A boatload of interesting polls have just been released which, considered together, give us a sense of how the political landscape lies on the eve of the Democratic convention. Based on both the national picture and on the leanings of key constituencies, the Democrats appear to be in excellent shape, even if much work remains to be done in converting the Democrats’ many advantages into a large, durable lead for John Kerry.
Start with the new Pew Research Center poll. Perhaps the most striking findings in the poll concern the dramatically improved issue advantages and image of the Democratic party. Here are the Democrats’ leads on which party can a better job on a range of issues: dealing with the economy (+27, up from +7 in mid-2003); protecting the environment (+27); improving the educational system (+16, up from -3 in early 2002); dealing with the economy (+12, up from +3 in fall, 2002); making wise decisions about Iraq (+2, up from -9 in fall, 2002); making wise decisions about foreign policy (+2, up from -10 in fall, 2002); reflecting your views on gun control (+2); improving morality in this country (-2, up from -11 in early 2002 and -23 in early 2001!); coming closest to your views on homosexuality (-2); and dealing with the terrorist threat at home (-15).
Of just as much significance are the results on party image. Five of the six image questions were on positive attributes and the Democrats lead on each one of them: is concerned with the disadvantaged (57-23); is concerned with people like me (50-30); can bring about needed changes (46-35); is able to manage the federal government well (40-37, the first lead Democrats have had on this attribute since mid-1992); and governs in an honest and ethical way (37-34). Only on “is concerned with with business and powerful groups” do the Republicans have an advantage–and a wide one (61-22).
In terms of approval ratings, Bush fares poorly in this poll. His overall approval rating is 46 percent approval/46 percent disapproval, slightly down from their June poll. Slightly down as well in the last month is his rating on the economy, now at 42/52, more evidence that Bush’s happy talk on job creation and the allegedly robust economy is convincing no one. His rating on Iraq is a nearly identical 42/53, a slight increase in disapproval over last month. And his rating on “the nation’s foreign policy” is actually a bit lower at 40/48 (as recently as January of this year, his rating in this area was a comparatively strong 53/36). Only on terrorist threats does his job rating break into net postive territory (54/40) but this rating too is down from last month and way down from the end of last year.
Pew’s trial heat question (which includes Nader-Camejo) gives Kerry-Edwards a small 2 point lead (46-44) over Bush-Cheney among RVs. That includes a 12 point lead for Kerry-Edwards among independents and a 6 point lead in the battleground states.
The Pew data also show that voter interest is running high in this election–signficantly above interest levels in 2000 and 1996 and comparable with 1992–suggesting this will be a relatively high turnout election. And their data indicate that voters are now split on who is going to win the 2004 election, whereas before, regardless of who they personally supported, voters believed by wide margins (40 points in January, by 19 points in May and by 15 points in June) that Bush would prevail.
The wind is shifting and the voters know it!
The new Gallup poll gives Kerry-Edwards a slightly larger lead (4 points) over Bush-Cheney among RVs, with or without Nader-Camejo in the mix. Internals of the horse race question show Kerry-Edwards with a whopping 21 point lead among independents. And, just as in Gallup’s last poll, Democrats are now supporting their ticket even more strongly (91-8) than the Republicans are supporting theirs (87-8).
Kerry-Edwards also have a wide 23 point lead in the solid blue states (59-36) and continue to lead in the purple, up-for-grabs states, though by smaller margin (48-44) than in Gallup’s last poll.
In addition, the Kerry-Edwards ticket continues to enjoy a substantial advantage in favorability ratings over the Bush-Cheney ticket, though slightly diminished from Gallup’s last poll. Kerry’s favorability rating is 55 percent favorable/37 percent unfavorable (a +18 net rating), while Bush’s is 52/46 (+6). Similarly, Edwards’ favorability rating is 52/26 (+26), while Cheney’s is 47/43 (+4).
