A new Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll has Kerry up by 5 in Pennsylvania among RVs (48-43). The poll shows PA voters turning against the Iraq war, undoubtedly a factor in Kerry’s current lead.
Speaking of swing states, here’s some useful weekend reading. First, check out a new feature on The American Prospect website, “Purple People Watch“, which they say they will post weekly. It’s a roundup of political developments, polls, etc., from the swing, sometimes termed “purple”, states. It looks like it should be quite useful, though it seems oddly hard to find on their website. I also noticed that, in a state or two, the poll they cite is not actually the latest one. Still, a very useful feature and I recommend it.
And, if you haven’t already, you should scoot over to the DLC’s website and check out Mark Gersh’s article on “The New Battleground“. Gersh, the data guru to countless Democrats, has an interesting take on which of the swing states are most truly in play and, commendably, figures into his assessments how a given state has changed demographically since the last election. I don’t agree with everything he says, but it’s food for thought in all cases.

I haven’t been able to find a public link to it, but here are some data from a recent (May 11-16) Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) poll of LVs in the battleground states (AZ, AR, FL, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, OH, NM, OR, PA, WA, WI, WV). The poll finds that only 36 percent of voters in these states think the US is headed in the right direction, compared to 57 percent who think it’s going in the wrong direction.
Bush’s approval rating is at 46 percent, with 50 percent disapproval, and Kerry is leading Bush in a trial heat match-up by 5 points (50-45). This result is consistent with most other data from the battleground states as a whole, which have shown Kerry with at least a modest lead for quite some time. Note also that Kerry’s lead is a slightly larger 6 points among independents in the battleground states (48-42), another good sign for the Kerry campaign.
Finally, the GQR poll finds that Kerry has made gains among battleground voters, compared to one month ago, on whether various positive characteristics describe Kerry well. Examples include: “will keep America strong” (up 9 points to 57 percent); “honest and trustworthy” (up 7 points to 57 percent); “strong leader” (up 7 points to 59 percent); and “has what it takes to be President” (up 6 points to 57 percent).
Recently-released state level polls include:
Arizona: Behavior Research Center Rocky Mountain poll (April 29-May 4) has Bush up by only 4 over Kerry (46-42). Note Bush’s low support level, well into the danger zone for an incumbent.
Florida: ARG poll (May 17-19) has Bush up by a single point (47-46). Besides Bush’s low support level, note Kerry’s 7 point lead among independents (47-40). In 2000, Gore and Bush split Florida independents down the middle.

It’s nice to see the two main factions of the Democratic party–liberals and New Democrats–burying the hatchet, and not in each other. Check out this article “Come Together” by Robert Kuttner and Will Marshall in the new issue of the The American Prospect. Kuttner, of course, is a founder of that magazine and a long-time stalwart of the labor-liberal wing of the party, while Marshall is President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC’s think tank.
Kuttner and Marshall have had some vigorous, not to say bitter, disagreements in the past, as New Democrats and liberals have squared off on topics ranging from economic policy to welfare reform to electoral strategy. But they’re apparently thinking better of one another these days, as evidenced by the first two paragraphs of their article:
If liberals and New Democrats sometimes seem like the Hatfields and McCoys of center-left politics, it’s because we each believe passionately that America’s progressive soul is worth fighting for. For the most part, these debates within the family reflect principled disagreements about the best strategy for achieving both a just society and a progressive majority that embraces it. But though we still may disagree about some details, after years of radically conservative dominance of national politics, we find ourselves in vehement agreement with a simple proposition: The radical right is closing avenues of opportunity to working Americans.
This right-wing dominance, however, has produced a new unity on the progressive side. In this spirit, a group of us has gathered under a flag of truce to work out an alternative to Bushonomics: a progressive growth strategy for expanding the middle class.
The progressive growth strategy they lay out is a good one and, I would think, acceptable to almost anyone who cares to call themselves a Democrat. The four main elements of the strategy are:
1. Return fiscal sanity to Washington;
2. Don’t starve government, feed innovation;
3. Reform the tax code for the benefit of working families; and
4. Expand the economic winners’ circle.
Kuttner and Marshall provide specific ideas in each area that, again, all Democrats should find palatable and useful. By all means, read the article in full and see what you think. And if that whets your appetite for yet more party unity-oriented material, read E.J. Dionne’s article in the same issue of the Prospect on “Democratic Detente”. Dionne observes:
For two decades, the Democratic party has been riven by sharp ideological arguements. Those debates were in some respects necessary and important. But it’s obvious that many of those conflicts are irrelevant to our moment, and say far more about the past than the future. The road to nowhere is paved with rote disputes between center and left.
Amen. Dionne then lists 10 “tired and useless arguments that progressives ought to stop having” along with “10 new ones that they should start making”. Unfortunately, the article is not available online as yet, so you’ll have to snag a copy of the print magazine to check out exactly what those arguments are. But I recommend you do so; it’s worth the effort.

