where the majority of interviews were conducted over the last 30 days.
During the final six weeks of an election, use the simple mean from the last 15 days.
Do not include Zogby Interactive polls and Columbus Dispatch polls, due to their horrendous past performance and questionable methodologies.
Do not include Strategic Vision polls, as it is starting to seem likely those are not real polls.
Include campaign-funded polls. Further, if there is more than one poll from a single organization, include all of them.

The basic idea is to cram as many polls with sound methodologies into the averages as possible, and weight them evenly to include more overall data in the sample. Because voter preferences don't really change that much in high-profile elections, I thought this method might produce a more accurate result through logic of regression to the mean. It seems to work pretty well, as my research has shown so far.

This is different from my 2006 and 2008 methodology in that it includes polls from 15 days out from an election, instead of only 8. Further, campaign funded polls, and multiple polls from a single polling firm, are now included. All of these changes were made to include more polls in the averages, since my previous methodology was about 10-20% less accurate than Pollster.com and fivethrityeight.com. Since they had already raised the bar so high, and since they will probably improve their methodologies for 2010 even more, it was time for Open Left to step it up. I believe we have, as I intend to show in detail on Monday.

Maine: No on 1 Taking Lead & The Opposition Is Now Throwing Everything INCLUDING the Kitchen Sink a

Andrew Davey — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:48:37 GMT

(Also at Nevada Progressive)

Well, we have some good news and some bad news to report in Maine today. First, let's start off with some good news. Maine Public Broadcasting just got the hot new Pan-Atlantic poll numbers.

Pan Atlantic's Patrick Murphy says the survey of 400 likely voters found 53 percent opposing Question 1, which would repeal Maine's gay marriage law, while 42 percent favor the measure and six percent remain undecided. [Empahasis mine.] The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent.
Murphy says Question 1 is getting a different reaction in Maine's two congressional districts, with voters in the 1st District favoring the measure by a 20 point spread, while voters in the 2nd District remain nearly equally divided. He says among the state's Catholic voters, the measure has a narrow margin of support, 49 to 46 percent.

Obviously, ads like this one and working.

And better yet, the campaign actually has an active field program that's contacting voters all over the state and rounding up enough votes against Question 1 to win. And even better, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree and other pro-equality elected officials in Maine are stepping up to help with GOTV efforts! With such great work on the ground and on the air, no wonder why No on 1 is gaining momentum!

Still, we can't sit by idly and revel in this success. Nope, since the same Yes on H8 operatives who attacked California's LGBT families last year are now throwing everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink at Maine's LGBT families! NOM is already kicking in another $1.1 million to take away fundamental rights from many thousands of Mainers, and they're ready to spend even more on some of the most disgusting and hateful ads you've ever seen.

Oh, and how fitting is it that NOM's bringing out the vilest of scare tactics just in time for Halloween?

This is why I need to ask you one more time to step up and help No on 1 make it to the finish line succesfully. Donate what you can afford and/or sign up to call for equality while you still can We only have one more week until Election Day, so we have no time to waste!

Trust me, we can win this. We can make sure that Maine families are protected. We can stop the forces of bigotry from causing any more pain and suffering in any more states. We can win if we step up and take action!

So will you join me in taking action? I hope so. Let's make it to that finish line.

Hole-y Hegemony, Dr. Killcourts!

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:00:00 GMT

98000reasons.org says:

According the the Institute of Medicine, 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors--and this number doesn't include those seriously injured. This is the sixth leading cause of death in America, equivalent to two 737s crashing every day.
Trial attorneys see first-hand the effects medical errors have on patients and their families. The best way to have fewer medical maslpractice cases is to reduce the number of medical errrors. If less people need to seek legal recourse, that means patients are getting safer. Patients that are safer also means lower costs to the health care system.. Everyone can support this.

They ask you to contact Congress opposing "tort reform" being included in health care reform. Takes about a minute.

On the other hand, here's a verrrrry interesting poll from Clarus Research Group on "Health Care Reform and the Legal System"--interesting because it shows how successful a 30-year-or-so campaign for "tort reform" can be, and still leave a wide-open gapping hole. There's 18 questons overall, and I provide a quick look and comment to half of them.

