Marist College polled South Carolina for NBC. By request, I’m looking at this poll, but not because of anything it says about the upcoming primaries in the state.

Instead, it’s the projection of the general election that is interesting. It seems to suggest a wave for the Democrats bigger than 2006 or 2008.

The facts: Poll taken over 3 days, 12/4-12/6, a short time for a college poll. 2,107 registered SC voters, MoE 2.1.

Again, I’m not even looking at the actual results much, though they do show Newt Gingrich solidly ahead in the three-way matchup against Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, up 48-30-12 among 635 primary LVs (MoE 3.9). I care about the general election sample.

According to Marist’s “Nature of the Sample” table, Democrats make up 33% of the sample of RVs, Republicans 30%, and Independents 36%. That sounds reasonable at first, but this is South Carolina. At the peak of the wave for the Democrats, the 2008 election, CNN’s exit polling shows a breakdown of 38% Democrats, 41% Republicans, and 20% independents. Independents appear to be vastly oversampled, and taking more from Republicans than from Democrats, in the Marist poll.

Democrats do traditionally have party identification advantages in America, but even in a great year for Democrats, they failed to have one in the 2008 elections in South Carolina. For Marist College to project such a swing in 2012, they must be predicting an even bigger wave in 2012, than the Democrats had in 2008.

Or we could just dismiss the poll as premature and likely wrong. That’s where I stand.

Possibly Related Posts

• August 22, 2011 -- The candidates Iowa Republicans don’t want
• January 21, 2012 -- Gingrich to win, and win big
• January 19, 2012 -- Quick update: Gingrich is ahead

Ten years ago, Gallup started polling the opinions Americans had of various industries. Two years later, the US Government was thrown into the mix. Monday, Gallup looked back to see how they’ve all done over the last decade.

It turns out the Federal Government is now less popular than any polled industry. Including Bankers, Lawyers, and Oil men.

It didn’t used to be that way. In 2003, the first year the government was added to the poll, it had a net +6 favorable rating, 41/35. A 41/35 rating this year would have put the government 12th of the 24 industries (+ government for 25 total) that were polled.

But as it turns out, the government hasn’t kept that rating. By 2004 the government was in the negative, and by 2008, the last year of the George W Bush administration, the government was running at a -42 net, 18/60. That number rebounded in 2009, after the election of Barack Obama, to a -25 net, 29/54, but has worsened again in every year since.

So now under Obama the result is slightly worse than it ever got under Bush, having dropped to a -46 rating, 17/63, which is dead last in the poll. The oil industry was slightly better off, despite the gulf and high gas prices, at a -44. Bailouts haven’t dragged banks nearly as far, as they only register a -17, while perennial pincushion lawyers only hit a -16.

The Computer industry is at the top of the chart at a huge +62, far away from the next two, restaurants at +49 and Internet at +40.

Interestingly, the Banks at -17 have fallen precisely that far over the last ten years, 17 points. Oil was previously at the bottom, only having dropped four points over the decade, but the government has crashed 24 points, the biggest drop on the table, and in only eight years, while the other industries had ten.

It’s hard to project electoral results from this, as George W Bush won solidly in 2004 despite a net -5, and there was no incumbent in 2008 when the government was at a net -42. Further, these kinds of polls can be misleading. Often the US Congress will get horrible approval ratings, but every year most incumbents win re-election.

Caveats aside, I do find it interesting that Obama’s election did shift this poll from a -42 to a -25 just after Obama’s election, and I suspect Presidential approval is pretty closely tied with the overall government’s approval. We’ve already seen that the President’s down, as well.

Possibly Related Posts

• August 29, 2011 -- Polling catastrophe for President Obama
• August 24, 2011 -- The oddity of Ron Paul
• October 4, 2010 -- House Projection for October 4

I mentioned recently that broader polling pools favor Democrats, so when a big new poll of adults comes out from Gallup that shows Barack Obama to be in trouble, I take notice.

The facts: Gallup’s results are a three day rolling average of daily poll of 1,500 adults. Telephone poll, no mention given of mobile phone handling. MoE 3.

