Undecided Voters Poised To Flock To Mark Pryor's Republican Challenger in Senate Race, Says New PPP Poll

Photo courtesy of Club For Growth TV ad.

A new poll in Arkansas from the Democratic leaning pollster Public Policy Polling puts incumbent Senator Mark Pryor ahead of his Republican opponent Congressman Tim Cotton by just one point, or 43-42%, with 16% undecided. This result might be interpreted by some as impressive for a Democratic Senator in a deep-red state, especially considering the conventional wisdom around the race for much of the last year as one of the Republican Party's likeliest Senate pick-up opportunities.

But not so fast. Tom Jensen tweeted out this crucial bit of information following the official poll release:

Obama's overall approval in Arkansas is 33/61. Among voters undecided for Senate it's 13/74: http://t.co/6dS4ewv60o
— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) April 30, 2014

In a race where both major party candidates are polling in the lower 40s, the undecided vote could dramatically alter the outcome. And there are several data points that would assist in providing clues about where those undecided voters will ultimately end up. Are they Democrats or Republicans? Young or Old? Liberal or Conservative? Among PPP respondents who said they voted in the 2012 election, it's the Romney voters that remain more undecided than Obama voters (17% to 8%). That's an obvious plus for Tom Cotton (R). Conservatives are more undecided than liberals (16% to 12%), another plus for Cotton. A full eighteen percent of Independent voters remain undecided (more than Republicans or Democrats), and they support Cotton over Pryor 50-31%. Yet at the same time, women, who support Pryor by greater margins than men, are more undecided than men. African Americans, as well as younger voters, both of which being groups more likely to support Pryor, are more undecided than whites or older voters.

But perhaps more important than any of these stats regarding undecideds is what Tom Jensen tweeted above - the fact that the President's approval rating is upside down with these voters by 61 points!

Unfortunately, PPP didn't provide a crosstab of how poll respondents that approved or disapproved of Obama's job performance said they would vote in a Pryor vs. Cotton match-up. But pollsters that have provided such info in the past would note that there's a very close correlation between a voters feelings towards the President's job performance, and how he or she may cast a vote in a federal partisan contest.

Suppose those sixteen percent of Arkansas voters that said they were undecided between Mark Pryor and Tom Cotton supported the two candidates by the same proportion they approved or disapproved of President Obama? Or in other words, suppose 13% of those undecided voters end up supporting Mark Pryor, while 74% end up supporting Cotton. How would PPP's final result have looked?

Senator Mark Pryor's one point lead over Tom Cotton evaporates into an eight point DEFICIT in the event undecided voters break for the candidates in a proportion identical to their approval of Obama's job performance. What was a 43-42% Democratic lead becomes a 53-45% Republican lead.

Obviously, this is purely speculative. But the big news from this PPP poll shouldn't be the fact that Pryor's clinging to a lead. It should be that if the crosstabs are to be believed, Pryor's lead is fleeting.

President Hits 6-month Job Approval High on Gallup and RCP

Photo courtesy of The Guardian.

Today's Gallup tracking update fits nicely with the new Democratic narrative that, just maybe, despite years-long conventional wisdom, Obamacare and its creator aren't as doomed as originally thought. For the first time since their October 8, 2013 update, President Obama's job approval rating came within two points of matching his disapproval rating on Gallup.

In the intervening period since October, the President's net approval (the difference between his approval and disapproval rating) has ranged from -4 (on April 19-20 and March 19-20), and -16 (on March 1-2 and March 15, 2014). Furthermore, today marks only the second time since October 8 that Obama's approval rating has reached as high as 46% (the other time being on February 20). Today also marks the first time since October 8 the President's job DISAPPROVAL rating dropped below the 49% level.

You have to go all the way back to September 26th to find the President's net job approval higher than it is now. And unfortunately for Republicans, the Gallup daily tracker isn't the only pollster showing Obama's job ratings improving from months ago. Check out his RCP and Pollster averages. Obama's at his best net average job rating since October 29 per the former, and since September 24 per the latter.

There are two obvious theories behind the ratings change: 1) the outrage over the Obamacare website's failures and canceled insurance policies, which began in early October, roughly around the same time as Obama's approval rating drop, is subsiding. Though the evidence for this seems split at best. 2) The Gallup tracker has a history of bouncing around on a day-to-day basis, which is most likely all we're seeing in today's numbers. Afterall, the President was at 42/52% on April 16, just six days ago. And over the course of two days earlier this month, the President's job rating fell from 45/49% to 40/55%, a net drop of eleven points. On the other hand, Obama's WEEKLY average job approval (which is a better metric for spotting trends), is the lowest its been in two months, even before factoring in today's lofty 46/48% figure. You have to go back to the week of September 29 to find a higher average weekly net job approval for the President.

In the end, remember, we're talking about Gallup's daily tracker. It can be erratic, sometimes wildly so. But today's numbers, taken in the context of most recent national surveys, bode well for Democrats.