Gallup also asked a series of questions about Kerry vs. Bush on the issues and on personal attributes. It’s interesting to match them up, where you can, with the Pew results comparing the Democratic and Republicans parties. By and large, Kerry’s advantages on issues and attributes tend to run about 4-10 points behind the Democrats’ advantage on similar issues and atributes. Clearly there’s room for improvement there for Kerry.
And speaking of room for improvement, I hate to be a broken record on this, but results like these from the Gallup poll continue to bother me. At this point, just 45 percent believe Bush has a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq, compared to 54 percent who think he does not–a net -9 on the question. But check out the result of the same question for Kerry: 33 percent think he does have a clear plan, compared to 56 percent who think he does not–a net -23 on the question.
Ouch.
Turning to key groups for the Democrats in the upcoming election, today saw the release of not one, but two, major new polls of Hispanics–one from The Washington Post/Univision/Tomas Rivera Policy Institute and the other from the Pew Hispanic Center. And if you’re Matthew Dowd, leading Bush-Cheney campaign strategist, who has famously remarked that “As a realistic goal, we have to get somewhere between … 38 [percent] to 40 percent of the Hispanic vote” in 2004 for the GOP to be successful, these polls are very bad news indeed.
Start with the horse race results. Both polls give Kerry-Edwards a 30 point lead over Bush-Cheney among Hispanic RVs. This is a wider margin than Al Gore had among Hispanics in 2000, when he carried them by 27 points (62-35).
The Washington Post (WP) poll (which was conducted in the 11 states with the highest concentrations of Hispanics) has Kerry-Edwards over Bush-Cheney by 60-30, even with Nader-Camejo included. The Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) poll, which was conducted nationally, has Kerry-Edwards over Bush-Cheney by a very similar 62-32. Note that the Bush-Cheney figures of 30-32 percent aren’t anywhere near the 38-40 percent target set by Dowd. And they’re not likely to get much nearer since one would expect Hispanic undecideds to break toward the Democratic challenger, not the Republican incumbent.
These results are actually worse for Bush and the Republicans than earlier polls this year by the Democracy Corps and others, which gave Kerry and the Democrats healthy leads but not quite this good. So Hispanic voters, it would appear, are trending against the Republicans.
Dowd, of course, refuses to accept this evidence, offering as a counter that a few small Hispanic subsamples in conventional national polls have showed Bush’s support among Hispanics in the 40 percent range. But this doesn’t pass the laugh test. These samples of Hispanic voters are not only ridiculously small (perhaps 50 voters or so), but they also suffer from the well-known problem that standard telephone polls make no special efforts (use of the Spanish language, etc.) to secure Hispanics’ participation and hence tend to draw more upscale, conservative samples of Hispanics than the specialized efforts discussed here.
Looking at the views of Hispanics, as captured in these polls, it’s not hard to see how Kerry-Edwards could have such a commanding lead at this point. In the WP poll, Bush’s overall approval rating among Hispanics is 36 percent, with 54 percent disapproval. On the economy–by far Hispanics’ top voting issue–Bush’s approval rating is worse, a dismal 32 percent approval/60 percent disapproval. And his rating on Iraq is worse still, 29/62. In addition, his rating on immigration is 27/55 and his rating on education is 40/46. Only on the US campaign against terrorism (54/38) does he have a net positive rating.
But even on this issue, where Bush gets his best approval rating, Hispanics still say they prefer Kerry over Bush by 43-35. And they prefer Kerry over Bush on every other issue as well: the economy (53-28); Iraq (45-34); immigration (46-26); and education (51-27). Kerry is also viewed, by 25 points (55-30), as the candidate who would do a better job coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years.
In addition, Hispanics give Kerry higher ratings than Bush on “understands the problems of people like you” (Kerry, 53 yes/23 no vs. Bush, 37/55); “can be trusted in a crisis” (53/21 vs. 47/44); and “is a likable person” (69/14 vs. 61/34). And even on “is a strong leader”, where Kerry and Bush get about the same number of yes votes, Kerry’s net rating is quite a bit higher than Bush’s (57/22 vs. 58/36).