And the result for August 25-27 came up with the shocking result: Obama’s approval is at 38, while disapproval is up to 55, slightly worse than the 20-22 result of 38/54. For context, George W. Bush at the beginning of September 2008, September 8-11 was at 33 approval and 65 disapproval. Obama’s approval is only 5 points away from matching Bush at the very end of his Presidency, the month of Obama’s own electoral win.

So while it’s not yet appropriate to say that Obama has grown to be as unpopular as Bush, the trend just might take him there by election day 2012. Then again, it might reverse. But I don’t know offhand whether any President has managed to come back from figures this bad, to getting back in the black with approval above disapproval.

Possibly Related Posts

• August 24, 2011 -- The oddity of Ron Paul
• December 8, 2011 -- Gingrich: Is his rise sustainable?
• December 31, 2011 -- Romney makes a breakthrough

This week Gallup polled four Republican candidates against Barack Obama. For the three leading Republicans the results are typical, and do more to show the difference between polls of adults and polls of registered voters (Gallup polled both).

But oddly enough, Ron Paul was different.

The facts: 1026 adults, 879 registered voters. MoE is given as 4 for both. A quota of mobile phone responders was required, so they were covered in addition to land lines.

Among registered voters, most of the races are close. Romney leads 48-46, Perry ties at 47, Paul trails 45-47, and Bachmann trails 44-48. The chances of each candidate leading Barack Obama are 59 Romney, 50 Perry, 40 Paul, and Bachmann brings up the rear with a 30%.

That wasn’t why this poll caught my attention though. No, what’s interesting is the shifts when going from Registered Voters to Adults. Romney +2 goes to -1, Perry even goes to -4, Bachmann -4 goes to -5, but what about Ron Paul? He gains. He goes from -2 to -1. Paul’s 40% chance of a lead becomes 45%, near coin flip territory, when the sample includes people who are not registered to vote.

Of course it’s meaningless electorally, but it’s interesting to note, I believe. Republicans tend to do worse among Adults, but Ron Paul is the exception to that rule it seems. His support is unlike other Republicans, in that he does better with people who don’t vote.

Possibly Related Posts

• September 19, 2011 -- Gallup: Romney gaining from Bachmann?
• August 22, 2011 -- The candidates Iowa Republicans don’t want
• December 8, 2011 -- Gingrich: Is his rise sustainable?

By request, we have a somewhat unusual poll: We Ask America asked Iowa Republicans which candidate they don’t want as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012.

As is usual this time of year, the poll is skewed by the inclusion of non-candidates. This time, overwhelmingly so.

The usual facts: It’s a poll of 649 Republican “Iowa Voters” (which I’m guessing is something in between RV and LV, but it might be just RVs) for the Primary questions, and 2342 Iowa Voters for Presidential approval questions. MoE 3.85 for Republicans and 2.02 overall. Automated poll, so no mobiles were likely included in the sample.

Sometimes the inclusion of non-candidates skews a poll. For the question of what candidate Iowa Republicans don’t want, one non-candidate is defining the poll. Sarah Palin wins a full 25% of the question, well ahead of Newt Gingrich’s 16%, and Jon Huntsman’s 14%. Michele Bachmann tied for fourth at 12%, Mitt Romney finished sixth at 7%, and Rick Perry tied for eighth at 3%.

We Ask America then went for the candidates Iowa Republicans prefer. Interestingly, the top three finished in a different order from their do-not-want finishes. Rick Perry did win convincingly at 29%, but Michele Bachmann jumped to second at 17%, with Mitt Romney third at 15%. Sarah Palin finishes at 7%, behind Ron Paul and Other.

This poll suggests to me that opposition research dumps against Rick Perry have yet to leave a mark on him. It will be interesting to see if he can maintain such a solid lead (I show a 94% chance Perry leads Bachmann if this poll is sound) as both Republicans and Democrats continue to target him.

This poll also suggests Sarah Palin’s paths to victory are limited, should she choose to enter the race. I can’t see her winning Iowa when she loses a quarter of the state party right off the top. If she wanted an early win, she’d have to look elsewhere.