Gay marriage was big news today with front-page stories, accompanied by photos, of gays marrying in Massachusetts. It didn’t look particularly frightening; quite the contrary, the people involved looked nice and rather ordinary, not threatening. As E.J. Graff pointed out on The New Republic website, that helps explain why, so far, the expected backlash against gay marriage has failed to gain momentum: once you see the actual people involved, it’s harder to get bent out of shape about it.
Recent public opinion data support the idea that publicity around gay marriage is not provoking a firestorm of opposition, but rather a halting movement toward acceptance. For example, in a May 2-4 Gallup poll, support for recognizing gay marriages is actually higher than it’s ever been measured before (42 percent against 55 percent opposition). The new Newsweek poll also finds, for the first time, a majority (51 percent) of the public saying they support some kind of legal recognition of gay or lesbian couples (either full marriage rights or civil unions), as against 43 percent who oppose such recognition. And among 18-29 year olds, support for legal recognition is overwhelming (64-34).
Now, none of this is to say that we don’t have a long way to go before this issue is completely resolved. And we will see public opinion move back and forth in reaction to particular events. But the net result of that ebb and flow will continue to be toward acceptance and tolerance, as the harmless reality of married gays and gays in civil unions quietly keeps on doing its good work. And, in the end, the iron fist of demographic change (see 18-29 year old data above) will finish the job.

Here is the first paragraph of Ryan Lizza’s New Republic article on Kerry’s Iraq position:
Iraq has been a vexing issue for John Kerry. Every time he takes a position, the domestic political ground seems to shift under his feet. He supported the use-of-force resolution in 2002, only to find that Democratic audiences hated the war and were flocking to Howard Dean. So Kerry adjusted his rhetoric to sound more like the Vermont governor. Then, once assured of the nomination, he began tacking back to the center to court moderate, general-election voters. Now, just as much of the country is moving left on the war, Kerry has moved right. He supports more troops if commanders in the field want them and has called for a high commissioner in Iraq who can bypass the U.N. bureaucracy. What’s more, after opposing last year’s $87 billion Iraq supplemental, he is prepared to support Bush’s new $25 billion request.
That captures Kerry’s problem nicely. While he’s talking about how to stabilize Iraq responsibly and effectively, the public increasingly just wants to get the hell out. That suggests that Kerry needs to reframe his approach. It needs to be reframed as the quickest possible responsible way to get out of Iraq, not simply as the responsible way to deal with the Iraq situation, no exit date specified. Otherwise, he risks being out-of-step with rapidly shifting public opinion.
One possible way for Kerry to blend responsibility and exit strategy was suggested today by James Steinberg and Michael O’Hanlon of the oh-so-responsible Brookings Institution. In their Washington Post op-ed, “Set a Date to Pull Out“, Steinberg and O’Hanlon propose that US commit itself to terminating military operations by the end of next year, following the Iraqi elections and the adoption of a new constitution. They argue that, while the US should indicate its willingness to stay as part of some international force, that would only be at the specific request of the new Iraqi government. They further argue that, while the US should encourage a democratic, tolerant Iraq, we must be willing to accept the type of government the Iraqis themselves choose. Finally, our security interests in Iraq should be pursued through collaboration with Iraq’s neighbors and with others that share those interests, such as NATO and the UN, rather than unilaterally by ourselves.
Of course, the devil’s in the details with plans like these. But the Kerry campaign’s got to start somewhere if it hopes to surf, rather than fight, the current wave of public disaffection for the Iraq war.

The New Democrat Network (NDN) is set to release a poll tomorrow of Hispanics in four key states: Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada. There’ll be more to say about the poll then, when the full results are available, but NDN has already dribbled out a few results for newspapers in those states.
While he is behind among Florida Hispanics, apparently because of overwhelming suppport for Bush among Cuban-American Hispanics, in the southwestern states of Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada, Kerry’s looking very strong. Among Nevada Hispanics, Kerry is ahead of Bush 58-31, a 27 point lead that is quite close to Gore’s 31 point lead in 2000. And Kerry is ahead by 59-30 among Arizona Hispanics, a 29 point lead that is closely approximates Gore’s 2000 margin in that state (also 31 points). Finally, in New Mexico, Kerry is ahead by an overwhelming 64-25; that 39 point lead is actually a bit larger than Gore’s very healthy 34 point lead in 2000.
So Kerry’s looking very good among southwestern Hispanics, a tale that was also told in the Democracy Corps poll of Hispanics that was released back in March. More on this poll tomorrow.

Here’s a result from that recent Time/CNN poll that I never got around to flagging but it’s an important one: Bush’s status as “a leader you can trust” as opposed to one about whom “you have some doubts and reservations” continues to decline. For the first time, he’s under 40 percent on this one, with 39 percent saying he’s a leader they can trust, compared to 59 percent who have doubts and reservations (37/61 among independents).
Also dipping below 40 percent for the first time in this poll is the number who say the war against Iraq was “was worth the toll it has taken in American lives and other kinds of costs”. That’s now down to 37 percent, as against 56 percent who say the war hasn’t been worth those costs (35/60 among independents).

