Ed Kilgore cautions in his post below that it’s a little early to interpret the lovely special election in NY as a harbinger of the future. And the same is probably true for current polling trends elsewhere. But the deck is so stacked against Dems in Florida, that we must flag this encouraging Quinnipiac University survey conducted 5/17-23, as reported by CNN’s political unit:

Nearly six in ten Floridians are giving a thumbs down to the job their new governor is doing, according to a new poll.
A Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday indicates that 57 percent of Florida voters disapprove of how Republican Gov. Rick Scott is handling his duties, up nine points from early April. Twenty-nine percent of people questioned in the poll say they approve of how Scott’s performing in office, down six points over the past month.
The survey also indicates that 56 percent disapprove of the job the Republican controlled legislature is doing and a majority think the state’s new budget is unfair.

Even better, Independents’ disapproval of Scott hit 57 percent, with only 28 percent approving. Florida being the largest swing state and all, sunshine state Dems should hoist a Guinness, toast their prospects — and then get seriously to work.

‘Birtherism’ is on the decline following the release of the President’s long form birth certificate. But it is nonetheless instructive to consider how the meme was accepted by so many conservatives. Alan I Abramowitz has what is likely be the definitive data-driven post on the subject up at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball. Abramowitz weighs the data regarding the influence of partisanship, ideology and race on formation of the birther meme:

Until now, debates about the influence of racial attitudes on opinions of Obama have been severely hampered by a lack of survey data including relevant questions. However, the availability of a new data set now makes it possible to directly examine the impact of racial attitudes on whites’ evaluations of President Obama.
The data used in this article come from the October 2010 wave of the American National Election Study Evaluations of Government and Society Survey (EGSS). The October 2010 survey was the first of several cross-sectional studies being conducted by ANES in 2010, 2011 and 2012 to test new instrumentation and measure public opinion between the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. The surveys are being conducted entirely on the Internet using nationally representative probability samples. Respondents are members of the Knowledge Networks KnowledgePanel, an omnibus panel of respondents recruited using telephone and address-based sampling methods who are provided free Internet access and equipment when necessary.
Evaluations of President Obama were measured by two questions, a five-point scale measuring positive versus negative feelings about the president and a seven-point scale measuring how strongly respondents liked or disliked him. The correlation between these two questions was a very strong .85, so I combined them into a single Obama rating scale with a range from 0 (extremely negative) to 10 (extremely positive). The mean score on this scale was 5.1 with a standard deviation of 3.6. About a third (34%) of respondents gave Obama a rating of 8 through 10 while 31% gave him a rating of 0 through 2. Thus, opinions of Obama were closely divided and highly polarized.

Abramowitz also notes that “Obama’s approval rating averaged 38% for whites compared with 59% for nonwhites including 85% for African Americans.” Turning to the question of ‘birther’ attitudes, Abramowitz examines the data and adds,

…Racial resentment had a strong impact on beliefs about his place of birth. While recent polling indicates that doubts about whether President Obama was born in the United States have diminished since he released his “long form” Hawaiian birth certificate, the “birther” myth has proven stubbornly resistant to evidence. In fact, 58% of white respondents in the EGSS expressed some doubt about whether Barack Obama was born in the United States including 28% who thought that he definitely or probably was not born in the United States.

Abramowitz concludes that “partisanship and ideology were the strongest predictors of overall evaluations of President Obama and opinions about his place of birth among white Americans” and that “regardless of party or ideology, whites who scored high on racial resentment had more negative opinions of Obama and were more likely to harbor doubts about whether he was born in the United States than whites who scored low on racial resentment.”
Given the tenacity of racial bias among a substantial segment of the public, President Obama’s approval ratings are all the more impressive, as is his ability to calmly navigate around the treacherous shoals of race in America.