In other results, the poll shows a possible pickup opportunity for Republicans in 2012, as only 39% of Iowa voters favor the President’s re-election, versus 54% who oppose a second term for Barack Obama.

Possibly Related Posts

• September 28, 2011 -- ARG on New Hampshire and Iowa: Romney up, Perry wavering
• September 22, 2011 -- Romney running away with New Hampshire
• January 3, 2012 -- Today’s the big day in Iowa

By request, I took a look at this poll by PPP for Daily Kos and SEIU. Markos Moulitsas himself is hyping the poll as showing an enthusiasm gap, which of course was one big indicator of the electoral wipeout we saw in 2010.

I think that he’s right, to a degree. However I read the figures as having two conclusions: First, the TEA party effect is still there, and Republicans are slightly more engaged than Democrats at this early point in the cycle. Second, the Union activism of this year is not having the same engagement effect with Democrats, that the TEA party, the ARRA, and the PPACA had with Republicans.

The key numbers in question: 420 Democrats were polled in this sample of registered voters nationwide, for an MoE of 4.8. 340 Republicans were polled for an MoE of 5.3. The excitement figures: 52% of Democrats are very excited, 31% are somewhat excited, and 17% are not at all excited. For Republicans it goes to 61%, 25%, and 14%. I estimate that there’s an 81% chance that Republicans have a non-zero advantage among the very excited, and a 61% chance of a non-zero advantage among those who are at all excited. So I conclude this polls hows that Republicans have an engagement advantage over Democrats, per this poll.

Further, union activism around events in Wisconsin and other states has not evened up the parties. In fact, the Republican advantage among all excited voters was a deficit last month. Look at the poll taken five weeks earlier. At that time it was 381 Democrats (MoE 5.0), 371 Republicans (MoE 5.1). For Democrats enthusiasm was at 57/30/13, and for Republicans it was at 63/21/16. So in the last month we’ve seen Democrats shift down the enthusiasm spectrum about as much as Republicans have. In March the chance of a Republican advantage among the most excited I have at 72% (vs 81% this month), and among all those excited the Democrats were up 87-84, or a 62% chance for Democrats to have a true advantage (61% for Republicans this month).

So I’m forced to conclude, based on the movement of the Kos/SEIU poll that whatever bump in enthusiasm Democrats may have gotten over Wisconsin is not lasting, and what appeared to some to be a revival of unionism in America is not shaping up to be a left-wing counterweight to the right-wing TEA party. Republicans have more intense excitement about defeating Barack Obama than do Democrats have in re-electing him, and the trend is in the wrong direction for Democrats.

Possibly Related Posts

• January 21, 2012 -- Gingrich to win, and win big
• January 19, 2012 -- Quick update: Gingrich is ahead
• January 16, 2012 -- Before Huntsman quit, polling stability in South Carolina

By request, I’ve decided to take a look at just what kind of electorate the Public Policy Polling screening of Likely Voters seems to be predicting. To do this I will use recent PPP polls from two states: California, which went for Barack Obama heavily, and West Virginia, where Obama’s popularity has never been that hot.

First, we look at West Virginia. I see two key stats: PPP says the state’s Likely Voters went for McCain 54-38 (MoE 2.8) and show a registration advantage for Democrats 55-35.

The natural place to look for a baseline for these numbers was the wave for the Democrats in 2008, in the exit polling from that year. If PPP’s numbers look like those, or better, then PPP is projecting a wave for the Democrats this year, most likely.

And so for the West Virginia Senate race in 2008, we see that the partisan breakdown per CNN was 49 D-33 R (MoE 3, if you believe Exit Polls are as random as we need them to be). So while the exit poll last time showed a D+16 registration advantage, PPP this time shows a D+20 registration advantage, seeming to project and even larger wave for the Democrats.

Further if we check the Presidential returns for West Virginia, we see that the state went for McCain 56-43 (no MoE, as this is the actual result), or R+13. PPP shows the state going for McCain 54-38, R+16. So even more oddly, PPP seems to be suggesting a wave of Democrats who dislike Barack Obama. Schwa?