Obama's State Job Approval Collapse, And What It Could Mean For 2014

Photo found here.

November 2013 is likely to be remembered as the worst month of Barack Obama's presidency, that is, if he's lucky enough to stop the bleeding over the course of the next few weeks. Republicans, fresh off of what was perceived at the time as a historic misstep in shutting down the federal government to defund the Affordable Care Act, were handed a life-line with the disastrous healthcare.gov rollout, followed by nationwide cancellations of millions of people's health insurance.

What came next was predictable. The President's numbers remained steadily negative up until late last month, when they turned steeply southward.

The last non-daily tracking poll to find the President in single-digit negative territory was a GWU/Battleground poll from one month ago. No less than 6 separate surveys taken this month have shown his approval rating in the 30% range. And a recent CBS/NYT poll gave Obama the worst job approval rating of his presidency, in *any* poll.

Making things more difficult for the White House, a flurry of state polls indicate negative impressions of the President's job performance have filtered down to the states.

Consider the chart below of every state-based survey to test Obama's job rating since November 1, 2013 (approximately the period at which Obama's *national* ratings began to drop):

With relatively few exceptions, the President's numbers are quite poor, especially when compared to his performance against Mitt Romney in last year's general election. And when considering JUST the numbers taken over about the last two weeks, the picture gets even more grim, especially with respect to five swing-states with high profile Senate or Gubernatorial races in 2014: Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio.

What does a term-limited President's job approval rating have to do with Democrat's chances in 2014? Sean Trend of Real Clear Politics recently concluded that, at least from an aggregate, national perspective, it matters a lot. But what kind of correlation, if any, is there between a President's state-based job approval rating, and that particular state's Senate or Gubernatorial midterm result? On the more micro level, the relationship between presidential approval and his or her party's midterm result gets murkier.

SHUTDOWN 2013: A Close Look At Public Opinion Towards The President, The Parties, Congress, and More

Congress, the President, Democrats, Republicans...EVERYONE was better liked by the public during the 1995 government shutdown. New polling indicates Americans are more short-tempered than they wee 18 years ago.

We've been here before.

At least eighteen times since 1976, according to Wikipedia. In fact, George W. Bush has the praiseworthy distinction of being the only President since Gerald Ford to avoid a government shutdown during his time in office. 

But most of those shutdowns garnered light interest from public opinion pollsters, scant attention from the political press, and were generally far less glamorous than the one that took place between the Republican Congress and Democratic President in the 1990s, and the one happening now.

There's been a wealth of excellent articles written over the last week by TNR's Nate Cohn, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics, and Harry Enten of The Guardian, regarding the polling differences between the two shutdowns. Enten blew a hole in the mythology surrounding the '95 stalemate, suggesting the 1996 election results were more the consequence of economic fundamentals than the budget showdown. Cohn piggy-backed off this days later, arguing that the GOP's hold on the House of Representatives is unlikely to change in light of events following '95. Trende set out to distinguish the tactics and goals of the '95 battle with today's.

This post intends to dive further into the data points driving these three mens' pieces, with a focus on the comparison of public blame then and now, Presidential and Congressional approval, generic Congressional ballot polling, and more.


THE BLAME GAME, THEN AND NOW

Enten noted in The Guardian the marked difference in the level of blame the public placed on the political parties in '95 and now. Sure, Republicans are again on the receiving end of most of the finger pointing, but not to the extent they once were.

In fact, the Republicans most favorable data point out of shutdown polling to date comes from a week-old Pew Research survey finding American adults would blame Republicans in Congress only slightly more than the Obama Administration in the event of an actual shutdown.

If the federal government shuts down because Republicans and the Obama Administration can't agree on a budget, who do you think would be more to blame? (September 19-22, 2013, MoE +/- 3.7%)

• Republicans  -  39%
• Democrats  -  36%
• Both Equally  -   17%
• Don't know/Other  -  8%

If public opinion data regarding blame for the current shutdown stopped at the Pew Research poll, well, then the Republicans wouldn't seem to be freaking out so much right now, would they? But a few more pollsters have weighed in since Pew, and they find larger pluralities of Americans holding Republicans responsible for the gridlock:

The Global Strategy Group Poll listed Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats as separate question responses, unlike the other three pollsters who grouped the President with Congressional Democrats into one response.

In the 6 surveys that specifically asked about blame for a potential shutdown since the start of September, 43% on average have blamed Republicans, 36% have blamed Democrats.

But that's still good news for the GOP, at least from a purely comparative standpoint.

In the weeks leading up to the 1995 government shutdown, (which occurred initially on November 14, 1995), well over two-thirds of Americans (39%) blamed the newly-elected Republican Congress for the deadlock, while just a quarter blamed President Clinton and the Democrats (25%); making the Republican's average "margin of blame" 7 points smaller in 2013 than in 1995.