The following article by political strategist Robert Creamer, author of “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” is cross-posted from HuffPo.
The ongoing battle over the federal budget and the role of government in America has certainly clarified the fundamental difference in the visions of the Republican and Democratic Parties — and the progressive and conservative forces within American society.
At the same time, however, the budget battle has also opened up two gaping rifts within the Republican Party itself. The first threatens to do massive damage to the GOP’s election chances in 2012. The second may cause the collapse of its 2011 legislative agenda.
First is the seemingly irreconcilable conflict between the “Tea Party” class of GOP “young turks” — who want to go for broke to destroy the New Deal and impose their social agenda — and those elements of the Party whose highest concern is winning general elections.
More “moderate” Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Dick Lugar are terrified of being defeated in primaries by Tea Party insurgents who are eager to take advantage of any deviation from ultra-right orthodoxy. But they know very well that purist right wing positions like ending Medicare and privatizing Social Security are the kiss of death in general elections.
Last week, Newt Gingrich became the poster boy for the corrosive effect of this conflict, as the nation watched him pleading for forgiveness from the right for his characterization of Paul Ryan’s Republican budget as “extremist right wing social engineering.” Even though Gingrich himself remains a hard core right wing ideologue, he has had an experience many of the Tea Party newcomers have not: he knows what it’s like to lose.
Gingrich is smart enough to know that it’s one thing to prevent people from achieving their aspirations — it’s quite another to take something away that they already have — that they’ve already paid for — like Medicare and Social Security. He can read the polls that show almost 80% of the electorate wants Congress to keep its hands off Medicare and Social Security. And almost as many oppose cutting or restructuring Medicaid. Remember that Medicaid not only provides health care for the working poor, and children, but also provides nursing home care — and home care that lets seniors and the disabled stay in their own homes instead of institutions.
Of course it’s not just Gingrich that is caught in the vise between primaries dominated by well-organized right wing ideologues and a general electorate that has no use for candidates who want to abolish Medicare or defund Planned Parenthood. The entire Republican presidential field will have to cope with this virtually unsolvable conundrum every day during the upcoming primary season.
The same difficulty faces GOP Senate challengers and House incumbents. Sixty one D battles for House seats will be fought in districts won by Barack Obama in 2008 — and fourteen were won by Obama in 2008 and John Kerry in 2004. In the 2010 elections, seniors voted Republican by 21%. Now that the Republican leadership and Ryan’s “young guns” have rounded up all but four members of the GOP House caucus and got them — incredibly — to cast a public vote to abolish Medicare — don’t expect seniors to flock to their cause again in 2012.
And in case the Republicans didn’t notice, it’s not just seniors who strongly oppose abolishing Medicare. All of those 45- to 50-year-olds who would be most directly affected and have paid their Medicare taxes all of these years aren’t too happy either.
Before this year is done, many Republican office holders and candidates will feel as though they’re on a political rack. On the one side they will find themselves and their colleagues pilloried at town meetings for voting to abolish Medicare. On the other, they will watch those who are bold enough to distance themselves from the Republican budget “Koolaid,” smacked back into line by Tea Party zealots.
This of course will be great news for Democrats in 2012. Many Republicans are taking the path of the least short-term pain in order to avoid humiliation in a primary. They are refusing to distance themselves from Ryan’s politically radioactive proposals. And of course candidates like Gingrich who try to head for a radioactive free zone — and then have to reverse themselves — look as though they have cast their principles to the winds. In politics, appearing to flip flop — to have no core commitment to values — is often the most toxic quality of all. Remember, Republicans beat John Kerry by — erroneously — convincing many swing voters that he was a “flip flopper.”
Already we’ve seen the power of the Medicare issue to drive swing seniors into the Democratic column. In the Special election for heavily Republican New York’s 26th Congressional District, Democrat Kathy Huchel has actually surged ahead of Republican Jane Corwin in last-minute polling — mainly on the strength of the Medicare issue.
But the Medicare issue doesn’t just move swing seniors. The Republican Budget — coupled with President Obama’s response — has drawn clear lines between the Democratic and Republican visions for our society. That clear distinction has already reinvigorated the Democratic Party base and will serve to rally Democratic turnout in 2012.
Paul Ryan has given Democrats the gift that will keep on giving right through November, 2012.
But the second great conflict in the Republican Party will have an impact in just a few months. That’s the conflict between the real base of the GOP — Wall Street and America’s corporate elite — and the Tea Party bomb throwers who are willing to risk allowing America to default on its debts to advance their ideological goals.
Now don’t get me wrong — much of the Wall Street/corporate CEO crowd would love to abolish Medicare and force draconian cuts in the Federal budget so they could have yet another round of tax cuts and free themselves of “meddlesome” government “regulation.” They would love to be freed to devise exotic trading schemes, sell worthless mortgage securities, decertify unions and slash middle class salaries, defund public education and all of the rest.
But they’re not interested in risking the collapse of the economy, and the markets to get it. They are smart enough to prefer the billions they have in their hot hands, to the risk that their portfolios will plummet in value once again as they did in 2008. And that is exactly what might happen if their erstwhile Tea Party allies force House Speaker John Boehner to play chicken with the nation’s debt limit in order to pressure the Democrats to scrap big portions of the New Deal.
Wall Street is terrified by guys like Illinois’ Republican Congressman Joe Walsh who said that default wouldn’t be so bad — that we should be thinking “outside of the box.” Or Congressman Devin Nunes who thinks that a default would benefit America by forcing politicians to go through a “period of crisis”. These “default deniers” just scare the bejezus out of the investor/CEO class.
But Boehner has a whole flock of these folks in his caucus, and before the default battle is over he may look like a pancake — squeezed by Wall Street on the one side, and by his Tea Party crew on the other.
It is likely that whatever deal to avoid default ultimately emerges from the Biden talks, will ultimately pass with more Democratic than Republicans votes in both houses. That means that the deal cannot contain poison pill proposals that are completely unacceptable to most mainstream Democrats. But that, in turn, may very well be unacceptable to the right-wing ideologues who see the debt-ceiling vote as their one chance to make big changes in the federal budget.
If Boehner allows a vote on such a proposal — and it does indeed pass with more Democrats than Republicans — he is afraid there may be a mutiny and he may no longer swing the big House gavel when the smoke clears.
This kind of division massively weakens the Republican’s bargaining position. As the prospect of default barrels toward us, looming larger and larger in the weeks ahead, the pressure from the Wall Street/CEO gang will grown unbearable.
The fact of the matter is that the Party’s big dogs will not allow Boehner to pull the plug on the grenade that sends the economy back into a major recession and causes markets to plummet. And of course, if they did, the political consequences for the GOP in 2012 would be catastrophic.
Had the Republicans simply continued to scream about deficits (as hypocritical as that may seem) they would have had a much stronger hand. Instead they handed Democrats a politically iconic example of exactly what the world would be like if they had their way — abolishing Medicare.
Now the Party’s candidates and its legislative leadership are divided, confused and in disarray.
In this situation, Democrats and Progressives need to remember one important axiom: when you’ve got them on the run, that’s the time to chase them.