To start things off, here are two broad-spectrum questions, which show the general success of the conservative war on courts:

Too Quick To Sue?

It's a core article of faith of the conservative war on courts that folks are just too litigious--even though it's corporations that file far more and bigger lawsuits.

Better or Worse?

And, of course, lawsuits are ruining the country! ("Leave the corporations and the police state alone!")
Judges Throw Cases Out?

What could be more populist than giving over absolute gatekeeper power to an elitist judge?

Throw Juries Out, Too!

If you're going to be a populist elitist, why mess around?

Health Courts

In which case, this:

is simply the next logical step!

And a good thing, too, given that people still have funny traditional values when it comes to:

Jury Discretion

No juries? No problem!

Done Quick! Done Right!

Gosh, I wonder how they would have answered if the question asked was this:

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT: As part of any health care reform plan, Congress needs to change the medical malpractice system so that cases are resolved quicker, and more reliably, on behalf of those who are in the wrong.

Questionable question design, much? Ya think???

And finally, the whole point of this long exercise:

Defensive Medicine--That's The Evil!

But This One Just Doesn't Fit!

Hole-y Hegemony! What's that you say? By better than 2-1 people think that legitimate lawsuits are not being heard, because the court system just makes it too difficult?

That certainly doesn't sound like it belongs in the same universe as all those other answers. In fact, it sounds like this question just happened to ask about how people really feel on a fundamental aspect of civil justice that hasn't been the focus of intense conservative "attitude adjustment". After all, in our collective state of cognitive dissociation how people answer this very revealing question doesn't seem to affect much of anything that conservatives are trying to accomplish. So why waste time trying to brainwash people over this?

Once again, a friendly little reminder that movement conservatism is the enemy of rational thought. Not to mention, their health care plan really is "Die quickly." Followed by, "Don't sue."

Partisan Trends Showing Independent Voters Declining

Chris Bowers — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:15:00 GMT

President Obama has repeatedly emphasized a bi-partisan approach to politics. Early on in Obama's presidency, the highly respected Pew poll declared that "Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era," indicating that perhaps the country was following the President's lead in de-emphasizing partisanship. More recent polling trends on partisan self-identification suggests that this trend has continued. Over the last five months, Pollster.com shows self-identified Independents gaining significant ground at the expense of both Democrats and Republicans in their partisan self-identification chart:

However, before we declare a new non-partisan, Independent dominated era of politics, it would behoove us to look at the numbers more closely. This is because the polling data suggesting a sharp rise in Americans identifying as non-partisan is among all adults, not among the smaller percentage of Americans who actually vote. Among registered and likely voters, it turns out that the percentage of non-partisan self-identifiers is actually declining:

Over the past year, registered and likely voters in America have demonstrated little, if any, change in partisan self-identification. Democrats are still at 39%, just as they were on Election Day in 2008. Republicans have gained about 2%, moving from 31% to 33% of the electorate. Independents have actually dropped from 27% to 26%. It is also worth noting that third party voting in congressional elections hit a 20-year low in 2008.

The rise in Independents among less likely voters, and the corresponding lack of change among more likely voters, can perhaps be explained as an increasing alienation gap in America. Those people who were only loosely attached to civic institutions like major political parties have become even less attached, while with a greater degree of participation are doubling down. It is perhaps a symptom of increasing socioeconomic stratification in America, and with the seeming inability--or lack of desire--of elected officials to do anything about it.,br>

While their disgust might be understandable, the increasing non-partisan trend among non-voters is not going to change the political dynamic of this country at all. The more people who drop out, the more that powerful institutions will solidify their grasp on the system as a whole.

Afghanistan Public Opinion Disconnect

Chris Bowers — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:45:00 GMT

According to the latest CBS poll on Afghanistan (PDF, page 3), whether or not you a voter approves of President Obama's handling of Afghanistan has as much to do with partisan self-identification as with President Obama's actual policies in the country.