On Iraq, contrary to early media reports that Hispanics were especially supportive of the war, the reverse is clearly now true. Hispanics believe that the US is losing the war on terrorism (40-37) and that the war hasn’t contributed to the long-term security of the United States (48-44), while the general public still has modest pluralities in the other direction. And Hispanics overwhelmingly believe (63-21) that, considering the costs and benefits to the US, the war with Iraq wasn’t worth fighting (the general public is only 53-45 that the war wasn’t worth fighting).
Finally, Hispanics in the WP poll give the Democrats a 36 point advantage as the party that has more concern for the Latino community (50-14) and a huge 41 point lead on party ID (66-23).
The results of the PHC poll are generally consistent with the WP poll, though they give the Democrats a smaller (26 point) lead on party ID. The horse race results I’ve already discussed and Bush’s overall approval rating is similar to the WP poll (35/55), as is his rating on Iraq (32/58). The PHC poll also finds that Latinos believe the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about how big a threat Iraq was to the US (51-35) and the US made the wrong decision, not the right decision, in using military force against Iraq (48-39).
On the Bush tax cuts, the PHC poll finds that only 17 percent believe they have been good for the economy. On health care, 86 percent believe the government should provide health insurance for those who don’t have it and, by 59-32, they’d be willing to pay more–either in higher health insurance premiums or taxes–to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance. In fact, Latinos say, by 55-37, they’d be willing to pay higher taxes to support a larger government that provides more services, rather than pay lower taxes and have a smaller government with fewer services.
Sorry, Matthew Dowd, these just don’t seem like the kind of voters who are eager to drink the GOP Kool-Aid. In fact, maybe you should take that 30 percent support you’re getting right now and be happy you’re getting that much.
Tomorrow: black voters and young voters

I’ve made some criticisms of the Kerry campaign (see yesterday’s post). And loose talk of a Kerry landslide makes me extremely nervous. Still, it can’t be denied that, as we head into the convention, Kerry is in a pretty good position and his opponent appears to have the short end of the stick.
Charlie Cook’s latest column on the National Journal website (if you don’t have access to their webite, you can sign up to get his column free here) crisply summarizes why the seeming deadlock in the horse race is actually very bad news for Bush:

Last week in this space, I discounted the widely held view that the knotted polling numbers between Bush and Kerry meant that the race itself was even. I argued that given the fact that well-known incumbents with a defined record rarely get many undecided voters — a quarter to a third at an absolute maximum — an incumbent in a very stable race essentially tied at 45 percent was actually anything but in an even-money situation. “What you see is what you get” is an old expression for an incumbent’s trial heat figures, meaning very few undecided voters fall that way.
……This is certainly not to predict that Bush is going to lose, that this race is over or that other events and developments will not have an enormous impact on this race. The point is that this race has settled into a place that is not at all good for an incumbent, is remarkably stable, and one that is terrifying many Republican lawmakers, operatives and activists. But in a typically Republican fashion, they are too polite and disciplined to talk about it much publicly.
In a funny way, if this race were bouncing around, it would probably be a better sign for President Bush. It would suggest that there was some volatility to the race and that public attitudes had not yet hardened, and were thus still an eminently fixable situation. The dynamics of a presidential race usually do not change much between July and Election Day. This year, however, the race is much more stable than usual, which is ominous for an incumbent under these circumstances. The bottom line is that this presidential race is not over, but the outlook is not so great for the players in the red jerseys.

Well said, Mr. Cook. A related analysis that I highly recommend may be found today in Salon. Written by political scientist David Gopoian, “Maxed-Out GOP” argues that:

There are many reasons for the Democrats to be hopeful heading into Boston next week, but the most important of these may be that the Bush campaign has maximized its potential and trails in the polls. There is a boundary to the limits of any political coalition, and the Bush-Cheney campaign is near the edge of its electoral reach.