So where should you expect public sentiment to go now that the shutdown is underway? It's hard to say. Immediate media reaction has been overwhelmingly negative for Republicans. Though as Day 2 came to a close, right-wing media, powered by Fox News and The Drudge Report, had been moderately successful at shifting focus to the White House's refusal to sign House-passed appropriations bills that would fund the National Institute of Health, Veterans Affairs, and national parks.

Though if 1995 is any guide (and it hasn't been, at least with regards to public blame for the shutdown), things are about to get a little worse for the GOP. See the table below of every survey to ask Americans who they blamed for the government shutdowns in 1995-96:

Prime-Time Addresses Have Moved Public Opinion Before, But Obama's Starting From FAR Behind On Syria

All five men have delivered prime-time TV addresses regarding imminent military action from behind the desk above, though none have faced a Congress as skeptical, or an American public more unified in opposition.

In less than 12 hours, President Obama will deliver a national address in prime-time in an attempt to rally the country, and congress, behind a possible military strike against a chemical-weapons yielding Middle Eastern dictator.

But it's far from the first time a commander-in-chief has pep-talked the nation in advance of (or as often the case, just after) the commencement of major military endeavors. In fact, Presidents have spoken to the nation in televised addresses designed to coincide with imminent overseas hostilities no less than nine times across the last five Presidents over the last 30 years.

Unfortunately for Barack Obama, his "rally-to-the-flag," pre-war address will have two dubious distinctions.

First, unlike President Reagan's military outings in Grenada and Libya, or George Bush Sr.'s Panama and Iraq Invasion, or Clinton's Somalia, Sudan and Kosovo bombings, or George W. Bush's wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, or Libya in 2011, President Obama is tasked with selling a phenomenally unpopular mission in Syria.

Furthermore, though each of the last four Presidents have seen worse job approval ratings than Obama is currently seeing at some point in their respective presidencies, none of them were so unpopular as he is now on the eve of a potential military strike against another country.

Consider the table below, which documents Barack Obama's job approval rating since the August 21, 2013 Syrian WMD attack that got this mess started, as well as support vs. opposition for military action in Syria since the same date:

The characters beside pollster identification in the table on the right above corresponds to survey question wording. Please feel free to ask me for any particular poll's question wording.

Over the last 2-3 weeks, Barack Obama has averaged a 45/50% job approval rating, while support for the proposed military operation in Syria has been anemic, at 32/52%.

What's worse? Over the last 7 days, Obama's average job approval rating has dropped to 44/51%, while opposition to engagement surged upwards (averaging a 30/60% support/oppose rating).

Democrats Struggle Out West, Steady In The East: An Early Quinnipiac Swing-State Analysis

There's been a discernible decline in the President's job approval ratings in the West and Midwest, according to 2013 Quinnipiac swing-state polling to date. The drop is punctuated by notably weak 2016 performances from Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

Though it may not feel like it, we're rapidly approaching the one year anniversary of the painfully close presidential election that wasn't; a contest who's much-hyped competitiveness failed to match its anticlimactic 51-47% result.

Its been nearly a year since ratings-hungry pundits and wishful Republicans were surprised to learn that, prior election results aside, Americans liked the job the President was doing (54% vs. 45%, to be exact), primarily blamed his predecessor for the disastrous economy (53% vs. 38%), and believed economic conditions were improving rather than worsening (39% vs. 30%).

So as we approach the Fall of his 5th year in office, how is the President holding up?

The answer depends, at least from a regional standpoint.

Fortunately, Quinnipiac has been in the field in swing-states across the country on a number of occasions so far this year for 2014 and 2016 election purposes, allowing us a glimpse at both the President and his potential successor's standing. And according to their findings, Barack Obama has held up well in East Coast swing-states (Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania), especially since the May 2013 IRS/NRA fall-out, while falling precipitously in the West and Midwest (Colorado, Iowa, and Ohio).

Consider the table below:

The difference in Obama's approval rating in East Coast vs. West/Midwest swing-states is unmistakable. His approval rating in the 3 East Coast states surveyed by Quinnipiac is roughly par (48/48%) with his winning margin in those states (51-48%).

How Concerned Should Hillaryland Be About Barack Obama's Political Standing In 2016?

Though Clinton's soaring approval ratings seemingly did little to help Gore in 2000, and McCain's popular vote percentage far exceeded the number who approved of the job Dubya was doing, the elder Bush's electoral performance in 1988 closely mirrored public approval of his boss, Ronald Reagan. Photo taken July 1988, courtesy of the Reagan Library.

President Barack Obama's job approval rating currently sits at about 45/50% per the Real Clear Politics aggregator, 44/50% according to Huffington Posts's Pollster, or 46/49% per TPM Polltracker.

All in all, these are some pretty rough numbers for the President, especially considering where he stood for most of the 2012 election year, and represents one of his worst periods in terms of job approval since the Fall of  2010 and 2011.

