Matt Dabrowski's blog

What created the environment of the health care slide? I'd like to go through, step by step, the media environment that drives poll numbers.

Of course everyone knows that all politics is perception. Somebody said, "It's not what a politician says; it's what the people hear."  What's so exciting about the Pew News Coverage Index I cited in my last note is we don't have to guess what people are hearing. Pew tells us. The News Coverage Index keeps a record of the national newshole every week across all media: newspapers, online, broadcast TV, cable TV and radio.

According to Pew: The president started talking about health care in mid-April. That week, April 13, the economic crisis was the top story, followed by the Somali pirates and the tea parties. This was the week that the senior management of Bank of America was ousted. Health care was not on the radar.

Here are the top stories, week by week, as time progresses: Gitmo, the swine flu, Gitmo, Gitmo (May was Cheney's month), the Sotomayor nomination, Obama's Cairo trip.

The following week, June 8, is dominated by the economic crisis. This was the week the media reported that the stimulus had failed, and there were rumors of a second stimulus. This is also the first week health care became a top story: story #4. However, the President and the Democratic Congress were optimistic that a bill would pass. Call it an Era of Good Feelings.

But the next week, the bottom drops out. The Iranian election dominates the news, yet on the 15th, the CBO reports that Obama's chief selling point for his plan -- cost cutting -- is false. The run-up to this point is the last week of positive coverage the plan receives. Health care stays on the radar for the following nine weeks up to today, all with negative coverage.

Let's continue, week by week: Iran, Iran, Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, Sotomayor confirmation. The next week, July 20, health care becomes the dominant issue. The coverage is negative. This is the same week Obama walks into the Skip Gates affair. The following week is bad for health care.

The week after that is the beginning of the town hall meetings. It was also the first week that budget deficit numbers come out. Fiscal policy, rather than the banks, becomes the #2 issue. This continues for another week.

That brings us to last week, August 17, where health care is again #1 and fiscal policy is #2.

Let's go through it again: Economic crisis, Gitmo, swine flu, Gitmo, Gitmo, Sotomayor nomination, Cairo trip, failure of the stimulus, Iran, Iran, Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, Sotomayor confirmation, health care (negative), health care (negative), health care/town halls (negative), health care (negative), health care (negative).

We've gone through 19 weeks of news coverage.  There has been no good news for health care or fiscal policy. Obama got all of ONE decent week for health care out of all of them, and health care was story #4 that week, behind Somali pirates. Health care has been #1 on the radar for the past nine weeks, and none of them have been good for the Administration. The tipping point was the CBO report, which knocked the legs out from under the plan. "Health care reform" never recovered.

When you spell it out this way, you can see that poll numbers aren't magic. They respond to concrete and real news that's happening, and the American people are no fools. When they smell smoke, they know there's fire.

The other mega point here is that Republicans can't be blamed for the Democrats' troubles. Nor can the town hall folks or the seniors be blamed, as many as trying to do. The facts show the President spent nearly none of the past 19 weeks getting positive news coverage for his health care plan. Consequently the media accurately reports what's wrong about the Administration plan. Can we blame the town hall folks or the seniors for believing what they read in the paper?

Here's a number to watch as we go forward: President Obama's approval rating among seniors.

This week's Gallup poll had Obama's overall approval at 52%, his lowest ever. But while the Presidents lags behind his election-day totals in every age group, the decline is most notable among seniors.

Let's look at the numbers. On April 26, Gallup had Obama's approval at 60% among the over-65 crowd. Today, on August 26, it's at 43%, a 17-point drop in seventeen weeks. Obama has dropped six points with seniors in the past month alone.

This is a bit of a no-brainer, since every Republican operative knows that seniors are a key part of the Republican coalition. Nonetheless, seniors were the only age cohort where Republicans made in-roads in 2008. John McCain won this group with 53% of the vote, the only group where he beat George Bush's 2004 performance. Just Monday, the RNC released a Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights.

But just how far seniors swing our way can tell us how much Republican prospects will improve in 2010. A 17-point swing among seniors could flip no fewer than six Democratic congressional seats.

• Florida 22nd - Klein
• North Carolina 11th - Shuler
• Arizona 8th - Giffords
• Pennsylvania 4th - Altmire
• New Jersey 3rd - Adler
• Pennsylvania 10th - Carney
• Pennsylvania 11th - Kanjorski

These districts have some of the oldest populations in the country, and each has been a swing district over the past few years.