In his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira reports on the good news for Dems regarding Ohio voter attitudes towards the GOP’s legislation stripping public worker collective bargaining rights:

A new Quinnipiac University poll of Ohio registered voters documents this opposition. According to the poll, Ohio voters oppose limiting collective bargaining rights for public employees (51-38), do not believe limiting collective bargaining for public employees is necessary to balance the state budget (52-38), oppose banning public employee strikes (58-35), and oppose banning public employee bargaining over health insurance plans (54-38).

And it’s not just about attitudes. Ohio voters are ready for action, reports Teixeira: “Ohio voters also favor repealing the whole law through a referendum (54-36)…Conservatives should get it through their heads that voters don’t support taking rights away from workers, whether they’re in the public or private sectors.”

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile’s USA Today article “GOP’s 2012 Game Plan Is to Keep Voters Home” merits a read from Democratic leaders, campaign workers and, come to think of it, rank and file voters who don’t want to find themselves disenfranchised on election day. Here’s an excerpt:

…From coast to coast, the GOP is engaged in what appears to be a coordinated, expensive effort to block voters from the polls….The motivation is political — a cynical effort to restrict voting by traditionally Democratic-leaning Americans. In more than 30 states, GOP legislators are on the move, from a sweeping rewrite of Florida’s election laws to new rules for photo identification in Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina and more than 20 other states.
As a result, 11% of Americans –21 million citizens of voting age who lack proper photo identification — could be turned away on Election Day. And these people tend to be most highly concentrated among people of color, the poor, the young and the old.