The Bush campaign has mobilized its core base of conservative white male Republicans very effectively. Now what? Now is when Karl Rove wishes he were Mary Beth Cahill, John Kerry’s campaign manager. From nearly every angle that the Bush strategists peer, the turf they view for expanding their coalition is decidedly less friendly than the landscape enjoyed by Team Kerry.

Exactly. Gopoian goes on to offer some very interesting analysis based on estimating expected Republican and Democratic support from key voter groups and comparing currently observed Bush and Kerry support with the expected levels of support. (He doesn’t go into detail on the methodology for his estimations, but it’s basically done by looking at the partisan composition of different groups and combining that with historical patterns of partisan support for Democrats and Republicans.)
Gopoian shows that Bush has large shortfalls in support among independents (15 points below expectations), moderates (6 points lower) and liberals (11 points). He is maxed out among conservatives and is unlikely to make more gains there. Kerry, on the other hand, needs to make comparativelly modest progress among Democrats and moderate-to-liberal whites. As Gopoain puts it: “…Kerry needs to make small gains among friendly voters, while Bush needs to make huge gains among relatively unfriendly voters.”
Not so good for the Bush team. Gopoian also has some interesting things to say about the demographics of the friendly voters Kerry needs to make progress among. Basically, we’re talking about whites of moderate-to-low levels of education–more the white working class than, say, white professionals.
I’ll be posting more about this last issue in days to come.

Here’s The Hotline‘s summary of an article by John Harwood and Jacob Schlesinger, based on an interview with Kerry on Iraq, and published in The Wall Street Journal last Friday:
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, John Kerry set a 3-part test for getting the troops out of Iraq if elected, “while warning that” Pres. Bush “might commence a more rapid draw-down this fall to improve his reelection prospects.” The 3 parts are “to measure the level of stability”; “to measure the outlook for the stability to hold” and “to measure the ability … of their security forces” to defend Iraq. He added that “until each condition is satisfied,” he will “provide for the world’s need not to have a failed state in Iraq.” Kerry “isn’t preparing to spell out a timetable for rapid withdrawal, suggesting Bush “was more likely to do so.” Kerry: “I’ve heard [it] said by many people” that the WH “might be gearing up to withdraw” troops before 11/2. More: “I’m prepared for any political move.”….Kerry “doesn’t contemplate ‘an open-ended commitment'” of troops but “nor would he pledge to end the U.S. presence in Iraq.” Kerry: “At the end of my first term I would consider it a failure of my diplomacy if we haven’t reduced the number significantly,” but “I certainly can’t tell you numbers”
Clear? If it doesn’t seem so to you, here’s a link to the full article…but, I warn you, it doesn’t get much more lucid.
No wonder voters can’t figure out what on earth John Kerry actually proposes to do about the Iraq situation. Just-released Annenberg Election Survey data show that, while only 34 percent believe Bush “has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion” and 61 percent do not, Kerry fares no better in the public’s estimation: just 25 percent believe he has a clear plan and 57 percent do not. In fact, Kerry’s net negative on this question (-32) is actually worse than Bush’s (-27).
That’s a pity because evidence continues to mount that voters–particularly independent and swing voters–have lost faith in Bush on the Iraq issue and are eager to embrace a clear alternative, if Kerry articulated one.
For example, on whether Bush has a clear plan for Iraq, independents are even more lopsided on Bush not having one (65-30) and “persuadable voters”–those who are undecided currently or who say they could change their mind–are amazingly negative (74-18).
Gallup has also recently released a report showing that the transfer of power in Iraq has had absolutely no effect on public perceptions. The public continues to believe that the war is a mistake, hasn’t been worth it and is going badly. So they’re naturally looking for way out.
