Gallup put out an interesting analysis today of which issues help Bush and which issues help Kerry. Gallup asked respondents which of three issues–economic conditions, terrorism and the situation in Iraq–would be most important to their vote for president. Among likely voters, 39 percent selected economic conditions, 28 percent picked terrorism and 22 percent selected Iraq.
Among economic conditions likely voters (Gallup provides no relevant RV data), Kerry led over Bush 67-31 in their trial heat question. And among those who selected Iraq, Kerry also led, though by a smaller 59-40 margin. Only among terrorism voters did Bush lead, though by an overwhelming 83-14 margin.
Which leads me to speculate that perhaps Bush’ s recent press conference gave a short-term boost to the salience of terrorism (still clearly his strongest issue), thereby explaining his recent (small) gains in trial heat questions. And it also suggests that–contrary to the idea that Bush is somehow not getting hurt by the deteriorating situation in Iraq (see my April 25 discussion)–the more the public focuses on Iraq, the worse it’s likely to be for him politically.
And perhaps he’s already starting to fall off a bit from that mid-April bump. The latest Democracy Corps poll of likely voters (they report no RV results) has Bush ahead of Kerry by only a single point (49-48). The poll also shows Bush’s approval rating down 2 points since late March (to 50 percent) and right direction/wrong track at 40/54, down from 42/50 last month.
In addition, DCorps asks the following question, which gets directly at the issue of whether this will be a time-for-a-change election: “Now let me ask overall, do you think the country should continue in the direction Bush is headed or go in a significantly different direction?” The response: 45 percent Bush’s direction/53 percent different direction. And that’s also down–it was 46/50 last month.
More on this interesting new poll tomorrow.

Yesterday, perhaps one million people marched in Washington to defend abortion rights. The headline about the demonstration in The New York Times was “Abortion-Rights Marchers Vow to Fight Another Bush Term”.
Is that really likely to hurt Bush? Or has a backlash developed against abortion rights as abortion rights opponents successfully agitate for incremental restrictions on those rights?
The latter was the flavor of a Sunday article in The New York Times, “Abortion’s Opponents Claim the Middle Ground“. And it is true that abortion rights opponents have been concentrating on chipping away at these rights with various restrictions like parental notification and banning so-called partial birth abortions. But it’s also true that they’ve adopted that strategy because they have to. What those groups really want to do is ban abortions–in other words, get rid of Roe v. Wade. But they’ve realized they can’t do that. Hence the chipping away approach.
And the reason they’ve realized they can’t do that–get rid of abortion rights entirely–is very simple. The public doesn’t want it.
A recent report by Gallup provides some illustrative data. A plurality of the country (48-45) considers itself pro-choice, rather than pro-life. That includes a 54-39 majority among 18-29 year old women. In addition. 60 percent of the public either believes abortion laws should remain as they are (40 percent) or be made less strict (20 percent). And while just 17 percent want to make abortion illegal in all circumstances, 50 percent believe Bush holds that view.
In earlier Gallup results, Americans view Roe v. Wade as a good, rather than bad, thing for the country by a 23 point margin (53 percent to 30 percent). Gallup data also show that the public believes abortion should generally be legal during the first three months of pregnancy — the subject of the Roe v. Wade decision — by a wide margin (66 percent to 29 percent). Only 17 percent are for banning abortion, as mentioned above, while 26 percent believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances. The rest believe abortion should be legal under most circumstances (14 percent) or only in a few circumstances (40 percent).
An NBC poll gauged support for abortion rights in a different manner and found 59 percent saying that the choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor and 29 percent saying abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother’s life. Just 9 percent said it should be illegal in all circumstances.
ABC and Time/CNN polls asked directly about support for the Roe v. Wade decision and found 54 percent to 44 percent and 55 percent to 40 percent support, respectively. In addition, the NBC poll asked whether the Supreme Court should reverse Roe v. Wade and found strong opposition to this course (58 percent opposed to 35 percent in favor).