August has been awful for the President, and it's real news that drives poll numbers. Charlie Cook has written that "this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats." POS's Alex Bratty has pointed out that Republicans have also made significant gains among other base constituencies such as white men and white women.

The best poll nobody's heard of, the Pew News Coverage Index, claims that Obama hasn't a positive week of coverage since Michael Jackson died on June 25. Much of the news revolves around health care, death panels, cuts to Social Security and Medicare, tax increases, the national deficit and "political scorecards."

This is the environment that produces a 1-point drop each week.

UPDATE: Politico, like always, doesn't pull any punches in their analysis: China pick sidelines GOP moderate.

“Brilliant,” said GOP strategist Mark McKinnon of the appointment. “Keep your friends close and your enemies in China.”

Ambinder calls it a "masterstroke". And here's Andrew Sullivan:

Don't under-estimate Obama's policial cunning, guys. But for those of us with some small hope of restoring decency and moderation to the right, this is a major blow. What Obama is doing is bringing all the sane conservatives  - from Crist to Huntsman to Gates - into his orbit. And Cheney gets to be the the face of the GOP future.

The Los Angeles times has the story this morning:

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama today reached into the Republican ranks for a key foreign policy position in his administration, tapping Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman to be ambassador to China.

Huntsman's hometown Salt Lake Tribune has a great package of stories if you're interested, including remarks by the president, the transcript from the announcement, and a preview of Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert. No surprise, Herbert is portrayed as more a doctrinaire Utah conservative than his boss. From a few blocks down South Temple, the Deseret News notes that Huntsman's departure should be good for Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson, among others.

I've posted about Huntsman on this blog since March, when he first went public with some daring policy positions which, I felt, had the potential to shake up the 2012 presidential primary. Someone who's willing to make forward-thinking challenges to the status quo will be a big deal, in my opinion.

Does sending Huntsman to Beijing end any 2012 hopes?

Huntsman is a fluent Mandarin speaker, thanks to his LDS mission in Taiwan in the early 80's. He served as ambassador to Singapore at one point, and has been shortlisted for a number of diplomatic posts in Asia for years. The Deseret News also notes the regular trade missions Huntsman makes to Asia on behalf of Utah.

Another Huntsman note: Less than two weeks ago, Huntsman formalized a relationship with John Weaver, as reported by Mark Ambinder.

Among the informal strategic advisers to potential 2012 presidential aspirant Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R-UT): John Weaver, formerly the chief strategist to Sen. John McCain. This is a sign that Huntsman is thinking seriously about his future. It's also a testament to loyalty: Huntsman was one of the first governors to endorse McCain and refused to withdraw his endorsement during the dark period of the Republican nominee's campaign.

What do we think? Is Huntsman alive or dead (anymore than he was before)?

Ed Gillespie and Whit Ayres have announced the formation of a group called Resurgent Republic. This group is a veritable dream team of pollsters, strategists and policy researchers.

And what will it do? From their Web site:

Resurgent Republic will conduct survey research and focus groups to gauge public opinion about policy proposals under consideration by the White House and Congress, and make survey and focus group results publicly available. In addition to disseminating public opinion data and analyses, Resurgent Republic will sponsor panel discussions on issues featuring members of its various Advisory Boards.

I've long been an advocate for a Republican organization along the lines of Stanley Greenberg and James Carville's superb Democracy Corps. In an environment like today's, the value of high-level guidance from the best strategists in our party, available to all of us, can't be overstated. This is a big deal and you're going to love what they come up what. It's going to help us win arguments and help us win elections.

Here's a few names:

• Pollsters: Glen Bolger, Linda DiVall, Ed Goeas, John McLaughlin, Jan Van Lohuizen
• Advisors: Haley Barbour, George Allen, Bill Paxon, Vin Weber, Mary Matalin
• Academics: Gary Andres, David Brady, James Ceasar, William Connelly, James Gimpel, John Petrocik, John Pitney, Daron Shaw

That's the gold standard, folks.

Here's the CNN story. Hat tip to Gary Andres for the link.

A former Republican National Committee chairman and a prominent GOP pollster are leading a new organization that will promote conservative principles and try to counter the Democratic controlled White House and Congress on economic and national security matters.