Finally, CBS News data show that independents are tremendously negative about Bush’s handling of Iraq and foreign affairs and about the Iraq war in general. They give Bush an abysmal 34 percent approval rating on foreign policy, with 59 percent disapproval, and, on Iraq, give him an incredibly negative 32/63 rating–almost 2:1 disapproval! Independents in this poll also say, by 55-42, that we should stayed out of Iraq in the first place and, by a stunning 68-26, that the result of the Iraq war hasn’t been worth the associated loss of life and other costs.
Does this sound like a group of voters who will be satisfied with a lot of studied vagueness about how the US will get of Iraq? I don’t think so. But if they do get what they’re looking for–“a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion”, to use Annenberg’s locution–John Kerry can have them eating out of his hand.
So what is he waiting for? He should remember what happened in 2002, when voters hated what was going on with the economy, but the Democrats never offered a clear alternative. The Democrats, as a result, never really benefitted from the terrible economy in that election and that contributed (among other things) to their dismal performance that November.
Kerry, of course, is in a much better situation generally in 2004 than the Democrats were in 2002, but he can’t afford to be complacent. He shouldn’t assume that the negative situation in Iraq will automatically redound to his benefit. If he does, he could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Yesterday, I had a short post on “Is Our Wages Growing?”, which highlighted newly-released data on declining real wages and a front-page New York Times article on same. (I should also mention that the the Sunday Times also had a good Edmund Andrews column on how the shortfall of jobs is actually much worse than the Kerry campaign says, since there are millions of discouraged job-seekers out there who left the labor force in the last few years and who are only now starting to re-enter it. Their large numbers help keep the unemployment rate up and real wages down.)
And, lo and behold, today’s Washington Post bring this news–that leading GOP pollster, Bill McInturff, is now recommending that Republicans re-adjust their economic message. According to McInturff, “voters are far more responsive to Sen. John F. Kerry’s economic message that talks about a middle-class squeeze than to President Bush’s efforts to change public perceptions by talking up recent economic statistics” Therefore, instead of dwelling on these statistics and asserting the economy is doing great (or, as a certain leading Republican politician puts it “strong and getting stronger”), Republicans, McInturff says, need to highlight their concrete plans to make the economy work better.
Of course, the devil’s in the details on these concrete plans. McInturff claims that voters will swoon over the GOP message of “additional tax cuts for businesses or tax cuts to help small businesses provide health insurance to their workers”. I’m not so sure. While perhaps better than talking about economic statistics, this prescription sounds suspiciously like the economic medicine the Bush administration has been peddling for years. Why would voters get that excited about more of the same? And isn’t it interesting that this is the best recommendation one of their smarter strategists can come up with?
But perhaps he has some constraints. Today’s GOP is not noted for its open-mindedness and they are, after all, his clients.

I didn’t think so. So, rather than feeling guilty for piling on, let’s take a peek at the new CBS News/New York Times survey. Here are the key findings.
1. Bush’s favorable/unfavorable rating is net negative for their fifth survey in a row (going back to the beginning of April).
2. Kerry-Edwards beats Bush-Cheney by 5 points (49-44), including an 8 point lead among independent voters. Note that this 49-44 lead is the identical result that CBS News obtained in their overnight poll after Kerry selected Edwards as his running mate, suggesting that the Edwards bounce has some staying power.
3. Bush’s overall approval rating is net negative (45 percent approval/48 percent disapproval) for their fourth survey in a row, going back to late April. His 45 percent rating, while a slight improvement over his late May and late June ratings, keeps him well into the danger zone for incumbents.
4. Right direction/wrong track is at 36/56, essentially unchanged since their last survey about three weeks ago.
5. His approval rating on foreign policy is his worst ever at 39/55, as is his rating on handling the campaign against terrorism (51/43). (Note: this latter trend contradicts a recent Post finding suggesting an improvement in Bush’s rating in this area.) His approval rating on the economy is still going nowhere fast and, at 42/51, has still failed to reach the exalted heights of mid-February, when his economic rating reached 44/50. And his approval rating on Iraq is 37/58, practically a carbon copy of his dismal ratings in their late June and late May polls.