Polls generally find that support for abortion rights, however measured, has remained very steady since 1995. Looking before 1995, some polls suggest that today’s levels of pro-choice sentiment are somewhat less those in the 1990-95 time period. But other polls tell a different story. The ABC poll, for example, finds direct support for Roe v. Wade to be less now than in 1993, when it was measured at 65 percent to 33 percent. On the other hand, the NBC poll finds a slight increase in opposition to reversing Roe v. Wade over about the same period. They asked the same question in 1992 (though among registered voters) and found 56 percent opposed to reversal and 38 percent in favor.
The Gallup poll question above on circumstances when abortion should be legal (all, most, a few or none at all) also finds evidence of some diminution in support for abortion rights since a peak in the 1990-95 time period. But the NBC question on whether abortion should be left up to the women and her doctor shows very little change over the same period.
Regardless, however, of how much change there’s been since the early 1990s, all of these polls agree there has been very little change since the mid-1990s. They tell us we remain a country that is generally pleased with the legacy of Roe v. Wade and does not wish to reverse it. And it suggests Bush really had better watch his step where abortion rights are concerned.

That’s the contention of today’s front page story by Dana Milbank in The Washington Post. There’s only one slight problem with this: the American public, by any reasonable standard is turning against the war. Now you could reasonably say that support for the war effort has not completely collapsed, despite the recent string of bad news. Or that Bush’s rhetoric is helping slow the rate of decline. Or that his “oratory” helped contribute to the recent rally effect that may have elevated Bush in the polls by a few points. But you can’t say the public isn’t turning against the war, because they are.
Here are some recent data from the Post‘s own poll, which Milbank rather selectively cites in his piece. That poll has close to an even split (51-47) on whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting. The poll also shows a close split on a related question: whether the US did the right thing in going to war with Iraq or whether it was a mistake (52-46). Last April, this same question was 81-16.
Let’s dwell on that last datum a bit. In the last year, the public has gone from a 65 point margin in favor of the Iraq war being the right thing to do, not a mistake, to a mere 6 point margin. And, as I mentioned on Friday, one poll question is already returning a plurality in favor of the war being a mistake (and that was down from a lopsidedly positive reply–67 percent right decision/29 percent mistake–four months before).
If that’s not turning against the war, I don’t know what is. With the war in Vietnam, it took about two years to get to the point where we are already in terms of thinking the war was a mistake. So, not only is the public turning against the war, it’s turning against it fast, by recent standards.
And here are some more data from the Post‘s own poll, none of which make it into Milbank’s article.
People feel, by 51-34, that the middle east is less stable, rather than more stable, as a result of the war. They think, by 57-37, that the US will not be able to establish a stable democracy in Iraq. They also believe, by 35-29, that the war in Iraq has left the US in a weaker not stronger, position in the world (last April, the public thought the war will make us stronger, by 52-12). And about two-thirds (65 percent) now say that, given the goals vs. costs of the war, the number of casualties we are sustaining is unacceptable.
Oh, but this isn’t “turning against the war”, I suppose. Perhaps it merely qualifies as “raising a quizzical eyebrow”.
Of course, it’s not just the Post‘s own poll:
In the most recent CBS News poll, only 36 percent believe the war has made the US safer from terrorism; only 34 percent believe the Iraq war is a major part of the war against terrorism; and just 15 percent believe the Bush administration has clearly explained how long US troops will be in Iraq.
In the most recent Pew poll, the public is now close to evenly split on whether to keep troops in Iraq until a stable government is etablished (50 percent) or simply bring troops home as soon as possible (44 percent). That’s down from strong 63-32 support for keeping troops there in January.
And, as I mentioned in my post on Friday, the latest Ipsos poll finds that the public believes by about 2:1 that the military action in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism in the world, rather than decreased it (“increased” and “decreased” were tied only four months ago). That poll also found that, by 17 points, the public believes the Iraq war will increase, not decrease, the amount of terrorism at home in the US. (Note that the latest Annenberg election survey had that sentiment even stronger–2:1 in favor of the Iraq war increasing the amount of terrorism in the US).
Ah, but the public isn’t turning against the war. Right.