Fortunately for Obama, he'll never have to stand before voters for re-election again. Unfortunately for Democrats, they'll endure the burden of running for office with the anchor of an unpopular Presidency around their neck, assuming Obama's ratings hold at current levels or get worse.

In fact, recent history would suggest that 2014 Senate and House contenders should fear the President's popularity the most. In 2010, Obama sported an abysmal 44/55% job approval rating, and Republicans won in a landslide. Something similar happened in 2006, when George W. Bush had a 43/57% approval rating, and the Democrats won in a landslide. In 2002, a hugely popular post-9/11 George Bush was able to flout tradition when his party won an impressive popular vote victory and picked up several seats.

But what if we look further down the road? Can the way voters feel about President Obama on election night 2016 affect the vote count for Hillary Clinton? Or Joe Biden? Or Howard Dean? Or any number of possible 2016 Democratic nominees? Intuition and common-sense suggests yes, and at least one poll-analyst seems to agree. But historical evidence provides room for doubt.

The series of tables below detail outgoing Presidential job approval ratings in the final month(s) of the presidential campaigns to replace them. And as you can see, especially with regards to the 2008, 2000, and 1960 presidential elections, the term-limited President's ratings didn't appear to make or break his party's nominee:

Michelle Nunn Looks Strong In Early Georgia Senate Polling, But Beware of Undecided Romney Voters

State Legislator Jim Martin nearly rode Obama's coattails into office in 2008, holding Sen. Saxby Chambliss to just 49% of the vote. He subsequently lost the Dec 2, 2008 run-off, despite the support of hip-hop artists T.I., Young Jeezy, & Ludacris. No Democrat has won a statewide race for President, Senate, or Governor in Georgia since 2000. Photo courtesy of Getty Images.

If anyone familiar with recent presidential electoral history said they weren't a little surprised by the 2008 election results in Georgia, they're probably bluffing.

The only Deep South  state in the last 5 presidential elections to see a Democrat come within 5 points of a Republican would hardly be recognizable to the Georgia that re-elected George W. Bush by 17 points just eight and a half years ago.

Yet four years later, the McCain-Palin ticket earned a worryingly low 52% of the vote, while Obama-Biden nabbed 47%, the highest percentage for a Democrat in the Deep South since Bill Clinton's 52% Louisiana victory in 1996.

And again in 2012, the year that Republicans were supposed to take back the White House after four years of a sluggish economy, Romney's margin over Obama was much closer than GOP strategists would have liked (slightly less than 8 points), and far from an '04-like landslide. 

Though for all their recent success at the presidential level, Georgia Democrats remain in pretty rough shape statewide.

 In 12 statewide elections for President, Governor, or Senate since 2000, Democrats have won ONE (and that was in 2000).

But fortunately for likely 2014 Democratic Senate nominee Michelle Nunn, her father and former 24 year U.S. Senator Sam Nunn is one of the few Georgia Democrats that still carries any sort of considerable bipartisan clout, boasting a 50% favorable rating with Democrats, a 58% rating with Republicans, and 64% with Independents. And if recent PPP poll results are any indication, his daughter is making good use of his political capital.

Of the seven total candidates tested against Nunn in a hypothetical 2014 Senate race, the Democrat leads or ties ALL of them, earning between 40-42% of the total vote. Her Republican opponents garner between 35-41%.

So, you can see why Georgia Democrats might find reason to rejoice in the wake of PPP's latest release. With the sole exception of the 2008 Senate contest between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin (pre-run-off, and in a wave year), Democrats really haven't come close to beating Republicans in statewide elections for 13 years.

So why were a few pundits quick to dismiss PPP's results on Wednesday?

2014 just happens to fall during Obama's second term, which historically speaking, has been VERY harsh to the incumbent President's party.

But more than that, as Real Clear Politics Senior Elections Analyst Sean Trende noted on Twitter, most of the undecided voters in the PPP poll are likely to lean to the GOP Senate candidate.

Consider the chart below, which highlights the percentage of poll respondents who said they were "not sure" regarding their 2014 Senate vote, broken down by 2012 presidential vote, party I.D., and ideological I.D.:

Lessons from 2010, 2006, & 2002: Why You Shouldn't Read Too Much Into Early Generic Ballot Polling

Democrats are polling slightly ahead of Republicans in the generic ballot. But the GOP is still better positioned than at this point in 2009.

It's been a rough few months for President Obama, both in terms of polling and external political events.

Barely 6 months into his 2nd term, he's seen both his job approval and favorability ratings slide, while unexpected and distracting scandals involving the IRS and the NSA have angered both opponents and allies.

Yet for all the President's troubles, his party has held up well, at least from the perspective of 2014 Midterm Election polling to date.

