I figured I'd start a polling thread for 2013 before the storm starts. The first post is practically a direct copy from a brief I had to file for work.

Top lines first: approval ratings, favorability, the state of the country
Obama's job approval rating at 55%-40% according to Bloomberg, and 51%-41% from Pew
The Republican party favorability is 20 points underwater at 35%-55%, meanwhile Democratic party favorability is at 47%-43%
This week's Rasmussen Generic Congressional Vote model is Democrat +6, at 43-37
Congressional Job Approval is 67 points underwater according to WSJ/NBC News, at 14%-81%
The "Direction of Country" margin has narrowed to -16, 37% believe we're on the right track vs. 54% thinking wrong track
42% approve of how Obama is negotiating with Congressional Republicans vs. 44% disapproving
Americans blame Republicans more for dysfunction in Washington, 43%-34%


Polling before the upcoming Sequester PR war -- Starting with Pew Research/USA Today
Best way to reduce the deficit? 76% support combination of revenue increases and spending cuts, 19% support cuts only, 3% support revenues increases only
Who has the best approach to cut deficit? 45% favor Obama's approach, 38% Congressional Republicans approach
Who will you blame for sequester? Republicans 49%, Obama 31%, Equally at fault 11% (compared to support for how the fiscal cliff was handled, Obama's handling at 53%-40% vs. Boehner at 30%-56%)
How much have you heard about Sequester? 27% have heard a lot, 43% have heard a little, 29% have heard nothing (compared to 50%-32%-16% numbers from 2011 Debt Ceiling fight)


Issue-based polling
Obama's immigration policy receives support at 47%-38%. 53% of Americans support pathway to citizenship, but 18% support it after improvements are made to border security first
49%-44% favor investing in education, energy to grow the economy, rather than slashing spending and cutting taxes


Election polling
2013 Virginia gubernatorial race: Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) leads Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R-VA) by small margins in the best polls from the state. Popular Republican Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling, who was burned by Cuccinelli when he (Bolling) was to be the party's nominee this year in exchange for stepping aside for current governor Bob McDonnell in 2009, is expected to announce a spoiler third-party candidacy in the second week of March. Bolling polls in a competitive third place, generally taking more support from Cuccinelli, and would practically ensure a McAuliffe win in November.

2013 New Jersey gubernatorial race: Chris Christie tops 60% in state polling with his lead opponent, State Senator Barbara Buono, sitting in the mid-20s. The race is certain to be close this November but Christie's high favorability following Hurricane Sandy has given him a massive boost at the moment.

2013 special election for Tim Scott's (R-SC) seat: Scandal-ridden former governor Mark Sanford trails former State Senator John Kuhn, 35%-19%.

2013 special election for John Kerry's (D-MA) seat: Two House Representatives, liberal Ed Markey and moderate Steven Lynch, are at 38%-31% in the Democratic primary that will decide who wins Kerry's seat. National Republicans pointed to Massachusetts as the setting for their first 2014 Senate pickup opportunity, but the seat will remain Democratic as defeated Senator Scott Brown, State Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei, Romney's lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, 2010 gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, former Governor William Weld, and even Tagg Romney have passed on running.


New approval ratings for 2014 Senate Incumbents
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) at 59%-22%
Mark Begich (D-AK) 49%-39%
Mark Pryor (D-AL) 51%-20%
Kay Hagan (D-NC) 39%-38%
Max Baucus (D-MT) 45%-48%, could potentially face a primary challenge from popular outgoing governor Brian Schweitzer at 54%-36%

Other, random polling news
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) saw a massive movement in his approval rating over the last month as he's been slandered by various allegations. His approval ratings were 52%-32% in January and is now underwater at 36%-41% now. 48% said the scandal story made them trust Menendez less, who doesn't face a reelection campaign until 2016.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains the least popular Senator in the country, at 38%-55%. His campaign and the new Rove organization have already began running ads against Ashley Judd, who is trying to decide whether or not to challenge McConnell in 2014.

Americans once supported the nomination of Chuck Hagel 2:1, but his favorability numbers have worsened for Democrats, Independents, and Republicans on account of the months-long confirmation battle.

The newest gun violence-related polling reaffirmed that over 85% of Americans support background checks (with most polls putting that in the low 90's), between 65%-68% of Americans support a national database (that number was never above 50% before the Sandy Hook shooting), and upwards of 70% of respondents support banning high-capacity magazines. The approval rating of the NRA is now upside down, and since their first widely-panned press conference the organization has seen a 10-point swing in the wrong direction.