The article’s evidence, such as it is, for this absurd contention seems to revolve around the alleged fact that Bush’s oratory has convinced the American public of three points:
1. That the US will prevail in Iraq. But according to the Post‘s own poll, the public thinks the US has gotten “bogged down” in Iraq (59 percent), rather than that the US is making good progress (41 percent). And note the view cited above on how the US will not be able to establish a stable democracy in Iraq.
2. That the fighting in Iraq is related to war against Al Qaeda. Sure people think the war in Iraq is related to the war against Al Qaeda–but negatively so! As the data above clearly show, the public believes the war in Iraq is increasing the threat of terrorism and the danger that a group like Al Qaeda will hit the US homeland again. Note also that few Americans think the war in Iraq is major part of the war against terrorism and that most Americans think fighting Al Qaeda not the war in Iraq should the focus of our efforts to fight terrorism.
3. That most Iraqis and many foreign countries support US actions in Iraq. But the latest Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll (which Milbank cites at another point in the article for different purposes) finds the public saying, by 51-47, that the majority of the Iraqis want us to leave, not stay. That’s a big change from November when the same question returned a 39 percent leave/58 percent stay response.
Beyond these “facts”, the article cites PIPA findings that indicate many members of the public continue to harbor apparent misconceptions about the ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam and about the existence of WMD and WMD programs in Iraq prior to the war. True enough. But these misconceptions, while still at disturbing levels, are nevertheless substantially lower in most cases than they were prior to the war. And the continued harboring of misconceptions is not evidence the public is not turning against the war; it merely means they have misconceptions. When the public was turning against the Vietnam war in 1967-68, many of those who were starting to think the war was a mistake still harbored lots of mistaken, if not bizarre, ideas about the origins of the Vietnam conflict, who controlled Ho Chi Minh, etc. But their misconceptions, in the end, did not prevent them from opposing the Vietnam war and punishing those politicians whom they felt had led them astray. I suspect the same phenomenon will play itself out with the Iraq war.
As added evidence for this view, the PIPA poll already shows that the way Bush has dealt with the Iraq situation, on net, cuts against him electorally. According to the poll, 41 percent say Bush’s actions in Iraq will decrease the likelihood that they will vote for him, compared to 34 percent who say his Iraq actions will increase their likelihood of supporting him. That compares to 30/35 last September, when it appeared his Iraq policy was a net benefit to him.
But times have changed. Time for the Post to catch up.

I’ve been arguing lately that, while the horse race may have been dancing around a bit, the most politically salient change has been the huge doubts that have been raised about Bush’s approach to Iraq in particular and to the war on terror in general. Here are some findings from Ipsos-AP that suggest just how serious this damage has been.
First, consider the question of whether the Iraq war was a mistake. You know when more people than not starting thinking a war was a mistake (remember Vietnam!), the incumbent administration is in real trouble. And Ipsos now has the first example of this. They asked the question: “All in all, thinking about how things have gone in Iraq since the United States went to war there in March 2003, do you think the Bush administration made the right decision in going to war in Iraq or made a mistake in going to war in Iraq?” The response: 49 percent mistake/48 percent right decision. When Ipsos asked the same question four months ago, however, they got a lopsidedly positive reply: 67 percent right decision/29 percent mistake. Quite a change.
Note that this question specifically mentions “the Bush administration”; they also asked the same question with “United States” substituted for Bush administration. That question returns a more positive reply: 57 percent right decision/40 percent mistake. Interesting how the specific mention of the Bush administration apparently moves people toward the “mistake” judgement.
Now consider whether the war with Iraq has increased or decreased the threat of terrorism. That one’s been headed south for a while, but these are most negative findings I’ve seen yet. First, the poll finds that 47 percent say the military action in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism in the world, compared to just 25 percent who say it’s decreased that threat–almost 2:1 (25 percent say there’s been no effect). Four months ago, the increased terrorism and decreased terrorism camps were exactly equal in size (38/38).