Brazile details some the obstructions being thrown up by Republican-controlled legislatures across the nation, including restricting early voting, fines for voter registration drives and dubious photo i.d. requirements. “What the GOP is attempting to do,” concludes Brazile,” is change the rules of the game, leaving only their players on the field.”
Republicans have engaged in ‘ballot security’ campaigns and other voter suppression activities for decades. But it appears that the effort is now more widespread and deeply-entrenched than ever. Brazile’s warning should be heard and heeded by Democratic organizers, coast to coast.

TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira’s latest Public Opinion Snapshot reports on yet another poll indicating strong public distaste for GOP tax policy and budget cuts. As Teixeira says, “From town meetings with constituents to surveys of public opinion, the public is speaking up loudly to oppose cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and to support taxing the rich.” Teixeira adds:

The latest evidence comes from an early May Quinnipiac University poll. In that poll, 72 percent of the public opposed cutting Social Security to reduce the budget deficit, 70 percent opposed cutting Medicare, and 57 percent opposed cutting Medicaid, even after being told that 60 percent of the federal budget comes from defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

The poll is equally-clear about the kind of taxes they support, explains Teixeira: “On the other hand, the public does support–by an overwhelming 69-28 margin–taxing the rich to reduce the budget deficit.”
Could it be any clearer? The public strongly opposes conservative tax and budget policies — and that’s good news for Dems.

by Drew Lieberman and Andrew Baumann, Senior Associates Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, the big oil companies and their Republican defenders in Congress have reason to be nervous. As big oil fights to cling to the nearly $5 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies they receive each year, the American electorate has had enough. Our recent survey (see note 1) shows that American voters:
Lay the blame for high gas prices squarely at the feet of Big Oil. A 52 percent outright majority say the oil companies are most to blame for the recent increase in gas prices, a finding confirmed by a recent CNN/Opinion Research survey (see note 2) that shows 61 percent of American adults say the oil companies deserve a great deal of blame for the recent increase in gas prices, the highest percentage of any entity tested.
Strongly support ending oil company subsidies. The CNN/Opinion Research poll shows 77 percent believe the oil companies as a whole are making too much profit, three and half times the 22 percent who say they are making a reasonable profit. By a 73 to 20 percent margin in our survey, voters favor eliminating the $5 billion in subsidies and tax loopholes for oil companies each year, with 57 percent strongly favoring this proposal, the highest level of strong support among any proposal to lower gas prices.
Do not buy the oil companies’ defensive claims that ending their tax breaks will cause more hardship at the pump. While Congressional Republicans continue to defend Big Oil, voters reject the premise that ending the subsidies will cause gas prices to go up. Sixty-nine percent believe “we should end the billions in government subsidies for oil companies because we shouldn’t use taxpayer money to give handouts to oil companies already making huge profits,” while just 22 percent agree with the statement “we should keep tax breaks for oil companies because if we raise taxes on American energy producers that would just cause gas prices to increase further, hurting regular Americans.”
Note 1. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research conducted a national survey of 1,000 likely 2012 voters (833 landline, 167 cell) between March 16 and 20, 2011. The margin of error for the survey (overall) at the 95 percent confidence interval is approximately ± 3.1 percentage points.
Note 2. Interviews with 1,034 adult Americans conducted by telephone by Opinion Research Corporation on April 29-May 1, 2011. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg have an interesting post up at MSNBC’s First Read. They report on a new survey pollster Peter Hart calls “fortifying and frightening” for President Obama’s reelection prospects, which should help illuminate his reelection strategy.
The good news for the president and for Dems hoping to ride his coattails:

NBC co-pollster Peter Hart (D) perhaps best sums up our latest NBC survey after bin Laden’s death…The president’s foreign-policy and Afghanistan handlings have hit all-time highs, while his leadership, decision-making, and commander-in-chief ratings have all increased.
…The NBC poll’s table of presidential attributes gives us a good idea on what has changed for Obama since bin Laden’s death and what hasn’t. The biggest increases: being firm and decisive (an 11-point jump from last December), having the ability to handle a crisis (11 points), being a good commander-in-chief (10 points), and uniting the country (10 points).
…Among suburban women — always a key demographic group — 55% now approve of the president’s job, and 50% say they will probably vote for him in 2012.