The organization emphasized that it would help "promote market-oriented policies, lower taxes and economic growth, and strong national security policies." On Wednesday, Resurgent Republic said it will release a report on President Obama's budget.

Gary posts here regularly, and I look forward to his updates.

UPDATE: Mike Allen has a story at Politico.

Resurgent Republic plans to offer itself as a resource for policymakers and congressional leaders and will conduct focus groups and polling, and plans to hold at least one forum this year. Think of it as a Republican version of Democracy Corps.

Glen Bolger at Public Opinion Strategies has a must-read blog post.

Glen has polling numbers to back up this message: "Since Democrats have complete control of Congress and the Presidency, it would be good to have more checks and balances in Washington by electing more Republicans to Congress."

To give this number context, most surveys give Obama 60%+ approval, Dems an advantage on party ID, etc., etc. In other words, the numbers are so good for the Democrats that a 54% message for Republicans is something to really take a look at.

Some numbers underneath, including the key Indie number:

• GOP 89% agree
• Ind 55% agree
• Women 51% agree
• Young 52% agree
• Northeast 52%
• Suburban 57%
• Moderates 45% (plurality)
• Conservative Dems 30% (also give Obama 90% rating)

UPDATE: Josh Kraushaar of Politico reports on the survey here.

The GOP polling firm Public Opinion Strategies is offering a solution to Republican candidates as they seek to find a compelling message for the 2010 campaigns: Run to prevent Democrats from having unchecked power in Washington.

The firm released new poll data suggesting that voters would be receptive to such messaging. By a 22-point margin, voters said they preferred a candidate who would be a “check and balance” to President Obama over a candidate “who will help Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress” pass their agenda.

Our own Patrick Ruffini has taken perhaps the strongest and most earnest stand against political spam on the Right. Just today, he's twittered on the topic.

I agree with him, so I'd like to call out yet another shady right-of-center spammer.

I've never heard of AmericaSpeakOn.org. I don't know what they do, or with whom they're associated. For all I know, they're conservative. For all I know, they're a good group. Maybe my friends work there.

But I doubt any of that is true, because they're spammers. Like all great spammers, their Web site never truly defines who the group is, who backs them, or what they support, outside some generic statements about getting people to speak out. They also sell hats with their logo for $20.

I've received nearly a dozen e-mails form AmericaSpeakOn.org, starting with a launch message on February 4. That averages to almost one spam message per week. I never signed up for their mailing list, nor do I know how I got on their press list.

Of course, their messages leave no instructions about how to opt-out of the list.

Of all the messages I've received, only one had obvious instructions on how to leave the mailing list. I've tried to unsubscribe at least twice, once on February 8 and once on March 6. No acknowledge or response.

Yet still the messages come. Today I received a message at 3:07 p.m. -- a spam message about some blogger conference call. I may be a Next Right contributor, but since I'm not a frequent blogger and don't have my own blog, I typically don't seek out blogger conference calls. So this message certainly shouldn't have come to me.

So there you go. AmericaSpeakOn.org is on my blocked senders list. They're a great example of what's wrong with the Right's online activity. AmericanSpeakOn.org is a spammer.

Okay, folks. It's Friday. Who do you want to run for Congress?

A few picks I like:

New York 24th: Richard Hanna. Self-described political amateur Hanna nearly beat Democrat Mike Arcuri, losing by only 10,000 votes. He deserves another shot.

New York 29th: Senator Cathy Young. Senator Young would be a top recruit, bringing a ton of political sense, fundraising skill and organization to the race. She would be an excellent contrast to Democrat Eric Massa.

North Dakota At-Large: Drew Wrigley. Wrigley's coming off a successful and popular term as U.S. Attorney. He's well-connected and knows how to run -- he managed Governor John Hoeven's first statewide campaign.

As the party struggles to find its way, is Jon Huntsman, the Utah governor, something new?

From Jonathan Martin's profile in March 1's Politico:

Huntsman thinks the party's challenge is more profound, owing less to its excessive spending practices during the Bush era than to sweeping demographic and political changes that threaten to consign Republicans to a long-term minority status and confine their appeal to narrow sections of the country. 