Moving onto California, PPP shows Barack Obama winning 57-37, and Democrats with a 47 D-34 R-19 Other registration advantage. The actual CA result was 61-37 Obama, and the CA exit poll showed a 42-30-28 registration advantage. So PPP seems to be showing fewer independents, more Democrats, and fewer Republicans in California than 2008. And unlike WV, CA doesn’t even show any additional support for John McCain than the actual 2008 election. No anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, or even anti-incumbent wave at all, really.

If you think that’s likely, then PPP’s likely voter screen should be accurate. If you don’t, then PPP’s results need to be adjusted mentally before being digested. And that’s not fraud, by the way, as some will say. That’s just an inability of PPP’s model to handle back to back wave years in opposite directions, which is a pretty minor failing of a model I believe.

Possibly Related Posts

• October 15, 2010 -- On the new West Virginia polls
• October 6, 2010 -- A metric ton of new polling today
• September 21, 2010 -- Raese takes a lead in West Virginia

Since Democrat Joe Manchin, West Virginia Governor and Senate candidate, literally shot a copy of the “Cap and Trade” bill that DC Democrats tend to support, it’s been clear that Republican John Raese’s easy days of running against Barack Obama were going to get harder.

But the new Orion Strategies poll for Marshall University of the race just isn’t credible.

Opinions appear to differ firstly about whether Orion Strategies itself is a neutral firm. Politico says it is. Real Clear Politics on its recent polls list gives it the telltale (D) representing a firm aligned with Democrats. My own research shows the firm seems primarily to work for foreign countries, but domestically its own webpage highlights work done routinely in primaries among Democrats, and not for Republicans.

Some may find it odd that a former John McCain worker founded a firm working for Democrats, but then again conservative opponents of John McCain wouldn’t find it odd at all. So the facts are out there, and we all can take them as we like in terms of the firm’s individual bias, if any.

So, onto the poll itself: Manchin 48, Raese 38, MoE 4.6. That’s a solid lead for Manchin. But do we believe it? There are two other polls out which also concluded on the 12th, and they tell a different story: CNN/Time has a 44-44 tie. Rasmussen Reports gives Raese as 49-46 lead, with an MoE of 4.

Manchin +10 isn’t even close to that previous PPP poll which showed a 3 point Manchin lead.

So my inclination is to discount this poll, and still to consider West Virginia one of the four closest races as we near election day, and a key, high-leverage state in the Senate battleground.

Possibly Related Posts

• October 6, 2010 -- A metric ton of new polling today
• October 27, 2010 -- Examining the PPP Likely Voter screen
• September 28, 2010 -- Raese now leads both West Virginia Polls

As I’ve not been shy about saying, I have an emotional attachment to the California Senate race. I live here, I’ve always lived here, and in fact Democrat Barbara Boxer was first elected to the Senate when I was first beginning to follow politics, back when I was 14 years old.

So I knew the television ad campaigns would make or break the race for Republican Carly Fiorina, and sure enough, we’re now seeing a tightening trend in the polling.

Boxer had a good September. She ran up leads as big as nine points, and was as strong as she’s been since the year begin. But the last three polls, taken as the air war has been in effect, have all been close: SurveyUSA 46-43 Boxer, MoE 3.9. Reuters/Ipsos 49-45 Boxer, MoE 4.5. And now Rasmussen 49-46 Boxer, MoE 4.

It’s always remarkable for three polls to show such similar results, all showing three or four point leads, and nearly identical lead probabilities. It’s 66/34 race if I run my projection methodology on these polls, which means the ad war has tightened the situation from a quarter chance for Fiorina to third.

Some analysts have said that California is immune to the TEA party effect seen in other states. I don’t see how that can be objectively confirmed when the Sarah Palin-backed Fiorina has kept Boxer from reaching a single double digit lead since the Field poll ending January 17. This is a tight race, this has been a tight race, and it seems reasonable to guess that the candidate with the larger and more effective television ad campaign will pull through.