Two new polls–one from Newsweek and the other from Time/CNN–have Bush hitting new lows in important ways.
First, the Newsweek poll. In this poll, Bush’s overall approval rating is down to 42 percent, with 52 percent disapproval, his lowest rating yet in any public poll. (Note: Zogby also has his rating at 42 percent, but Zogby job ratings are based on a different question and are therefore not directly comparable with other public polls.) And Bush’s approval rating on Iraq is down to 35 percent, with 57 percent disapproval, also a new low. Wow. It was just a few days ago that his Iraq rating went below 40 for the first time. Yes, the Bush campaign is on the move!
Bad as the Newsweek findings are for Bush, the findings from the CNN poll are probably worse. First, the poll finds Kerry ahead of Bush in practically every issue area, including protecting the environment (+22); health care (+19); reducing the deficit (+18); handling the economy (+13); and even taxes (+6). But here’s the really significant part: besides these domestic issues, Kerry is also ahead of Bush on handling foreign policy (+2) and handling the situation in Iraq (+3). A couple of weeks ago, Bush had a healthy lead on handling Iraq; last week Bush had a small lead; this week, he’s behind. Clearly the tide is turning.
And even on his “signature issue”, as it were, handling the war on terrorism, he only has a 7 point lead over Kerry (49-42). I am quite sure that that is the smallest lead we have seen yet for Bush on this issue. If he loses a few more points and Kerry gains a few more, he and Kerry will be essentially tied on handling terrorism! I suspect that would get them kind of worried down at Bush-Cheney re-elect.
And here’s more on Bush’s declining terrorism advantage. According to the CNN poll, more people now think Bush is doing a poor job (47 percent) than think he is doing a good job (46 percent) on handling terrorism. Ouch. That’s gotta hurt when you used to think that one issue guaranteed you re-election. (Note that this question isn’t phrased as a typical job rating (“Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Bush is doing handling……”), so we can’t really say his job rating on handling terrorism is now below 50. But, on the evidence of this question, I would not be surprised to see such a rating fairly soon.)
Turning to the horse race data, only one of the polls mentioned above, provides registered voter (RV) data–the Newsweek poll–and that poll has Kerry ahead of Bush, albeit by only a single point (46-45; though note that Kerry has a nice 7 point lead among independents). The CNN and Zogby polls both use the less desirable (in my view) likely voter (LV) approach and both have Kerry ahead by more–CNN by 5 (51-46) and Zogby also by 5 (47-42).
And here’s something to chew on: in all three of these polls, the addition of Nader to the trial heat question does not reduce Kerry’s margin, since Nader winds up drawing about equally from Kerry’s and Bush’s support. Interesting.

State polls are starting to reflect the move toward Kerry we’re seeing in the national polls. An Ohio ARG poll of likely voters (LVs), conducted May 10-12, shows Kerry ahead of Bush by 7 points (49-42), even with Nader in the mix. Note that independents favor Kerry by 5 points; by comparison, when the Democrats lost the state in 2000, independents favored Bush by 16 points.
A Hamilton, Beattie and Staff poll of Florida LVs for ACT, conducted April 29-May 9, has Kerry up by 3 (50-47). Note that, while Kerry and Bush were tied among independents in the first half of the poll, in the latter half of the poll Kerry led by an amazing 31 points among independents. In 2000, Gore and Bush were dead-even among Florida independents.
A Lake Snell Perry poll of Wisconsin LVs, also for ACT, has Kerry ahead, this time by 9 points, and even with Nader in the mix. Kerry leads by 13 points among independents; in 2000, Bush actually won independents in the state by 6 points.
Finally, a Research 2000 poll of Oregon LVs, for the Portland Tribune, has Kerry ahead by 4 (50-46), with a 15 point lead among independent voters. In 2000, independent voters were evenly split between Gore and Bush.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I think I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

I believe this is the first time I’ve seen this in a public poll: Bush’s approval rating on Iraq has been measured below 40 percent. In the latest CBS News poll, conducted May 11, his rating on Iraq clocks in at 39 percent approval/58 percent disapproval (only 37 percent among independents).
Also in the poll, his overall approval rating is down to 44/49 (42/46 among independents) and his approval rating on the economy is now just 34/60 (30/62–more than 2:1 disapproval–among independents). And even his rating on handling the campaign against terrorism is a less than stellar 51 percent.
So, let’s see, his overall rating is 44 percent and his average rating in what are probably the top three issue areas–the economy, Iraq and terrorism–is now a dismal 41 percent. Lo how the mighty have fallen.
And, wait, there’s more. For the first time, less than 30 percent (29 percent) say the result of the Iraq war was worth the loss of American life and other costs, compared to 64 percent who say it wasn’t worth the costs. And among independents, it’s now an amazing 3:1 against the war being worth it (69/23).
The poll has a similarly lop-sided result on whether US is in control of the Iraq situation. By 57-31, the public says the US is not in control of events in Iraq, a margin that rises to 59/25 among independents–almost 2:1. The increasing sense of lack of control is probably an important reason for the increasing willingness to turn over control to the Iraqis as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable, rather than keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary (now 55-38 for turning over control, up from dead-even at 46-46 in late April).
Could Bush’s ratings on Iraq get any worse? Based on the way things are going, I would have to say that’s a very strong possibility.