polling

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?

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.

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

 This is one that we need to pay attention to. Republican Chris Christie is up 6, 42-36, over incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine.

Save Jersey pulls the real highlights:

On the day Chris Christie officially kicks off his campaign for Governor, his campaign is boosted by news of a poll that shows him as the strongest challenger to Governor Jon Corzine. While neither candidate breaks 50% in the ballot test, Corzine is carrying a 50% disapproval rating. Even further, 54% of New Jerseyans say that Corzine does NOT deserve a second term. Christie leads Corzine among independent voters 49%-24% (a margin that would ensure victories in Bergen and Middlesex). 

 Jim Geraghty has more at the Campaign Spot.

Here's to hoping that a few election cycles from now, pundits are on TV predicting the turnout of "Obama Republicans" the same way in which they discussed "Reagan Democrats" this year.
As many of you know, the phrase "Reagan Democrat" refers to those voters who consider themselves Democrats, and usually vote that way, but in 1980 and/or '84, they voted for Ronald Reagan.

Right now, there's no way to know for sure if first-time voters, disaffected Republicans and others will vote for the Grand Old Party in the future, but I wonder if we can work backwards.  I wonder if we can get them to vote Republican in the future and MAKE them "Obama Republicans."  And being a former Luntzian, I can't help but wonder if we can just communicate to these swing groups better.

Here's my take on two groups of potential "Obama Republicans"...

As I write, we don't know the victor of most elections across the country, but there is one thing we know for sure about Election 2008: traditional ________ is dead.

Here are 10 items that could be filled in the blank:

1. Polling
2. Fundraising
3. Media
4. Announcing for Office
5. Advertising
6. Debates
7. Voter ID
8. Get-Out-the-Vote
9. Campaign Structures
10. Candidates

Enough said.

There has been a lot of talk about the potential impact of the Bradley Effect on this year's election.  On top of that, I just read a short but nonetheless interesting article in which Father Jonathan Morris, a Fox News contributor, argues why this election is going to be close.  All of this discussion got me thinking:  what if the unexpected happens?  What if going into Election Day, Barack Obama maintains a lead in all of the polls, and state polling indicates he's going to win an electoral college landslide (as it does currently)?  And what if, as the polls begin to close on Election Day, all the major media networks' exit polls show Obama trouncing McCain, resulting in the networks calling the race early for Obama?  But what if when the results come in, something astonishing happens: John McCain, in one hell of a nailbiter, edges out Senator Obama and becomes the next President of the United States?

History and anecdotal evidence suggest that this situation, as improbable as it may be, is certainly not out of the question.  But how would the country – particularly Democrats and Obama supporters, including the mainstream media – react?

I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but after what we witnessed with the Florida fiasco in 2000, I think that this scenario is a troubling one.  It also is one for which we should be prepared.

Aaron Marks is President of Three Group, LLC, a Pittsburgh-based new media firm that focuses on providing technology-based solutions for Republican candidates and organizations, and in particular has built Web 2.0 campaign management software called Mission Control.  Aaron also worked in new media and voter outreach on Senator Rick Santorum's 2006 re-election campaign.

I know Warren Buffett is backing Obama, but based on this chart, he seems to be in the minority, as every perceived Obama electoral success yields negative results on Wall Street

H/T Club for Growth

Democracy Corps, a project of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, notes that House Republican incumbents helped themselves -- at least in terms of keeping their jobs -- with the bailout vote:

Most of these incumbents initially voted against the Wall Street bailout, which was less popular in these incumbent districts than in the open seat races.[3] So it is possible that these incumbents have marginally improved their standing by opposing the bailout.This possibility is supported by the fact that in the incumbent districts Democrats are only even on who would do a better job with the economy and trail by 2 points on who would best handle the financial crisis (whereas they lead by 5 and 4 points on those issues respectively in the open seats).

So if the Republcians in targetted seats who are most likely to win re-election voted against the bailout, it seems likely that one of the "lessons of the 2008 election" could be that the GOP shouldn't abandon its core principles on the bailout. This could have a real impact on the future of the caucus.