Excluding Rasmussen Reports, the Republicans have led the Democrats in only one generic House ballot survey taken since the November 2012 election (out of 26 total polls), and have averaged a 43-40% deficit against the party that currently holds the White House and the Senate. See the table below:

*because Rasmussen tracks the generic congressional ballot every week, their numbers in the above chart are monthly averages. Data compiled from Huffington Post Pollster, Real Clear Politics, & TPM Polltracker.

The Democrats' 3 point house ballot advantage seems all the more impressive when considering the fact that the President's party very rarely performs well in second-term, midterm elections.

But try not to draw too many conclusions from the current state of polling regarding the 2014 election, especially considering the state of generic House ballot polling at this point in 2009.

From immediately following the 2008 Presidential election, until August of 2009, the Democrats averaged a House ballot lead over the Republicans of 44-38%; this, at the beginning of an election cycle in which the Republicans ultimately won the national House vote by 51-45%, and gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives.

Rasmussen & YouGov/PoliMetrix tracked the House ballot weekly. Their numbers in the chart above represent monthly averages. Data compiled from Huffington Post Pollster, Real Clear Politics, and Polling Report.

In other words, Republicans performed a net 12 points better than the average of polling at this point in 2009 predicted. Furthermore, at this point in 2009, Republicans led Democrats in only 4 of the 38 generic ballot polls taken since the November 2008 election, as compared to leading in all but 2 of the 39 surveys conducted in the final month of the 2010 election.

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, & Barack Obama: Comparing Presidential Favorability with Job Approval

President Clinton stands apart from Presidents Bush and Obama in that his job approval rating varied widely from his favorability ratings at times during his presidency. Bush and Obama have seen no such variation.

About a month ago, Gallup released a survey on former President George W. Bush that received a surprising amount of attention - for the first time since April 2005, before Hurricane Katrina turned his personal popularity upside down for the remainder of his presidency, the once deeply unpopular former President saw his favorable rating surpass his unfavorable rating (49/46%).

Notable not only for the incredible duration of his unpopularity, his most recent Gallup standing represents a 31 POINT shift in Bush's net favorable/unfavorable rating since shortly after leaving office, when he clocked in at a dismal 35/63%.

So there you have it. A man who was disliked by super-majorities just four years ago now finds public opinion split on the subject. And while his rating is lower than both the current President's (who last found himself at 55/43% in a Gallup survey), and his predecessor's (who was at 69/27% last August), it's still a bit hard for this political junkie to fathom the guy that even Republicans had lost faith in could possibly be viewed favorably by a near majority of the country.

But lets not make more of this survey than it actually is, as several mostly conservative pundits and bloggers did by claiming the results confirmed George W. Bush was somehow more popular than Barack Obama.

Where did conservatives go wrong in making this assertion?  They made the mistake of merging the meaning of favorability with job approval by assuming that Obama's 47/44% job rating (as reported by the Gallup daily tracker on June 11th, the day the Bush favorability poll was released) was the same thing as Bush's favorability rating (as measured June 1-4, 2013).

It's not.

Asking a voter whether they view an individual favorably or unfavorably is different in both language and meaning than asking a voter if they approve or disapprove of the job someone is doing.

For example, President Obama's most recent favorability rating, as measured by Gallup in April of this year, put him at a fairly strong 55/43%. The Gallup daily tracking poll taken at the same time put his job approval rating, however, at a less impressive 48/46%. George W. Bush left office with a poor 40/59% favorability rating, but an even worse 34/61% job approval rating. Gallup's final survey of President Clinton's favorability, while still in office, was December 2-4, 2000, and found him at an impressive 57/41%. But Americans were even more fond of the job Clinton was doing as President than they were of him personally, with 60% expressing approval, and 35% expressing disapproval.

So a few bloggers got it wrong in asserting that Bush is now more popular than Obama, as job approval is not precisely predictive of favorability. But "precisely" is the operative word there.

A close comparison of the entirety of polling on the favorability and job approval ratings of the last three Presidents illustrates that while favorability and job approval ratings are not mirror images of one another, they travel in fairly close lock-step, with only one exception: Bill Clinton from 1998-2000.

Just consider the chart below of President Barack Obama's national favorability and job approval averages since taking office in 2009, broken down into four month periods, or thirds of a year:

Data includes 410 favorability surveys taken from January 20, 2009-present, and 645 job approval surveys, compiled from Polling Report, Real Clear Politics, and TPM Poll Tracker.

As the averages illustrate, Obama has maintained a slightly higher favorability rating than job approval rating throughout his presidency. But the trends, the dips and bounces, match up pretty closely, as the below line graph of the above data illustrates:

With the exception of the first year of his Presidency, Barack Obama's job approval/disapproval and favorable/unfavorable ratings have rarely deviated from the 50% level.

And while George W. Bush's overall trends were much different than Obama's, the pattern of favorability rating tracking closely to job approval was even more apparent throughout his 8 year presidency. See the tables and charts below of his ratings, averaged into 4 month increments.