6. The Democrats have a 9 point advantage in the generic congressional contest, consistent with the Democracy Corps poll I covered on Friday.
7. John Edwards has a net +22 in his favorability rating, while Dick Cheney is now at -9, his worst rating ever.
8. For the first time, a majority (51 percent) says we should have stayed out Iraq, rather than we did the right thing by taking military action (45 percent). And the highest number ever (62 percent) says the result of the war with Iraq wasn’t worth the loss of life and other costs of attacking Iraq.
9. With all the brouhaha in the Senate about the gay marriage constitutional amendment, the number who think gays should be allowed to either marry or form civil unions continues to climb–from 55 percent in March, to 57 percent in May to 59 percent in this latest survey.
10. The highest number ever (60 percent) think the US should not attack another country unless the US is attacked first.
11. The Democrats have an 8 point advantage in party ID without leaners and a 14 point advantage with leaners. Shades of the much-maligned Los Angeles Times poll. This party ID advantage, if it holds, gives the Democrats a built-in advantage on election day, which the Republicans then have to try to desperately counter by maximizing turnout of their base.
For the likelihood that this strategy will work, see my July 15 post.

…as the president might ask. Nope, they’re not. This EPI economic snapshot points out that real hourly and weekly earnings not only fell last month, but they have now fallen in six out of the last seven months. All the basic data on these trends can be found in this nifty new release from Bureau of Labor Statistics on “Real Earnings in June 2004“. And there is a substantial article on the real wage decline problem in today’s New York Times. The trend that dared not speak its name is starting to be heard.
Note that the 1.1 percent drop in real hourly earnings in June is actually the largest drop in hourly earnings since mid-1991, when Bush’s father was at the nation’s helm.
I think I’m starting to detect a pattern here……

Bush today reiterated that the war with Iraq was the right call and said he’d happily do the same thing again.
The American public, on the other hand, has its doubts. In the Gallup poll I reported on yesterday, the public, by 54 percent to 45 percent says that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake. And, by 50-47, the public believes it wasn’t worth going to war with Iraq.
The new Washington Post poll tells the same story: 53 percent now think the war with Iraq wasn’t worth fighting, compared to 45 percent who believe it was. That’s the Post poll’s most negative finding on this question.
These findings are big, big trouble for the Bush-Cheney campaign. They indicate that the transfer of power to the new Iraqi government isn’t fooling anyone. Voters believe–rightly–that the situation in Iraq isn’t getting much better, that we’re still militarily and financially responsible for keeping the situation under control and that our initial involvement in Iraq was based on allegations and intelligence that have turned out to be mostly wrong.
No wonder Bush’s approval rating on Iraq isn’t going anywhere. In the Post poll, it has slightly declined over the last three weeks to 43 percent approval/55 percent disapproval (40/57 among independents). And, over the same period, Kerry has moved into a tie with Bush (47-47) over who could do a better job handling the Iraq situation, up from a 5 point deficit three weeks ago. (Note, though, in a bit of good news for Bush, his approval rating on handling the campaign against terrorism improved 5 points to 55/43 and he re-opened a 9 point advantage over Kerry on who would do the best job handling the anti-terrorism campaign.)
On the economy, the poll shows no gain for Bush–in fact, a small slide–in his economic approval rating. He’s down a couple of points in the last three weeks to 43/51 and the poll–in contrast to some recent Gallup data–shows only 35 percent saying the nation’s economy is getting better, about the same number as were optimistic in their mid-April poll. And only a about a quarter (26 percent) say their family financial situation is better than it was a year ago. In addition, Kerry has widened his lead over Bush on handling the economy to 8 points from a 5 point advantage three weeks ago.
The poll also shows some significant gains for Kerry on key personal characteristics. Since late April, Bush has remained rock steady at 42 percent yes/57 percent no on understanding “the problems of people like you”. Kerry in contrast has gone from 52 yes/43 no to 55/38.