Democrats	Obama Performance	Troop Levels
Approve / Increase	54%	27%
Disapprove / Decrease	27%	52%

By a 2-1 margin, self-identified approve of President Obama's handling of Afghanistan, even though twice as many Democrats favor decreasing troop levels there as favor increasing troop levels.

Republicans	Obama Performance	Troop Levels
Approve / Increase	20%	57%
Disapprove / Decrease	58%	16%

President Obama has a net approval rating of negative 38% among self-identified Republicans in Afghanistan, However, three and a half times as many Republicans think troop levels in Afghanistan should be increased rather than decreased.

This partisan discrepancy can probably be explained by Afghanistan being low on the list of national priorities right now. In the same CBS poll, only 3% of Americans cited Afghanistan as the top national priority. As such, many Americans are relying on their partisan preference to determine their approval or disapproval of President Obama on Afghanistan, rather than their personal views on how many troops we should have in that country. When an issue is not high on your list of national priorities, it is a safe bet that a given voter less likely even be aware of a difference with his or her party leadership, and more likely to let a difference s/he does notice slide.

There are possible readings of these numbers which are a lot less generous to the electorate, but I won't go there in this article. As tempting as a "stupid electorate" conclusion is from numbers like these, in my experience it is best to withhold such conclusions until there are no other possibilities.

Maine's STILL So Close!

Andrew Davey — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:22:31 GMT

(Also at Nevada Progressive)

OK, I have some good news and some bad news for you. Let me start with the bad news. A new poll out today still show a close race in Maine.

And the good news? Democracy Corps shows No on 1 taking a 50-41 lead!

Now let me ask something else. One of the questions on the ballot this November will read
as follows: "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows
individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" - If the election were
held today, would you vote YES or NO on this question?
Total
Yes strongly.........................................................................37
Yes not strongly....................................................................4
No not strongly.....................................................................7
No strongly..........................................................................43
(Don't know/refused)............................................................9
Total yes.............................................................................41
Total no..............................................................................50

So far, it seems No on 1's ads seem to be working in hitting back against the dishonest and misleading Yes on 1 ads being imported from California. However we know not to take anything for granted, as the Prop H8 campaign in California taught us.

As we move into October, the battle will get rougher and the campaign will get tougher. While we can cheer good polling news and jeer bad polling news, the only poll that really counts is the one that the State of Maine conducts on Election Day.

That's why No on 1 badly needs our support. When so many of us were rightfully concerned about the tanking No on 8 campaign in California, we waited too late in donating. We can't repeat the same mistake in Maine.

While Yes on H8 California is reprising its role in Maine, No on 1 isn't making the same No on 8 mistakes. They haven't waited to respond to the lying ads, and they have a real field plan in place to reach out to voters and ultimately get out the vote. They just need our support to keep those ads on the air and fund the field program.

So please spare whatever change you can to help our Maine friends and family preserve marriage equality. The polls may be close, but I know our help can really defeat Question 1 and protect Maine LGBT families' civil rights.

Democrats Regain Electoral Footing

Chris Bowers — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Earlier in the week, in my first House forecast for 2010, I looked at generic congressional ballot polling from August 20th through September 17th. At that time, the most recent survey from the nine polling organizations to publish generic congressional ballots conducted entirely since August 20th showed Democrats ahead by 3.5%.

However, several generic congressional ballots have been released since that time, which cumulatively show the Democratic position improving. Here are the most recent surveys from the eight polling organizations that have published generic congressional ballots which were conducted entirely since President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress. Most of the surveys can be found at Pollster.com.

House Generic Ballot Polling, 9/10-9/24

Dem %	Rep %	Pollster	Date	Type	Partisan
40.8%	35.4%
43%	30%	F&M	9/21	Live Phone	None
46%	35%	Polimetrix	9/22	Internett	None
40%	32%	Selzer	9/14	Live Phone	None
47%	41%	GQR	9/16	Live Phone	Dem
33%	27%	R2000	9/24	Live Phone	Dem
43%	40%	NBC	9/20	Live Phone	None
36%	36%	OnMessage	9/10	Live Phone	Rep
38%	42%	Rasmussen	9/20	Automated	Rep

Not only has the Democratic advantage expanded to 5.4%, up 1.9% from a few days ago, but the only two polls showing Democrats in any real trouble are both Republican outfits. The four non-partisan polls in this group show Democrats ahead by 8.8%, identical to their margin in 2008.