But here’s the real mind-blower. Given a straight-up choice between whether “in the long term…..there will be more or less terrorism in the United States because the U.S. went to war in Iraq?”, the public believes, by 54 percent to 37 percent, that the war will produce more, not less, terrrorism in our country.
In other words, not only has the war in Iraq become a big mess which gets more US soldiers killed every day, but we’re actually less safe at home now because of it. No wonder more and more of the public thinks the war was a mistake. And I wouldn’t be suprised if that thought has crossed Karl Rove’s mind as well.

The recent Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post polls have gotten a lot of Democrats worried about how well Bush is apparently doing. I’ve argued in the last couple of days that these worries are considerably exaggerated and that developments in the last six weeks fundamentally weaken Bush, whether or not some polls show him ahead in the horse race.
Still, I know many are worried that Bush’s ads in the battleground states have worked and that, to be doing so well in general, he must be making serious progress in those contested states.
To which I say: wrong! The Annenberg election survey results I reviewed earlier showed that Kerry’s favorabilty rating remained unchanged in the battleground states and that persuadable voters were uninclined to drink the Republican Kool-Aid about Kerry flip-flopping, believing Bush, more than Kerry, exhibited that behavior.
And now check out these just-released findings from the same ABC News poll that contributed to Democrats’ anguish about Bush being ahead. According to data in The Hotline (I can’t find any link yet on a public website, but I’m sure one will eventually appear), Kerry is ahead of Bush by 4 points in the battleground states (50-46). He’s even ahead of Bush by 2 points in these states with Nader thrown into the mix and drawing a ridiculous 7 percent.
Note also that Bush’s approval rating in the battleground states is 49 percent, 2 points under his national rating and that his approval rating on the economy in these states is just 41 percent, 3 points under his national rating.
Interestingly, if you look closely at recent Gallup poll results, there are also signs of poor recent Bush performance in battleground states (or, as they call them “purple states”). Their latest poll had Bush ahead overall among likely voters by 5 points. But he is only tied with Kerry in the purple states. Moreover, that represents a 6 point decline for Bush in the purple states compared to Gallup’s March 26-28 survey.
One must be cautious about these data, of course, because of sample size and other problems (though note that the ABC News battleground states sample is probably 300 or so, which is a pretty decent size). But they do lead me to a hypothesis about Bush’s recent improved performance in trial heat questions. Instead of getting more votes where he needs them–in the battleground states–his posturing is mostly driving up his support in the hardcore red states, where he doesn’t need them. If that’s true, Democrats should definitely not be intimidated by recent poll results. Bush is preaching to the converted–which can make him look better in a national poll–but he’s not winning many new converts where it counts.

Several people have noted in the comments section for yesterday’s post that Bush has been benefiting from a continued focus on his strong suit, even if that suit is weakening. I agree. My fixation yesterday was on explaining the very recent bump up in his horse race performance, which I do think is consistent with a rally effect tied to the press conference. But the two points are not inconsistent: the focus on his strong suit set the stage for the rally effect.
And the key implicaton of the two points is the same: as the mix of issues in play becomes more evenly-balanced, the reduction in Bush’s huge advantage in the national security/foreign policy area fundametally weakens his political position, He can’t assume, as was formely the case, that his national security advantage will drown out everything else no matter what the mix of issues. He’s no longer strong enough in that area for that to be a reasonable assumption.
The DLC had a good article today on their website that goes over the recent polls and provides some similar, and very crisply expressed, analysis. I particularly like their summation of what Kerry needs to do moving forward:
Kerry’s challenge is to define himself, his values and philosophy, his agenda and policies, as quickly and as clearly as possible. He must not only take advantage of Bush’s vulnerabilities, but keep the GOP from making doubts about the Democratic Party and its candidate the focal point of the campaign, rather than the incumbent’s poor record, broken promises, and empty future agenda. Most crucially, Kerry must undermine the bedrock premise of the president’s case for re-election: that George W. Bush is the embodiment of the war on terror, and the indispensable man for keeping America safe. Kerry’s ability and willingness to do just that are his best potential weapons as the campaign unfolds.
Sounds like a plan.