The party needs to be more intellectually rigorous, and to compete for the votes of the young, the elites and minorities, he said in an interview with POLITICO. To do so, the GOP needs to tack toward the middle on environment, gay rights and immigration. And, yes, Ronald Reagan is to be admired – but as much for his oft-overlooked pragmatism as for his conservative principles.

And then Huntsman went out and did this on February 9:

Here is a sentence you probably never expected to read: Utah's governor supports civil unions.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a spokeswoman said Monday, backs Equality Utah's Common Ground Initiative, a legislative effort that would provide some rights to gay and transgender Utahns. Even more, the Republican governor favors civil unions.

It's a position that runs counter to his political party and against the majority of Utahns -- 70 percent of whom oppose civil unions, according to a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll.

"He's long supported many of the ideas that are presented within the Common Ground Initiative," said Lisa Roskelley, the governor's spokeswoman, noting her boss waits to endorse specific bills officially until presented to him in final form. "He supports civil unions."

Other soures worth a read:

• Politico, February 24: The Politico Interview: John Huntsman
   
• U.S. News & World Report, May 22, 2008: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Jon Huntsman Jr.
   
• Washington Times, February 24: GOP governor: Congressional leadership 'inconsequential' (VIDEO)

The future of our party will be based on what happens in the laboratories and incubators of democracy. Make no mistake about it. If we build real solutions, based on real ideas, that are deliverable to the people, who then register their satisfaction -- good for the state, good for the country, good for the party. That's not gratuitous rhetoric; that's delivering something tangible to the voters.

Huntsman went to Utah and the Wharton School. He served his LDS mission in Taiwan and speaks Mandarin. He ran his family's business interests, and was the elder George Bush's ambassador to Singapore.

Huntsman won two statewide elections with 57% and 77% of the vote in our most conservative state. There aren't many better conservative bonafides than being the LDS governor of Utah. If you do that, you're probably pretty conservative.

And according to Wikipedia:

Huntsman is also a self-proclaimed fan of the progressive rock genre and on July 30, 2007, attended a concert by progressive metal band Dream Theater...Huntsman also joined REO Speedwagon on the piano for two songs during their concert at the Utah State Fair on September 16, 2005.

What do we think?

Did everyone catch the eye-popping poll out of Texas this morning? It's a must-see. Go check it out right now.

The lede from PPP, the popular IVR outfit, says it all:

Perry trails Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 56-31 among likely GOP primary voters.

Half of primary voters have favorable opinions of both KBH and Perry, and of those, KBH wins 49% to 33%. That's a big deal. If a voter likes both candidates but he's voting for the other guy, you've gotta re-examine your strategy.

As a campaign pollster, I'd look at these numbers and start digging deep for options for the Governor. These might be the toughest poll numbers for an incumbent -- an unindicted incumbent -- I've seen in ten years.

Perry's sole hope is that this poll uses IVR, a methodology campaign pollsters don't use. But just hoping the poll is bad isn't a happy place to be.

This will be the hottest GOP primary in the country, and KBH is the favorite.

The sample was sizeable: 797 likely primary voters, conducted last week. Full results of the poll are at: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Texas_224.pdf

I have a simple question, one to which I don't know the answer:

Will shovel-ready infrastructure projects do anything to fix today's unemployment?

The argument has been made times that unemployment can be reduced through public works projects, and it's become a centerpiece of the Obama stimulus package. Paul Krugman repeats the argument in this week's Rolling Stone. We remember back to the New Deal, when Roosevelt launched massive projects under the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, to name the most famous.

But the demographics of work are far different today than they were in 1933. 

Even before the Depression hit, most Americans were working class or poor, and few had college educations. The WPA specifically sought to help this population, targeting men without educational credentials from the rural South and West. (There was also a literary and arts component, which hired luminaries like Arthur Miller, but this was a smaller part of the program.)

Today the market looks far different. This economic crisis affects white-collar, professional and technical firms. Unlike in 1933, most Americans are now middle class, many with college degrees.

The people being laid off at the Boston Globe, Microsoft, or AMD may not want to work a shovel or a backhoe, at any wage.

If Obama's stimulus plan doesn't give jobs to the white-collar, educated people who need them, can the stimulus possibly work?

Let's leave aside for the moment whether or not the nation needs these projects (which I believe we do), or whether we support them (which I do as well). Will these infrastructure projects even work?

Does anyone have an answer to this question?