On being “a strong leader”, Bush has declined several points to 59 yes/40 no, while Kerry has move up from 52/38 to 55/35. That actually gives Kerry a higher net rating (+20) than Bush (+19). Similarly, on “can be trusted in a crisis”, Bush has declined a bit to 57/41, while Kerry has climbed significantly to 53/34 from 46/42. Again, this gives Kerry a higher net rating (+19) than Bush (+16).
And just to add insult to injury for the Bush campaign, Kerry is now deemed “likeable” by more of the public (72 percent) than Bush (68 percent).
One final note on the horse race: the Post, for whatever reason, only provides a three way matchup in this poll, rather than both the two way and three way, as they had previously. In that three way matchup among RVs, Kerry and Bush are dead-even (46-46). I’d be tempted to ascribe Kerry’s lack of advantage at least partially to the inclusion of Nader, but when compared to the Gallup poll (discussed yesterday), that turns out to explain absolutely nothing. In the Gallup poll, the RV horse race with Nader included actually gives Kerry an slightly larger advantage (8 points) than the straight Kerry-Bush matchup. And the survey dates for Gallup and the Post are exactly the same (July 8-11).
So we have RVs, Kerry-Bush-Nader, July 8-11 in one poll (Gallup) giving Kerry an 8 point lead and RVs, Kerry-Bush-Nader, July 8-11 in another poll (Post) giving Kerry no lead at all.
Go figure.

The latest Gallup poll, consistent with the analysis I posted yesterday, shows the Kerry-Edwards ticket getting a warm reception from voters. In the poll, Kerry-Edwards leads Bush-Cheney by 7 points (51-44) among RVs. That’s up from a 4 point lead in Gallup’s last poll about three weeks ago.
Internals of this horse race question also look very good for the Democratic ticket. Kerry-Edwards have a very healthy 13 point lead among independents (50-37). And Democrats are supporting their ticket even more strongly (92-6) than the Republicans are supporting theirs (87-9); the reverse has generally been true in the campaign up ’til now.
Kerry-Edwards also have a wide 19 point lead in the solid blue states (58-39) and, even more important, a substantial 10 point lead in the purple, up-for-grabs states (51-41).
In addition, the Kerry-Edwards ticket enjoys a substantial advantage in favorability ratings over the Bush-Cheney ticket. Kerry’s favorability rating is 56 percent favorable/34 percent unfavorable (a +22 net rating), while Bush’s is 52/46 (+6). Similarly, Edwards’ favorability rating is 55/24 (+31), while Cheney’s is 46/42 (+4).
Guess those attack ads didn’t work so well after all.

The overnight polls taken last Tuesday (see my July 7 post) suggested Kerry’s selection of Edwards as his running mate gave the Democratic ticket a bit of a bounce. But right after that, a couple of polls were released that cast doubt on that supposition, since neither poll showed Kerry doing particularly well compared to their earlier surveys (though these earlier surveys were about a month before in each case, so not exactly ideal for measuring a before-and-after bounce).
The Ipsos-AP poll (July 5-7) actually showed Bush ahead by 4 points, whether against Kerry or teamed with Cheney against Kerry-Edwards. On the other hand, the Ipsos-AP poll has the dubious distinction of never having shown Kerry ahead, despite fairly frequent polling.
The Zogby poll (July 6-7) showed Kerry ahead by 2 points, whether against Bush or teamed with Edwards against Bush-Cheney–exactly the margin Kerry had a month before. But then again, despite fairly frequent polling, Kerry has been ahead of Bush by a remarkably stable 2-3 points in all Zogby polls this year, with just one exception (early May).
So who knows what the results of those two polls really mean about the Edwards bounce. Besides, we now have two more recent polls that underscore the basic idea that, bounce or not, the Kerry-Edwards ticket is getting a pretty warm reception.
In the Time magazine poll (July 6-8), Kerry leads Bush among RVs by 5 points (48-43). Bush’s low support in that horse race question is re-inforced by his identically low support (43 percent) in the related re-elect question (does Bush “deserve to be re-elected?”).