The tea-party is over. Since President Obama's speech on September 9th, Democrats have clearly regained their electoral footing. For all the conservative organizing around tea parties since March, Republicans have made up no ground at all in the generic congressional ballot. While Obama's approval rating has dipped, his net job approval of +7.5% is identical to his victory margin in the 2008 election. The only people Republicans have won over are people who already voted for them in 2008.

The problem Republicans face is that their members of Congress and leading spokespeople are engaging in pretty much the same behavior as their more bombastic astroturf / grassroots supporters. The image of "average citizens" yelling at powerful members of Congress plays well. The image of members of Congress engaging in the same behavior--not so much. In a sense, the lack of what Matt Stoller called a "rootsgap" in his farewell article at Open Left is keeping Republicans in a poor electoral position, while it keeps Democrats from passing good legislation. However, the Progressive Block is helping to solve that gap, and today I feel more optimistic about the short-term political future than I have in months.

Conspiracy Theories

Chris Bowers — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:30:00 GMT

According to PPP, 35% of the country thinks either that President Obama was not born in America (23%), and / or that George W. Bush had something to do with the 9/11 attacks (14%). My favorite line in their press release is "a very troubled 2% of the population buys into both of those conspiracy theories." Ha!

On the bipartisan front, 25% of Democrats think that Bush was involved in the 9/11 attacks, while 42% of Republicans think that Obama was not born in the United States. While the relatively high number of Democrats who think Bush was involved in 9/11 does not really surprise me, it is something of a relief that a smaller percentage of Democrats hold that position than Republicans who believe Obama wasn't born in America.

I'm glad PPP did this poll, but I think they missed a chance to poll the actual Democratic equivalent of the "birther" conspiracy theories: that Bush stole the 2004 election. Those two conspiracies are equivalent because they deny the legitimacy of the President. Thinking that Bush was involved in 9/11 is more like thinking that Obama has a secret plan to indoctrinate American children with Islamo-socialism.

My guess is that belief in the stolen 2004 elections is more widespread among Democrats than Bush having foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. It certainly seems extremely widespread within the comment sections of the progressive blogosphere. I have never been kosher with that theory, and actually find it pretty irritating. This is both because I tend to find all conspiracy theories irritating, and because of the whining complaints about "a-list" bloggers like me being involved in a supplemental conspiracy to suppress evidence of 2004 theft (mainly because we are cowards who want to be taken seriously, or something). And I'm pretty sure that even writing this will result in a bunch of posts about how naïve and uninformed I am about the 2004 elections.

One thing I will say in defense of people who subscribe to all of these conspiracy theories is that such "radical" beliefs are to be expected when our political and economic system continues to fail such an enormous percentage of the country. Over the last 33 years, the bottom 90% of America has received less than a 10% of the growth in real income, and less than 25% of the total increase in our national wealth, even as the cost of education, health care, transportation, food and housing have all soared. When the system is failing people, they will inevitably turn to alternative ideas and conceptualizations for the cause our problems, no matter unsubstantiated those ideas may be. After all, why should you believe the official explanation for anything, when the people offering those official explanations have just been ripping you off for decades on end?

Republicans Not In A Position To Retake the House (Yet)

Chris Bowers — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:23:06 GMT

This is the first Open Left House forecast for 2010. I currently estimate a Republican net gain of 17 seats, for a Democratic majority of 240-195--Chris

Over the past month, nine polling firms have published surveys on the national House ballot. Looking only at the most recent poll from each of those nine pollsters, the results show Democrats maintaining a decent advantage.

House Generic Ballot Polling, 8/20-9/20

Dem %	Rep %	Pollster	Date	Type	Partisan
41.2%	37.7%
46%	38%	Polimetrix	9/15	Internet	None
42%	34%	Ipsos	8/31	Live Phone	None
40%	32%	Selzer	9/14	Live Phone	None
47%	41%	GQR	9/16	Live Phone	Dem
34%	28%	R2000	9/17	Live Phone	Dem
45%	44%	Pew	8/27	Live Phone	None
36%	36%	OnMessage	9/10	Live Phone	Rep
40%	41%	Rasmussen	9/13	Automated	Rep
41%	45%	PPP	8/30	Automated	Dem

A Democratic advantage of 41.2%-37.7% is a far cry for the supposed Republican wave we keep hearing about. Democrats are, after all, still winning.