The not so good numbers address, as the authors note “His economic handling — attributed largely to the high gas prices — has reached an all-time low….a reminder of just how potent the issue of gas prices are right now.”
Overall, however, President Obama’s prospects are modestly encouraging, according to the poll.

…Obama’s job approval stands at 52% (a three-point increase from April) and his generic re-elect stands at 45% (up two points from last month; more interestingly, though, the “definite” vote for the Republican went DOWN eight points). As co-pollster Bill McInturff adds, these numbers underscore the “tremendous anchor the economy is to the president’s job standing.” Bottom line: The president acquired SOME political capital, but not as much as history suggests…

The post notes that Obama has 43 percent approval with ‘Independents,’ and the authors cite Hart’s belief that weak support among Indies is a serious problem for Obama. But nowadays it’s more of a catch-all category composed of disparate voters across the political spectrum. It’s all but impossible to formulate a unified strategy targeting ‘Independent’ voters. Still, it’s a number Obama wants to see increase between now and November 2012, perhaps by targeting segments of the category (e.g. youth, environmentalists, self-employed).
Of course the hope is that Obama’s high marks for strong leadership in the wake of the bin Laden raid will become generalized and supported by improving economic statistics. Polls can be helpful in formulating strategy at particular political junctures, but the numbers the President — and Dems — most want to see as 2012 approaches are declining gas prices and a lower unemployment rate.

In his current ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress Web Pages, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira reports on The Pew Research Center study, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology.” Teixeira finds significant common ground on two key issues in particular among Americans of varying self-described political beliefs. Teixeira explains that the study,

…segments the public into nine groups: eight politically active groups and one inactive group (bystanders) composed entirely of nonvoters. Of the eight active groups, two are described as “mostly Republican” (staunch conservatives and Main Street Republicans), three as “mostly Democratic” (new coalition Democrats, hard-pressed Democrats, and solid liberals), and three as “mostly independent” (libertarians, disaffecteds, and postmoderns). In reality, however, postmoderns lean strongly Democratic, while libertarians and disaffecteds lean strongly Republican. So there are really four active Democratic and four active Republican groups.

With respect to alternative energy, Teixeira find broad support:

…Overall, the public prioritizes developing alternative energy over expanding oil, coal, and natural gas by a 63-29 margin. And, as shown in the chart below, seven of Pew’s eight active typology groups support this position, including a whopping 40-point margin among the Main Street Republican group. Only the staunch conservatives (9 percent of the public) dissent from the rest.

On providing a apth to citizenship for illegal immigrants, Teixeira cites even braoder agreement among the public:

Similarly, the public as a whole supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in the United States by 72-24. And again, seven of eight active typology groups endorse this position, including Main Street Republicans by 19 points, libertarians by 34 points, and disaffecteds by 36 points. Only the staunch conservatives dissent, and even here there are as many supporting as opposing the position (49-49).

Despite the vociferous objections of far-right ideologues, it appears that providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and developing alternative energy are two progressive ideas that win support across the political spectrum.

The myth that the budget deficit and the national debt are the top concerns of Americans has suffered yet another major blow, as TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira explains in his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’:

In the latest CBS/New York Times poll, a plurality of 39 percent say the economy/jobs is the most important problem facing the country compared to just 15 percent who say the deficit/debt is the main problem.

Nor does the public buy the myth that “reducing the federal budget deficit is somehow going to solve the jobs problem,” notes Teixeira:

In the same poll a mere 29 percent think cutting the deficit will create jobs compared to 29 percent who believe a major reduction in the annual budget will actually cost jobs and 27 percent who think there will be an effect on jobs.

Let the conservatives rail on about deficits and debt. It appears that the party that keeps the focus on jobs will have the edge in 2012.