Consistent with previous polls, those who say Edwards’ selection will make them more likely to vote for the Kerry ticket (24 percent) far outnumber those who say his selection will make them less likely (6 percent). That’s in contrast to Cheney, where 23 percent of voters say his position on the ticket makes it less likely they will vote GOP, compared to just 11 percent who say it will make them more likely.
Other contrasts with Cheney in this poll: Edwards’ favorability rating is 39 percent favorable/12 percent unfavorable; Cheney’s is 41 percent/40 percent. By about 2:1, the public feels positively about Kerry’s choice of Edwards (52/27); but more feel negatively (50 percent) than positively (45 percent) about Bush’s choice of Cheney. Over half of the public (51 percent) feels less favorable about Cheney because he is the ex-CEO of Halliburton; but, by more than 2:1 (55/26), the public feels Edwards’ background means he will fight for the average person, rather than contribute to frivolous lawsuits.
And perhaps most important, when asked who would make a better president, 47 percent of the public chooses Edwards and just 38 percent pick Cheney.
The new Newsweek poll (July 8-9) has a number of similar and, in some cases, stronger findings. Kerry-Edwards leads Bush-Cheney among RVs by 6 points, 51-45 (annoyingly, the clear lead for Kerry-Edwards in this poll is portrayed as a “tie” in the Newsweek online headlines; guess that’s the party line at the magazine these days).
The horse race results also show Kerry-Edwards leading Bush-Cheney by 19 points (!) among independents (even with Nader in the mix), a catastrophic number for the Bush campaign if anything close to this lead holds up for the Democrats. Other bad signs for the Bush campaign (all results with Nader in the mix; no analabous data were provided on the 2-way matchup): Bush-Cheney only have a 3 point lead among men; Kerry-Edwards leads by 13 among 18-29 year olds and even by 6 among 30-49 year olds; and Kerry-Edwards actually has a 2 point lead among whites outside the south.
Note that Bush’s re-elect in this poll is identical with his poor showing in the Time poll: a mere 43 percent say they would like to see Bush re-elected.
In terms of whether Edwards is qualified to be president, 51 percent in the poll say yes and 30 percent say no–and that rises to 62/23 among independents. Also, when asked who they would vote for if they could vote separately for vice-president 52 percent of voters choose Edwards, compared to 41 percent for Cheney (59/33 among independents.
Based on these data, I’d have to say Kerry’s selection of Edwards looks like it’s playing very well indeed. And the contrast with Cheney very much looks like it’s in the Democratic ticket’s favor.

It seems plausible that adding Edwards will enhance the Democratic ticket’s appeal to young voters. And that’s on top of Kerry’s already-strong performance among these voters–a trend I have repeatedly flagged in DR. Here are some more findings underscoring that trend, this time from the Newsweek GenNext poll, on how well the Democrats are poised to do with young voters, gathered before Edwards was added to the ticket.
1. Young voters give Democrats a 10 point edge on party ID (50-40).
2. Young voters give Bush a 43 percent approval rating, with 55 percent disapproval, his worst rating yet among young voters in this poll. And all his other approval ratings among young voters are net negative as well and mostly worse than his overall approval rating: the economy (43/56); domestic issues like health care, education, the environment and energy (40/56); foreign policy issues and the war on terrorism (47/52); and the situation in Iraq (39/60).
3. The Democrats have a 10 point lead in the generic Congressional contest (50-40).
4. Kerry has a 9 point lead over Bush in the presidential trial heat (49-40), even with Nader drawing 7 percent support. And note that Nader’s support appears to be falling among young voters–every one of these surveys since March, when Nader peaked at 12 percent, has recorded a drop in Nader’s support.
Really, the only problem for the Democrats here is if young voters have exceptionally low turnout in November. But the opposite appears likely to happen, according to a just-released analysis by the Pew Research Center.
That’s good for democracy–and very good for the Democrats.