Two polls released today–Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post–give small leads to Bush over Kerry in presidential trial heat questions. The Gallup poll (using RVs and the Kerry-Bush not Kerry-Bush-Nader trial heat) shows Bush with a 4 point lead (50-46), while the ABC News poll gives Bush a 1 point lead (49-48). (Note that this latter result is not from a standard Kerry-Bush trial heat question, which ABC News chose not to ask, but rather from combining a Kerry-Bush-Nader trial heat question with a followup to Nader supporters/undecideds on who they would support if Nader doesn’t run or isn’t on the ballot. Guess they just wanted to be different.)
So: two polls, two RV leads, one taken April 16-18 (Gallup), the other taken April 15-18 (ABC News).
Here are other RV Kerry-Bush results for April:
Newsweek, April 8-9………………..Kerry, 50-43
ARG, April 6-9………………………..Kerry, 50-44
Gallup, April 5-8……………………..Kerry, 48-45
Fox, April 6-7…………………………Kerry, 44-43
CBS News, March 30-April 1………Kerry, 48-43
Note that each of these polls has Kerry ahead. And note that there were no relevant polls conducted in the period from April 10 to April 15, the start date of the new ABC News poll. But that poll and the new Gallup poll do indicate that Bush has edged ahead, so a plausible theory is that Bush received some sort of a bump up in that period.
What might that have been? Given the timing, Bush’s advertisements do not seem like the logical candidate for such a bump. A more plausible possibility is his televised speech/press conference on April 13, where he presented no clear plans on how to deal with the problems in Iraq, but did urge Americans to stay the course, be tough and so on. I thought at the time it was possible he would get some sort of small, short-lived rally effect from these posturings and that may have come to pass. Such an effect was likely aided and abetted by the very low profile of the Kerry campaign which provided Bush with a relatively clear field to push the electorate in his direction.
I also thought that “the really significant political development in the recent period is the undercutting of support for Bush’s war in Iraq and for his handling of the war on terror”, not the ups and downs of the horse race, and I continue to think that.
Indeed, there are plenty of findings in these new polls that indicate Bush’s troubles in these areas are here to stay. The Gallup poll shows the public about split (52-46) about whether it was or was not worth going to war in Iraq. And the ABC News poll has a similar split (51-47) on whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting. That poll also shows a close split on a related question: whether the US did the right thing in going to war with Iraq or whether it was a mistake (52-46). Last April, this same question was 81-16.
People also feel, by 51-34, that the middle east is less stable, rather than more stable, as a result of the war. They think, by 57-37, that the US will not be able to establish a stable democracy in Iraq. They also believe, by 35-29, that the war in Iraq has left the US in a weaker not stronger, position in the world (last April, the public thought the war will make us stronger, by 52-12). And about two-thirds (65 percent) now say that, given the goals vs. costs of the war, the number of casualties we are sustaining is unacceptable.
The ABC News poll also indicates that Bush’s approval ratings in a wide range of areas have improved only marginally in some areas, while continuing to slip in others. His ratings continue to be net negative on the economy, Iraq, social security, health insurance, taxes, creating jobs, the budget deficit, prescription drugs and even same-sex marriage. Nor are people more convinced the country is moving in the right direction; these numbers continue to be dismal with wrong track (57 percent) far outnumbering right direction (42 percent).
The really positive changes for Bush are in a series of questions asking people who they trust more, Bush or Kerry, on a range of issues. In every area, Kerry’s advantages are smaller or disadvantages greater than than they were in ABC News’ March 7 poll. For example, Kerry was preferred on the economy by 12 in March, now he and Bush are tied. Or Kerry was ahead by 20 on health insurance in March, now he is ahead by just 6. And so on. These are big changes on these preferences, not just from early March but from the end of March Battleground poll I discussed yesterday and even from the (notoriously pro-Bush) Fox poll 10 days ago.
That suggests, again, not the effect of Bush campaign advertisements, but rather a rally effect compression of Kerry’s advantages over Bush (rally effects usually benefit presidents across unrelated areas). Therefore, Bush’s improved showing in these areas is unlikely to stick around, given an adequate push-back by Kerry’s campaign.