Data includes 485 favorability surveys taken from January 20, 2001-January 20, 2009, and 1,428 job approval surveys, compiled from Polling Report and Real Clear Politics.

PART III: The "Race" Factor: Have African Americans Forgiven the Clintons for 2008?

Clinton greets supporter and BET founder Robert L. Johnson at a campaign stop in Jan. 2008. Photo courtesy of Todd Heisler/The New York Times.

As discussed in parts I and II of this 3 part series, Hillary Clinton would be a uniquely strong Democratic Presidential Primary candidate should she decide to enter the race in 2016, though with three distinct areas of potential weakness, based on her 2008 performance against President Obama.

She runs the risk of falling behind among voters concerned with electing a candidate who can best bring about change, with the only variable being how many 2016 primary voters will choose this quality as the most desirable trait. 51% selected "change" in 2008, far more than the second most identified trait, "experience," at 23%.

Clinton also risks doing poorly among young voters aged 18-29. This age group chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 by 26 points, and although she won voters over 30 years old by four points, (86% of the total electorate), she still lost the nomination.

But of all the attributes and demographics measured by the 2008 primary exit pollsters, none would seem to bode so poorly for Hillary Clinton in 2016 as her performance among African American Democratic Primary voters.

By the time the campaign ended in June 2008, Hillary had averaged a measly 15% of the African American vote, to Barack Obama's 76%. The margin was large enough to deny Clinton the nomination, despite carrying white Democratic primary voters 55-39%, Hispanics 62-35%, and "other" 57-41%.

Data is compiled from CNN's state-by-state primary exit polling. The complete data behind the national primary numbers can be found here.

Sure, a part of Hillary's weakness with black voters in 2008 was due to the presence of a young, charismatic African American on the Democratic ballot. But if you recall, the Clintons did a fair amount of racial flame-throwing in their quest to shake-off the popular Senator, upsetting many former black allies and supporters. So the question is whether or not African Americans have forgiven the Clintons for the perceived racial undertones of their attacks on Obama, and if so, whether they've redeemed themselves to the point of receiving their vote.

If early primary polling is any indication, the answer to the question is yes, blacks seem willing to vote for Hillary Clinton again:

Only surveys including racial breakdowns were included in the table.

PART II: The "Age" Factor - Approaching 70 isn't a great place to be for someone with an old "youth vote" deficit

A variety of young or new faces seem capable of exploiting Hillary's 2008 weakness with young Democratic primary voters. From left, TX Rep. Joaquin Castro, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, San Antonio Julian Castro, and newly-elected Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Though Hillary Clinton caught a bit of bad press recently regarding her national favorability rating, her continued strength as a Democratic primary contender remains unfazed by the factors that caused her popularity to take a slight dip last month, at least according to public polling on the matter.

The most recent survey on the race shows Clinton leading all of her likely Democratic opponents AND undecideds by a miraculous 63-37%, besting her closest competitor Joe Biden by 50 points!

It may all sound a bit like deja vu, until you realize that Hillary is out-distancing her potential 2016 competitors by a far greater margin than she ever did in 2008. Her 2016 polling averages are strong among the groups she's been historically strong with (whites, Hispanics, and women), as well as the groups she performed poorly with in 2008 (blacks, men, 'very liberal' voters).

But there was another group, besides the "change voters" discussed in Part I of this series, that were particularly down on Hillary during her battle with Barack Obama: 18-29 year olds. And if 2008 is any guide, Hillary will want to do some serious advance work on nailing down the youth vote, strong early polling aside.

Despite recent chatter in some conservative circles proposing preemptive attacks on Hillary Clinton's age in preparation for 2016, advanced age in and of itself is certainly no bar to a party's nomination (for recent examples, see Bob Dole and John McCain), nor even the the presidency (see Ronald Reagan).

But when you couple that advanced age with a historical weakness among young voters, you can see why Hillary may need to be creative with ways to reach out to this increasingly influential Democratic voting block.

What do I mean by Hillary Clinton's "weakness with young voters"? I mean that she lost 18-29 year-olds in 2008 to Barack Obama by a significant 60-34%. I also mean that she won 18-29 year olds in just 5 of 40 contests where exit polling was conducted (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and West Virginia). Moreover, as the chart below indicates, she lost the next youngest age group, 30-44 year olds, to Obama by a hefty 13 points (54-41%).

Exit Poll Data compiled from CNN. National figures were compiled from state-by-state exit polling, the results of which can be found here.