These numbers are placed in more context--context which, I might ad, is something that blogs do a far, far better job of providing than any other medium when it comes to electoral forecasting--below the fold. The bottom line this, my first crude House forecast for 2010, is that Republicans are not currently poised to retake the House. Currently, I project a Republican gain of 17 seats, for a partisan balance of 240-195 in favor of Democrats.

More in the extended entry
Generic ballot numbers in context, and how they lead to a first crude House forecast:

Pollster.com shows Democrats ahead by 1.3%, Real Clear Politics by 3.7%. Pollster.com has slightly more favorable numbers for Republicans than mine, showing the Democratic advantage at only 1.3%. However, due to the nature of their methodology, this far out from an election they will place more weight on those polling firms that release more polls: Rasmussen, Democracy Corps, and Polimetrix. The strong weight toward Rasmussen in particular presents a more favorable picture for Republicans than would be the case if more polling firms were releasing polls.

Real Clear Politics, a conservative election forecaster, actually shows Democrats ahead by 3.7%--even more than my numbers.
Generic Ballot reasonably predicts final national vote totals Over the last six House elections (1998-2008), there has been a mean error of 1.8% from the final polling average in the generic congressional ballot to the final House national vote. That really is about as accurate as can be expected from polling and electoral forecasting. I would feel better with an error rate of 1.4%, but 1.8% isn't far off from that ideal.
Republicans do not tend to do better from final polls to final results. Over the last six House elections, Republicans improved on their margin from the final polls to the final results by a mean of 1.6% and a median of 1.5%. However, rather than seeing some sort of great conspiracy or excellent Republican ground game in this, it is likely that this is a statistical quirk due to a small sample size of only six elections.
Research I conducted on the 2004 and 2006 elections showed Democrats gaining an average of 0.5% from the final polls to the final results across 42 statewide elections. In a preliminary study I have conducted of the 33 closest statewide elections in 2008 (Presidential and Senate), Democrats gained a mean of 0.40% from the final polls to the final result. I will complete and publish this study later in the week.
The 75 data points showing Democrats improving from the final polls to the final results by 0.4-0.5% easily outweigh 6 six House-specific data points showing Republicans improving by 1.5%-1.6%. Due to the nature of polling, the type of elections that are being polled do not matter.
Republicans far off from the Democratic position in 2005. In the fall of 2005, there was not a single congressional generic ballot where Democrats led by less than 5%, and the average Democratic advantage hovered around 8-9%. Given that they still trail by 3.5% in my numbers, 3.7% according to Real Clear Politics and 1.3% according to Pollster.com, Republicans are at least 9%, and as much as 12%, behind where Democrats were at this same point in 2005.
Not enough seats for Republicans: Let's say that Democrats win the national House popular vote by 2.8%, which is the average forecast of Real Clear Politics, Pollster.com and myself. This would represent a 6.1% improvement for Republicans from 2008. If the margin in all House campaigns from 2008-2009 shifted 6.1% in favor of Republicans, they would net a total 18 seats (17 from 2008, plus NY-20), and a partisan make-up of 239-196 in favor of Democrats.

As such, in order to even come close to taking back the House, Republicans need a much larger shift than 6.1%, and / or for that shift to be disproportionate to swing districts. Right now, there is no convincing evidence that either the Republican position will continue to improve nationally, or that the gains they have made are concentrated in swing districts. This is not to say this won't happen-just that there is no evidence either way.

Overall, these numbers lead me to a forecast of a 17-seat Republican gain. This comes from the 18 seats in the final bullet point, minus the Louisiana 2nd, which at a PVI of D+25 is a virtual lock to switch back to Democrats (it only flipped in 2008 due to severe corruption from former Representative William Jefferson).