Seems to me that policy by polling is stupid. Either a policy is good or it isn't. Concern over "blame" ? Gee, I wonder how THAT question was asked.

It's hardly that simple when you have a country with widely varying values

im 12 and what is this

If that is a concern, then leave the policymaking to local government. If a policy is good for all of us, make it at the federal level.

Sending representatives to Washington to vote for things that we want is the whole point. People don't want our government to do things that'll negatively effect them personally, or that will hurt society as a whole in their eyes. We elect the government to protect our interests and they take their directions from us. We have public policy polling to show where the electorate stands on issues so that representatives know what to do and what not to do, whether the polling is at the national, state, or local level. If 92% of Americans want universal background checks for gun purchases, that's the wake up call to some in Congress to fucking do it because people want it and that's what they sent their representative to accomplish. Our system was designed to work this way, the alternatives are either people voting against their own interest for whatever reason or people voting for representatives to accomplish goals other than public want or need. I guess the current example of that would be: "Don't worry about cleaning this shithole district up by getting businesses to come here to drive down the 15% unemployment, just go to Washington to obstruct absolutely everything so this socialist president can't destroy our country."

Defining policy as either "good" or "bad" relies both on evidenced-based assertions and if people actually like it or not. Some people are okay with the idea that we'll elect leaders that'll make our decisions for us regardless of how we feel about a matter, but that's a minority opinion in our country. We need qualitative research to evaluate the effectiveness and net-benefit (or cost) of something like a minimum wage increase for example, but we also have to consider if the citizenry actually wants that change. CA-48 probably doesn't want or need such an increase, but WV-1 would kill for it.

As far as that specific poll question, I believe Pew phrased it as "If no deal is made between x and y to deal with sequestration... who would be more to blame?"

There's the fundamental disconnect. You think that is why we send people to Washington. I think we send people to Washington to act in our best interests as it pertains to protecting us from others outside our borders, and we send people to our state capitals to protect us from people inside the borders. You think we send people to take from one to give to another. If 92% of Americans want "better background checks," then they better fucking understand that it means instituting some things that 92% of Americans AREN'T going to support. As far as I'm concerned, polling is next to useless when the questions are misleading, as they so often are regarding public policy. Our system was design to be dysfunctional at the margins. You don't get something done without broad support. It has always been this way. Also, don't even fucking bring up "people voting against their own interests," you aren't the fucking judge. People like you make me sick thinking you know better.



As for the poll question, "who would be more to blame" automatically implies that the sequester is a "bad thing," which if it happens, is deserving of "blame." I think the sequester is a very good first step in reorganizing our fiscal house, and I hope there are more cuts to come. IMHO, the Democrats have more to lose by the sequester, and are desperate to stop it, while Republicans are finally starting to say "we'll take defense cuts because cuts need to happen everywhere." Domestic spending gets Democrats elected, and they're in a panic over this.

Once again, it's not that simple, as I just pointed out. We have different values and "good for all of us" is still going to be feuded about, and still be fought on the federal level because some are going to think its good for all, and some aren't.



I was going to make a comment about how people like you make me sick riding on your high bus-driving Fuax News chugging high horse, but then I remembered you're a Faux News chugging partisan hack and why I gave up any hope of a reasonable conversation with you quite a while ago. (Also because Wakeskater has been doing my job slamming you much better than I've been able to).

So enjoy your high-horse thinking YOU know what's best and raging on at the system. It's still pretty entertaining.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 21 2013 09:22pm

Values like "we know what is good for you, and you're stuck with it." Yeah, yeah, we've all heard it. Providing for a military is "good for all of us." Providing a system of justice is good for all of us. Providing crop subsidies, business subsidies, or any other X, Y or Z subsidy is clearly detrimental to some to be beneficial to another.



Not only do I NOT watch Fox, I don't watch ANYTHING. I don't pay for TV service at all. I get my news from Matt Drudge and a bevy of other internet news sources. I am most certainly a partisan though. You are too. Virtually everyone here is, to some extent or another. So what? ...and wipe off your chin.

Updates
A new Quinnipiac poll finds Chris Christie's approval ratings are now 74% Approve/22% Disapprove, which is an all-time high for the state of New Jersey.

Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford's favorabiliy is now 30%-53% (ironically matching the 23-points-underwater favorability rating for the GOP nationwide) while he airs campaign ads trying to put his scandals behind him in hopes of winning Tim Scott's old House seat. Mitt Romney carried the district 58%-40% and John McCain carried it 56%-42%, but Sanford is currently polling second in a crowded GOP primary. Governor Nikki Haley is also in trouble, her approval rating stands at 38% according to a Winthrop University poll and at 42% from PPP. Vincent Shaheen, who Haley beat by only four points in the GOP year of 2010, currently leads Haley 46-44 in the theoretical 2014 rematch.

A Franklin & Marshall poll provides mixed news for first-term Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett. Only 26% of state voters rate his performance as "excellent" or "good", which are the lowest job performance numbers for a sitting governor in Pennsylvania history. Only 18% of voters support his plan to privatize the state lotter, but 53% of voters support the plan to privatize. the state-owned liquor stores. Voters also strongly support increasing funding for roads and bridgets (but oppose Corbett's plan), and support more regulations on guns. Quinnipiac has terrible news for another Governor, the deeply-unpopular Rick Scott of Florida. 45% of voters disapprove of the job he's doing (36% approve), and 52% of voters say he doesn't deserve a second term (30% do). 53% of Republicans want a primary challenge in 2014.

A Bloomberg poll had a shocking finding -- 62% of respondents believe the budget deficit is getting larger, 28% says it's staying roughly the same size, and only 6% correctly believe the budget deficit is shrinking. I guess some of this is a byproduct of Mitt Romney repeating multiple times a day during his presidential campaign the demonstrably-false notion that President Obama has doubled the budget deficit.

A poll surveying the support for a Minimum Wage increase broken down by party affiliation shows that 87% of Democrats, 68% of Independents, and 50% of Republicans support the move. Fully 76% of voters support President Obama's proposal to increase the minimum wage to $9.00/hour.



We do fundamentally think differently on why we have a federal government. Far, far more people agree with the view that I expressed where individuals vote for representatives to look after all of our interests. Not many people subscribe to te premise that government is there to make good on it's #1 function and nothing else. People in modern society have a whole host of goals they want government to assist with since it plays such a vital role in society. The majority of Americans that do believe in this representative-style of democracy don't have a problem with give-and-take since that's how government and society works. Our system functioning on an optimal level has people informing themselves on the issues and selecting representatives that'll reflect their wills and that will find the best way to do what they want so that it creates the most benefit for all involved. It's not "taking from someone to give to another." Universal background checks as an example of public want is pretty cut and dry. People know what instituting that check means for those buying guns and they still want it, so it should be done. If a policy is implemented and people don't like it, they vote for those that'll repeal or fix it. THAT is how it's always worked.

Other than that, sequester is a bad thing. The business community, investors, state and local government all agree it's bad because they all want short-term growth and long-term deficit reduction and this is the opposite of that. The only people that don't understand the problem seems to be those ignorant to even simple policy, so complex policy understandably is lost on them. Sequester is harmful, is counter-productive to what we need, and it doesn't even begin to change the budget outlook (either by effect, or by momentum of cause). Opponents to sequester don't protest the amount of cuts, but that cuts are indiscriminate, which means they will dramatically negatively effect vital programs and institutions we rely on that should not face an 8% budget cut for any reason other than a careful evaluation of excess. It will only take a number of weeks before the people that have tuned out to sequester realize this is a terrible way to address budget challenges, and they'll lean on Washington to do whatever it can after the fact to mitigate the damages. People never wanted this in the first place. We had an entire election cycle about this, and the people at all levels of government that advocated sequester-style fiscal policy got creamed. This goes directly against what the majority wants, and it exists solely as a manufactured crisis from Congress when a small number of fringe imbeciles decided they didn't want to raise the debt ceiling because they wanted to hurt the economy for short-term electoral benefit. Also, your summary of the reception to sequester is extremely inaccurate. People currently in power have the most to lose from sequester, it'll hurt the House GOP just like it's hurt the Senate Dems (probably more, actually). Republicans sure as fuck don't want sequester, some of their uninformed constituencies might but the reps themselves are protesting to anyone that'll listen that they can't afford for the cuts to be steered into their districts. The "hurr fucking durr, all we have to do is cut spending!!!111" crowd will see some of their districts decimated by the full effects of sequester, sadly. They act happy in public, they're desperate in private. They'll hate sequester more in the end because they're losing the PR war and are *still* keeping Democratic momentum alive.

This post was edited by JayKwik on Feb 23 2013 08:49am