 
It isn't until the 45-59 age group that Hillary even reaches parity with Obama, tying him 47-47%. Her only significant advantage among any age group came with Democratic primary voters aged 60 and older (Obama only won this age group in 6 of 40 exit-polled contested (Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia)

Which of Hillary's 2008 weaknesses are most likely to reemerge in 2016? Part I: The "CHANGE" Factor

"Change" candidates aren't always successful at seeking their party's nomination, but that was not the case in 2008. If Clinton wasn't the change candidate then, how can she be in 2016? Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Richard Drew/Pool

In 2008, the Clinton juggernaut collapsed before a comparatively unknown, three-year Senator from Illinios, in part because the big-wigs in Hillaryland failed to anticipate the degree to which members of their own party wanted a candidate who represented that exhausted political buzzword: "change."

It's not that Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle, Howard Wolfson, and other 2008 Clinton campaign verterans were idiots - they knew something about how to run a political campaign, and were certainly well aware that after 2.5 years of a historically unpopular President George W. Bush, Americans at the national level would be craving change. But what were the odds that Democrats would turn those same desires against their own darling Clinton? After all, it was the Clinton family that ushered the Democrats out of the political wilderness of the 1980s. It was the Clintons who became the first Democrats to win two presidential terms since FDR. It was the Clintons that presided over the greatest peacetime economic expansion in history.

Yet still, in the Winter and Spring of 2008, Democrats simply weren't buying what the Clintons were selling anymore; this wasn't an "experience" election, and Hillary was NOT the candidate of change.

Whether through miscalculation on her campaign's part, or simply her opponent's own strength, Clinton performed very, very poorly among voters in her party who said they wanted a candidate that could best "bring about change," which, unfortunately for Hillary, wound up being the majority of the Democratic electorate that year.

Flash forward five years, and Hillary Clinton again leads the primary, though this time sweeping nearly every subset of every subgroup of potential Democratic primary voters. Which begs the question: is 2016 the next 2008? Will the next Democratic Presidential primary, or even the next general election, feature a "change" component to the extent seen in 2008? It's hard to say, and there are some obvious differences.

In 2016, it will be Hillary's party that has dominated the White House for 8 years, which could end up a net negative OR positive for her campaign, depending on how Americans continue to perceive the job President Barack Obama is doing (which, as of today, isn't too well).

Yet if the national mood is such that a party of Obama-Democrats jump on the "change" bandwagon once more, Hillary Clinton has a major soft spot for opponents to target, especially if 2008 is any guide.

To understand the extend of Hillary's potential weakness with this group of voters, consider the chart below that documents the make-up of the 2008 Democratic primary electorate based on what voters identified as the "top candidate quality" to exit pollsters, as well as how proponents of each candidate quality split their vote between Clinton and Obama:

Data is compiled from CNN's state-by-state exit polling. I compiled the national data from CNN state exit polling. That process can be found here.

The difference in Obama and Clinton's vote margins among people who identified the ability to "bring about change" as the most important candidate quality, and those who did not, is stark. Obama carried the "change" voters by a landslide 41 points (68-27%), while Hillary carried the rest (voters who said experience, electability, or empathy for others was the most important candidate quality) by an identical 41 points, or 63-22%.

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats: Will Obama's Improved Standing in Massachusetts Carry Ed Markey Over the Finish Line?

Obama''s campaign visit wasn't enough to lift Martha Coakley in 2010, perhaps because his job approval was low, even for a state as Democratic as Massachusetts. But the President will be in a much better position when he campaigns for Ed Markey Wednesday. Photo on left courtesty of Michael Dwyer/AP/Corbis, photo on right found here.

With the Massachusetts special senate race just over two weeks away, pollsters are providing us with a mini-avalanche of new data, a great deal of which appears conflicting at times. But one thing the pollsters seem to agree on this go 'round is the level of Massachusetts approval for the job President Barack Obama is doing in Washington D.C.

Despite having endured what many would refer to as the worst month of his Presidency (it started with the Benghazi whistleblower in early May, then moved to the IRS scandal, then the James Rosen Fox News Reporter dust-up, then the A.P. phone records scandal, followed by the NSA whistleblower, culminating in today's State Department scandal), Massachusetts still largely approves of the job he's doing. Obama manages an average 57% job approval rating in what is arguably America's bluest state. Just 39% of Bay-Staters disapprove of the job he is doing. See the chart below:

Several polling firms did not test Obama's job approval/disapproval rating.

With only one exception (the UMass/YouGov poll), Obama's net job approval rating is relatively high, certainly compared to his national average. It ranges from +31 in the first Suffolk survey, to a low of +1 in the YouGov poll. Compare that, however, to his job approval/disapproval rating in the 3 weeks before the 2010 special election between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley:

Only pre-election polls that surveyed Obama's job approval/disapproval rating are included in the above chart. Data compiled from Real Clear Politics and Huffington Post Pollster.

2010 "likely voters" were much more down on the job the President was doing then than they are now. His average rating is a net 10 points lower than it was in Massachusetts three years ago. His spread ranged from +1 to +16, though Rasmussen was the only pollster to show Obama's net approval rating as high as double digits. The rest found it in the low single digits.

Hurricane Sandy's Other Legacy: Did Late-Deciders Throw The 2012 Election To Obama?