This is probably as good a time as any for the Kerry campaign to start that push-back, including especially defining Kerry positively for voters. Bush, as the data clearly show, has been massively undermined in his core area of strength, and, despite his much-vaunted advertisements and (probably more important) having the field to himself for six weeks, has Kerry breathing down his neck.
If the Kerry campaign can kick their game up a notch, they should really start to make the Bushies sweat.

Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest Health Poll Report Survey shows seniors 2:1 (47-24) unfavorable on the Medicare prescription drugs bill. The public as a whole is also unfavorable, by 39-28.
In addition, the poll shows that seniors overwhelmingly want two important changes to the Medicare bill: (1) change the law to allow Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada (65-24); and (2) change the law to allow the federal government to use its buying power to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices (62-19).
These are some strong numbers. And they back up the thrust of a Sunday story in The New York Times on how the reaction to the new law seems more likely to hurt than help Republicans and Bush in two key states: Arizona and New Mexico. It would be a delicious irony if the GOP’s seemingly savvy strategy of passing an expensive new entitlement for seniors wound up costing them New Mexico and Arizona because of negative reaction from these very same voters.
The best-laid plans……

Harvard University’s Institute of Politics (IOP) has released another in their series of polls of (four year) college undergraduates. Prior to this poll, college students–at least those at four year colleges–appeared to deviate from the preferences of young (18-29 year old) voters in general. For example, in the IOP October, 2003 survey, college students gave Bush an approval rating of 61 percent and said they preferred him over a Democratic opponent by 5 points. But polls of all young voters at the time generally gave a generic Democratic opponent a healthy lead over Bush.
In contrast, today college students give Bush only a 47 percent approval rating and say they prefer Kerry over Bush by 10 points. That’s basically the same as Kerry’s lead among all young voters at the present time.
Moreover, among those who say they are registered to vote and say they will “definitely be voting”, Kerry has a commanding 23 point lead.
In more good news for Democrats, college students give Democrats an 8 point lead over Republicans in party ID, reversing a Republican advantage in October, 2003. It’s also the largest lead Democrats have had on party ID since IOP started taking their surveys in fall of 2000.
There is more interesting data in the poll on college students’ views of specific issues. You can read the entire poll here.

Kerry may or may not be ahead in the race at the current time. Head-to-head RV polls, which I’ve argued are the most important polls to look at, tended to show Kerry ahead through the end of last week (April 9) when the last batch were conducted.
We’ll probably have some new ones released this weekend and it will be interesting to see what they show. It’s within the realm of possibility that Bush’s press conference/speech this week will produce some kind of small rally effect. Or it may not.
Either way, the really significant political development in the recent period is the undercutting of support for Bush’s war in Iraq and for his handling of the war on terror. Here are some findings from recent polls that show just how seriously his standing in this area–once his ticket to sure re-election–has eroded.
The latest Annenberg Election Survey includes this question: “Has the war in Iraq reduced the risk of terrorism against the United States or increased the risk of terrorism against the United States?” Very straightforward. By about 2:1 (57-29), the public says the Iraq war has increased the risk of terrorism against the US. Wow.
The poll also asks another very straightforward question: “All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?”. Note that there’s no specific mention in this question of the war’s costs–casualties, money, etc.–which has tended to produce negative responses for quite a while (e.g., the CBS News question). But, even with no mention of costs, this question still returns a negative response: 51-43 saying the Iraq situation wasn’t worth going to war about. That could represent some kind of a turning point in public evaluations of the Iraq war.
Another noteworthy recent finding comes from a recent Ipsos-AP poll. In that poll, Bush’s approval rating on “handling the war on terrorism” clocks in at just 51 percent.
These new lows suggest just how difficult it may be for Bush to run–and win–as a “war president”, as he likes to describe himself. And for further indications on this score, check out this excellent Los Angeles Times article on how reactions to the Iraq quagmire (if I may use that term) may sink his chances to carry Minnesota, very high on the Bush campaign’s list of blue states they hope to pick off in November.