Quote of the day

One of life’s little ironies is that, over the long run, people who are willing to admit they could be wrong turn out to be wrong a lot less often than people who aren’t: the same is true in polling. —Nate Silver

On the other hand, world affairs are looking pretty

Feingold feels the heat

That's according to Rasmussen. It'll be interesting if it pans out to be competitive, as this is one race I actually have a say in.

I am not as familiar with Thompson as I should be, so I'll withhold judgment there. But I'll say this about Feingold: despite his blinders on campaign finance, he's still a great civil libertarian and perhaps the very best sitting Democratic senator.

It is difficult for me to envision a scenario in which I don't vote for him. But if so it would be primarily anti-Democrat, not anti-Feingold. I'd put 60 Feingolds in the Senate if I could...

Next on the Democrats' Senate worry list

FrumForum:

Former New York Governor George Pataki now holds a significant lead against potential Democratic rivals for the 2010 New York Senate seat according to recent polling, reports Steven Greenberg of the Siena Research Institute. Among potential voters, Pataki now holds a wide lead over current Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, at 51% to 38% .  This is in contrast to the results of a poll just over a month ago that had Gillibrand in the lead at 46% to 43%. Pataki holds an even larger lead over former Tennessee Representative Harold Ford, Jr., at 54% to 32%.

Well that's a shocker if it bears out, but it's one poll--take the requisite grains of salt.

Too close to call

Nate has Massachusetts as a tossup.

What in tarnation?!

Massachusetts's special election is now a tossup with the Republican leading 48-47 according to PPP?

I don't expect it to be that close, but this poll is actually a positive development for Democrats as it should light a fire under their GOTV efforts—obviously they aren't used to having to defend this state.

Three cheers for limited government

It's sure taken the public long enough to arrive at this (correct) conclusion.

Alas, I'm pretty sure we have the Glenn Beck effect to thank for the shift, rather than a principled opposition to state-guaranteed positive rights.

Gallup's interpretation:

The wording of the healthcare bill the House passed last Saturday explicitly states that one of the bill's purposes is to provide "affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans."

The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed healthcare debate since Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the healthcare system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in healthcare could or should be this broad.

Republicans pull ahead for 2010?

Seems some people are being reminded of why they don't like Democrats. In particular, disaffected Republicans who identify as Independents:



A six point swing in one month is rather surprising. But it's just one poll, so the usual caveats apply. Hopefully it'll prod more into the field to confirm. I'll be watching pollster.com's average with the sensitivity high and Rasmussen eliminated.

The shape of things to come

Old prejudices die hard.

(via Yglesias)

Rand Paul takes polling lead

Radley at Reason:

Over at the blog In the Agora, Joshua Claybourn notes that libertarian (and Ron Paul offspring) Rand Paul has taken an early polling lead for the Republican nomination to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Paul has already raised far more money than his opponent, Kentucky's GOP establishment-backed Secretary of State Trey Grayson. But Paul has also been able to convert dollars into poll points. He has jumped 14 points in the last three months.

Claybourn, an attorney and writer just across the Ohio River in Evansville, Indiana observes:

Rand Paul is a strong states’ rights advocate who wants the federal government out of people’s lives. He opposes federal drug laws and says the U.S. government should not outlaw gay marriage because only churches should be in the marriage business. He is skeptical of foreign interventionism and doggedly Constitutional about any engagement. But more than anything he likes talking about fiscal issues and the need to scale back government intrusion in economics and reform the nation’s fiscal policies...

Libertarian intrusions into Republican primaries are nothing new. But what separates Rand Paul from most other libertarian candidates (including his father) is that Rand is not a novelty act. He is a known commodity as a long-time practicing ophthalmologist in western Kentucky. Along with tremendous intellectual heft, Rand is a polished public speaker with a professional presence. In short, he is an ideal candidate for the libertarian cause.

All of which would explain why the national GOP is trying like hell to make sure he doesn't get the nomination.

Obama favorability by region

Northeast: 82-10, net +72
Midwest: 62-31, net +31
West: 59-34, net +25
South: 27-67, net -40

(source)

As Andrew mentioned last week:

For the first time in 16 years, the South does not have a native president in the White House. For the first time in 45 years, we have a Democrat not from the South in the White House. In trying to understand the passion and hysteria and anger out there, this may be worth taking into account.

Factoid of the day

Eight percent of poll respondents in New Jersey think Obama is the Anti-Christ.  A further thirteen percent aren't sure

Among Republicans, fourteen percent think so, with fifteen not sure. That's 29% of Republicans who think there's at least a possibility he's the Anti-Christ.

I suppose it makes sense for Obama-messiahism to be paired with countervailing anti-messiahism.  I wonder what comparable figures were for GWB five or six years ago...

Independents disapprove of Obama

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A majority of independent voters disapprove of how Barack Obama's handling his job as president, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-three percent of independents questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, with 43 percent in approval. That result marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of independents give the president's performance a thumbs-down.

[..] Broken down by issues, the president still gets majority support on foreign affairs and terrorism, but a majority now disapprove of how he has handled health care, taxes, the economy and the budget deficit.