In summary, the current hysteria about Republicans poised to take back the House is simply not borne out by the numbers. Still, due to the lack of district-level detail at this time, there is a wide range of error in this prediction-it could be anywhere from a 10-25 Republican net gain, according to current numbers. As we get closer to the election, eventually I will abandon use of the generic Congressional ballot entirely, and produce the forecast only on a seat-by-seat basis.

An Objectively Successful Speech

Chris Bowers — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:18:11 GMT

Political speeches are designed for specific purposes. As such, their "success" should be judged by how well they achieve that purpose, not by the rhetorical and cultural implications contained within the text and body language. In the case of President Obama's joint address to Congress last night, the specific goal was to advance his push for health care reform. At least so far, all indications are that the speech was enormously successful in achieving that goal. Consider:

Advanced the legislative timetable. Among the five committees with legislative purview on health care, the Senate Finance Committee is the lone holdout in passing a bill. As recently as August 21st, the negotiators on that committee had rejecting even a September15th deadline for a framework for the bill, vowed to reduce its size to $700 billion, and pledged to keep working on a bipartisan basis. Now, committee chair Max Baucus released a framework of the bill on September 7th, put its size at $900 billion, and appears to have foregone the bipartisan negotiations. The draft of the Finance Committee bill will now be released next week, and the committee mark-up of the bill will begin the week of September 21st.
This acceleration of the legislative process happened because of the speech. The announcement of, and build-up to, the speech put Baucus in a position where he could have been the lone hold-out when the speech took place. Not wanting to be such a negative focus of the news cycle, Baucus finally began to take proactive steps to release a legislative framework, however flawed, and push a bill through his committee. So, the speech successful moved up the legislative timetable on health care reform. That could dissolve later on, but at least for now, it makes the speech a success.
Increased the popularity of health care reform. According to the CNN poll of people who watched the speech, the popularity of President Obama's health care reform plan increased as a result of the speech:
About one in seven people who watched the speech changed their minds on Obama's health care plan. "Going into the speech, a bare majority of his audience - 53 percent - favored his proposals. Immediately after the speech, that figure rose to 67 percent," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland

This poll has been accurately criticized for oversampling Democrats. However, while that may call the overall percentages in favor of the President's health care reform plan, it has no impact on the trendline for support. The speech increased the popularity of the President's health care reform plan--and apparently by a substantial amount. Polling later in the week will be needed for confirmation, but once again, the speech has so far been successful at achieving one of its major goals.

Mark Blumenthal and Democracy Corps have more on post-speech polling.
Put Republicans on the defensive. President Obama said in his speech that he would call out Republican members of Congress who are lying about health care reform. On that front, the speech has already resulted in a major news story about a Republican member of Congress, Joe Wilson, apologizing to the President for his outburst during the speech. This is probably the first Republican in Congress to apologize during the health care debate at all.

While this may appear less "objective" a success than the other two bullet points here, it is safe to say that whoever is apologizing during a news cycle is losing that news cycle. For Republicans, an apologizing Congressman is their part in the news cycle right now, instead of their rebuttal to the President's address. That is a clear win.

The goal of the speech was to advance the President's health care reform agenda. Given that is pushed the legislative timetable forward, improved the popularity of the plan, and put Republicans on the defensive, it was successful in achieving that goal. So, leaving rhetorical and ideological analysis aside for the moment, the speech was a success for its own purposes.

Finally, last night's speech was also a big success for the Congressional Progressive Caucus, too. It marked the emergence of the CPC as a major player in the health care reform debate. President Obama specifically mentioned the bloc of House Progressives threatening to oppose health care reform without a public option as the major group that needs to be negotiated with:

To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

For a group that was last in line to meet with President Obama about anything this year, that is quite a step up in visibility and power for the Progressive Caucus. Negotiating power over the President's agenda has no longer been ceded entirely to Blue Dogs and Senate Gangs of Conservadems and Maine Republicans. Not only is that a clear victory for our efforts to increase Progressive power in Congress, but it is also a big victory for President Obama's agenda. By validating the power of the CPC in sucha major forum, President Obama has now given himself some space to work on the left.