President-elect George H.W. Bush greets the man he defeated by 8 points 1 month prior at his home in Dec. 1988. According to exit polls, Dukakis was just coming alive in the final days of the campaign. He defeated Bush among the 15% of voters that made up their mind in the final week by an impressive 55-43% margin. Photo courtesy of The Atlantic.

Yesterday morning,  Chris Christie took to MSNBC's 'Morning Joe'  to praise the President for his handling of storm aide since Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey on October 29th. In response to a question from host Joe Scarborough, Christie replied:

 "Listen, the President's kept every promise that he made. And the fact is that...that's what I was saying at the time. What I was saying at the time is I was asked about how was the President doing and I said 'he's doing a good job. He's kept his word.' And so, everybody knows that I have about 95% level of disagreement with Barack Obama on issues of principle and philosophy. But, the fact is, we have a job to do. And what people expect from people they elect is to do their job. And that's why they hate Washington so much..."

Nevermind the context of the comment. The bolded section is what received the blaring Drudge Report headline. And if anything gets remembered from this MSNBC segment during primary season 3 years from now, it won't be Christie's eloquent defense of his actions in the days following Hurricane Sandy. It will be the continued praise of a President loathed by Christie's base.

But putting aside how Republicans feel about whether or not Chris Christie actually cost Mitt Romney the Presidency in 2012, a much more basic question needs answering: did Hurricane Sandy flip the election to Barack Obama? Because if it didn't, Republicans can blame Christie for providing comfort to the enemy at most, but NOT for costing them the presidency.

The simple answer to to the above question is no; Hurricane Sandy did NOT flip the election to President Obama, at least not if you believe the exit polling. And as a result, no, Chris Christie did not cost the GOP the election in 2012. Consider the chart below:

2004-present info compiled from CNN and Roper Center. 1976-2000 info compiled from Best & Krueger's Exit Polls. 1984 exit polls did not include a question regarding the timing of respondents vote decision.

Obama apparently won among voters that decided BEFORE the final few days of the campaign by a margin of 51-47%. But among the 9% of Americans who said they made up their mind in the final few days of the campaign, Obama's margin over Romney was even greater (50-44%).

Coattail Effect: How far can a Governor's job approval carry his or her party's presidential nominee?

Governor Bob McDonnell (R) (left) has an enviable 51/29% job approval rating back home in Virginia, yet the Republican candidate for President lost to the President by 3 points. Meanwhile, Wisconsin GOP Governor Scott Walker (right) had a decent 51/46% job rating, yet Romney lost his state by 7 points.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell became one of the most prolific campaign surrogates in the 2012 election, crisscrossing the country on Mitt Romney's behalf. Not only was he a popular home-state Governor, but he just happened to be the chief executive of one of the most hotly contested swing-states in the nation. That's a helpful combination to have around. While popular Republican governor's like Chris Christie and Susana Martinez were good faces to have associated with the Romney campaign, their home-states of New Jersey and New Mexico were never really in contention. They didn't pack the same one-two punch of Virginia's Bob McDonnell.

Obviously, there's a reason we seldom saw or heard of Florida Governor Rick Scott barnstorming across the state with Mitt Romney, or Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett holding local town-halls with Paul Ryan. Both of them averaged 39/45% and 35/46% job approval/disapproval ratings respectively in the final two months of the campaign.

But does the actual evidence suggest that a Governor's job approval/disapproval rating can affect Presidential election results on a state level? Unfortunately, the data is not terribly clear.
The table below contains a lot of information, so let's break it down piece by piece. It compares the job approval/disapproval ratings for every U.S. governor over the final two months of the 2012 Presidential campaign to actual election results, as well as actual election results to Obama/Romney's favorable/unfavorable ratings. In order for a particular state Governor to be included in the chart, he or she must have had at least one job approval assessment in the September and October before the election. That's why a few Governors, like Alabama, Mississppi, Wyoming, etc are missing. Red entries indicate either a Republican Governor, a Republican election win, or a net state-based positive favorability rating for Mitt Romney in the presidential election. Likewise, blue entries indicate Democratic Governors, a Democratic election win, or a net state-based positive favorability rating for Barack Obama. Since exit polling was only conducted in 31 states in 2012, not every state will include an Obama/Romney favorability assessment. Polling information was compiled from tpm poll tracker, pollster, and various internet searches:

For an easier to read, larger version of the above table, click here.

Of the top 10 most popular Governors in the country (based on polling averages taken from September 1-November 6 2012), 5 were Democrats, and 5 were Republicans, in 5 blue states, and 5 red states. Of the 10 least popular, 5 were Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 1 liberal Independent, in 9 blue states, and 1 red state. This stat seems to suggest red-state residents (those states that voted for Romney in the last election) tend to be bigger fans of their Governors (whether they be Democrats or Republicans) than blue state residents.