[..] "Among all Americans, his rating on health care has dropped 13 points since March. Compare that to his 16 point drop on the deficit and 17 point dip on taxes and it looks like there is growing discontent with Obama's overall domestic agenda — not just his health care policy."

Agreed. Domestic fiscal issues have become dominant now, hence our disapproval with Democrats' left-wing course.

But foreign affairs, terrorism, and (I would add) civil rights—wherein lay Bush's biggest disasters—is now on the right track (with the probable exception of Afghanistan). So there's the good news, it's just not getting a lot of attention. Partly because things have been quiet, but also because non-intervention in general isn't sexy enough to draw much media.

Dead heat

Rasmussen: "54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan."

For those of us in the real world, this likely means a 50-50 split.

I assume a significant number of those opposed are doing so for incoherent reasons, e.g. buying into the FUD spread by Republicans.

Thankfully this is a Republic, not a direct Democracy, so there is a reasonable chance public opposition will moderate the bill in positive ways, such as axing the public plan that most people actually support (because they don't understand the implications--it's being sold as merely an additional "option")

There is also a good chance public opposition will cause the eventual bill to become an even worse crap sandwich--with more giveaways to special interests ala Waxman-Markey.

And I see a small outside chance the opposition will lead to scrapping the current bill and starting from scratch with a superior approach like Wyden-Bennett.

Ah, sweet legislative uncertainty. This calls for a market-based solution! Here's the intrade prediction for "A federal government run health insurance plan to be approved before midnight ET 31 Dec 2009"

Presently 35.5% odds with real money on the line. How would you bet?

Reality check

Reality check

Sans bogus Rassmussen, three Pollster.com charts:








Andrew guesses on health-care:

It's the worst selling job he's done in a long time. I can't tell what's in it, not in it, what he's for, what he's against. My best bet is that Obama's insurance reform will end up requiring big tax hikes for people like me (I can live with them if they bring real health improvements to sick people) for a modest ability to get insurance for almost anyone regardless of previous conditions. That's a good thing. Not a radical thing. And won't do anything much about costs, let alone allow a public option. It will be like the climate change bill, a very modest, largely toothless start with very modest potential to affect change.

Well, let me just collect my thoughts on reforms I would like to see:

-No denials for pre-existing conditions. This will raise costs for everyone else (supply and demand!), but there is a moral argument for it and most people seem on board, so I'm going with the flow.
-Health insurance exchanges open to any individual who wants to participate, with their employers paying the same portion as any benefits they offer.
-End tax breaks for employer health benefits. These distort the market in favor of the well-off and the employed, which is a really, really bad idea if you expect the poor and unemployed to be able to afford coverage. The revenue raised could be used to subsidize care for the poor/unemployed with a voucher or tax-credit system.
-No loss of benefits when someone is unemployed. They should be able to keep paying for the same coverage from savings or by collecting unemployment.

Reforms I'm against:

-Public/government-run insurance.
-Entitlement expansion using revenue from surtaxes on the rich. If we're going to raise such taxes, that money ought to go toward closing the deficit, not further spending and subsidy. But either way, I sure don't think we should be doing this in a downturn. Wait for recovery, then if you want to raise taxes to close the deficit it will be fiscally responsible.
-An employer mandate to provide insurance. Eww! The House bill has this. We should be transitioning away from the current, broken system, not doubling down on it!

Reforms I can live with:

-Entitlement expansion (Medicare, Medicaid, and the ilk) using revenue from ending the tax breaks on employer benefits. I dislike entitlements, but if we're going to offer such progressive handouts, the way to pay for them is by ending the regressive and distortionary tax breaks. Offering more progressive benefits without repealing the regressive distortion makes no sense, as it means inefficiencies in both areas, the worst of both worlds and a quintessential example of bad governance dragging down the market by causing it to operate with less efficiency.
-An individual mandate: This is problematic because some people are healthy or wealthy and don't need or want insurance. But it could be acceptable if the bar is sufficiently low, e.g. only catastrophic coverage with a $5,000/yr. deductible and 20-30% co-pay. This is how real insurance is supposed to work anyway, vs. the cadillac cover-everything with measly $20 co-pays that it's ridiculous to expect everyone to need or want to pay for.

Free fallin'

Creeping liberalism

So what's the pragmatic thing to do?

A moderate increase in taxes and a moderate increase in entitlement spending? Sigh.

Why Obama didn't release the abuse photos

White House pollsters must have gotten similar results:

The poll suggests that 87 percent of Republicans are against the public release of the photos, as are 62 percent of Democrats. Three out of four independent voters would also prefer for the photos to stay under wraps.

That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, and I think Obama may understand this, but a politician must choose his battles and in the grander scheme of things making these photos known must be pretty low on his priority list. They're only important for holding the Bush administration accountable, something Obama would rather not be sidetracked by.

Rasmussen numbers are bogus

Look at the red dots above the purple line. They are all Rasmussen polls, 15 points off the average.

Yet conservative blogs seem to be in the habit of citing approval/favorability numbers from Rasmussen and dismissing the others as outliers. Gee, I wonder why.