In funding her side of the air war Barbara Boxer has the benefit of two large fundraisers held on her behalf by the President. Carly Fiorina has the benefit of a successful business career giving her the personal means to spend. Both have outside groups behind them. Either one can win this. Boxer just hasn’t gotten the traction against Fiorina she’s had against other Republicans she had in 1998 and 2004.

Possibly Related Posts

• October 25, 2010 -- Two kinds of polling in California
• October 15, 2010 -- GOP Reversal in California?
• September 8, 2010 -- Carly Fiorina takes another lead

Good evening. We have a great deal of new polling that’s flooded in. Much of it is interesting too, so rather than pick and choose which polls I’ll cover in depth and which I will omit, instead I’ll give a quick look at all the good ones.

We’ve got Senate races in Nevada, Connecticut, West Virginia, Ohio, New York, Missouri, and Delaware, plus races for Governor in Illinois, Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii, and Florida. I told you it was a lot.

Nevada: Republican Sharron Angle got her second straight poll lead, as CNN/Time has her up 42-40 (MoE 3.5). Still, when I see two candidates bouncing back and forth with tiny leads, I call the race effectively tied. Note the oddity though: CNN has RVs going Democrat Harry Reid +11 and LVs going Angle +2.

Connecticut: Republican Linda McMahon loses more ground as the same CNN poll puts her down 54-41 to Democrat Richard Blumenthal (MoE 3.5) and Rasmussen has her slip to 54-43 (MoE 4). Good week for Blumenthal, but this might stick.

West Virginia: Republican John Raese leads again over Democrat Joe Manchin 50-44 (MoE 4) per Rasmussen. The wheels might be coming off for Manchin, thanks to Barack Obama.

Ohio: The wheels might also be coming off for Democrat Lee Fisher as Quinnipiac puts Republican Rob Portman up 55-36 (MoE 3.1).

Missouri: Continuing the wheel-loss theme, CNN/Time has Republican Roy Blunt ahead of Democrat Robin Carnahan 53-40 (MoE 3.5).

Delaware: I don’t know if Republican Christine O’Donnell ever had the wheels on securely to begin with. Unless she turns Democrat Chris Coons into a newt, and ensures he doesn’t get better before election day, results like this Fairleigh Dickinson 53-36 showing (MoE 3.5) will just keep on coming.

And a pair of races in New York: Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand got a pair of much-needed double figure leads over Republican Joe DioGuardi from PPP (50-40, MoE 4) and that CNN/Time one (55-41, MoE 3.5). Likewise, CNN/Time has Republican Carl Paladino back down 41-55 (MoE 3.5) behind Democrat Andrew Cuomo in another seeming reversal of that post-primary bounce the New York Republicans got. We will have to watch that state.

In Illinois Democrat Pat Quinn seems to be overcoming the Blago curse and is at least only down 8 in Rasmussen to Republican Bill Brady, 46-38 (MoE 4.5).

Linc Chafee returns in Rhode Island as he leads the Rasmussen poll for Governor. As an independent Chafee has 33 to Democrat Frank Caprio’s 30 and Republican John Robitaille’s 22, MoE 4.. This is one independent run that seems to hurt the Republican, unlike the usual trend this year.

Hawaii is positioned possibly to return Republican Charles Djou to the House, and is also possibly ready to elect another Republican governor. Democrat Neil Abercrombie does lead in the Daily Kos/PPP poll, but Republican Duke Aiona only trails 47-49 (MoE 2.7). That’s competitive.

Ready for another Florida recount? Democrat Alex Sink leads the new poll but only 41-39 over Republican Rick Scott, MoE 3.5. The Zogby poll for TCPalm.com reverses Rick Scott’s recent leads, but keeps it so close we can’t be sure what will happen. Well, it’s Zogby, yeah, but at least it’s not Zogby Interactive.

If I had to name one trend for all of the above, I’d say we’re starting to get a picture of what the final battleground will be. Some states that one side or the other thought would be close, will not be, and the last pushes will be in the key states.

And again, here’s hoping for no ugly recounts!

Possibly Related Posts

• October 15, 2010 -- On the new West Virginia polls
• October 12, 2010 -- My list of the four closest Senate races
• September 22, 2010 -- Republican bounces in New York?