It's hard to ignore the concern in the wording of the latest weekly CDC flu update.

The influenza-like illness that we track with our ILInet sentinel provider system is showing higher levels of illness than we saw last week.  Again, these are unprecedented levels of illness.  The national average is about 6.1% of doctors visits, for purposes of influenza-like illness that's very high at any time particularly in October.  We also track mortality around the country.  Through something called the pneumonia and influenza mortality survey with 122 cities.  And for the first week this fall, we're seeing that the amount of influenza and pneumonia mortality is above the epidemic threshold.  All of these things may suggest it's a very busy and difficult flu season and we are seeing very high levels of activity around the country.  We are also having updates on the pediatric deaths.  Unfortunately those are going up as well.  There are now a total of 86 children under 18 who died from this H1N1 influenza virus, the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus.  We had 11 more influenza pediatric deaths reported in week 40, which is the week that ends October 10.  Ten of those are confirmed to be due to the new strain, the 2009 H1N1 strain and the 11th is probably due to that but the typing hasn't been completed.  About half of the deaths that we've seen in children since September 1st have been occurring in teens between the ages of 12 and 17.  These are very sobering statistics, unfortunately, they are likely to increase...

We hope that the continuing deaths in children will be as few as possible but this is a very brisk number, usually in a whole season that lasts from going to September all the way to may, you would only have about 40 or 50 deaths so in just one month's time we've had that many.

Yet even as the data show increases in flu cases (widespread in most states) and increases in mortality, the public remains skeptical about vaccination. It isn't disinterest. The latest Pew poll clearly shows that folks are paying attention:

It may be under-appreciation of risk, but that will sort itself out over time. Here's why I say that (see red line):

Still, right now the public health officials and the public are not sharing exactly the same concerns (vaccine safety is a considerable public issue and perception of safely is what's on public health's radar.) As outlined by John Solomon on his blog via an anonymous public health expert (comments I've heard myself), public health officials are concerned about three things:

"My biggest concerns as of the moment:

1)       Concerned that a substantial portion of country may be infected before vaccine arrives  — will depend on speed with which epidemic moves in next month, as well as speed with which vaccine can be delivered to states, as well as how fast states are able to get vaccine into people.

2)       Concerned that large numbers of persons who could get vaccine will choose not to vaccine because of concerns that it is experimental or untested — great deal of misinformation out there on the streets. The Paul Offit editorial in [Monday's] New York Times describes many of the widely circulating beliefs about the vaccine and the actual facts.  Poll about 2 weeks ago showed that while 60% of American parents willing to get their kids vaccinated for seasonal flu, only 40% were planning on their kids vaccinated for H1N1 – even though almost all of the flu circulating now is H1N1.

3)       Concerned that antiviral resistance could develop  –so far there is no sustained neurominidase inhibitor resistant strain circulating, just single cases popping up and very rarely.  If sustained resistance occurred, we would lose key tool for treating the sickest patients.  It is good sign that no sustained resistance has developed so far, but it would be a non-linear event if it happened.  No accepted view from the hard core flu virology community on the likelihood of this happening or not."

Luckily, there's no current evidence for other than occasional cases of antiviral resistance. And how's the vaccination plan going? Here are the basics: with current technology, flu vaccine takes six months to make. With the description of the new virus in print in mid-April, we are now six months in, vaccine is now being made, and it is just now rolling out for inoculation. Is it timely? Yes. Is it timely enough? No, because the virus didn't wait for us. We could have closed schools to slow spread, but that would have cost us between 10 and 47 billion dollars in a recession (reserved for a more virulent bug.)

In fact, the vaccine is slow to arrive, as many of us predicted (an easy prediction because nothing goes as planned on paper.) Here's how much we'll need, based on CDC projections:

But for right now we only have 11.8 million on hand and delivered, and 40 million doses scheduled for October arrival; the rest will be here in November. That means health care workers will get vaccine offered to them first, along with young children and pregnant women and kids with underlying conditions. Healthy children less than 24 will go next, followed by 25-64 year olds with underlying conditions. After that, healthy adults, and after that, healthy seniors. There's room in line for everyone, but the kids go first. That is the message we have been passing along since September: with pandemics there are always shortages of staff, space and stuff, and that should be the expectation and part of planning.

And so once we have vaccine will everyone ask for it? Not even close, according to Pew, although for context remember that only 20-30% of the public gets vaccinated every year against flu, and that includes seniors (75% vaccination rate), who get vaccinated more than any other group (8% for pregnant women, less than 30% for asthmatic kids younger than 17.)

Overall, fewer than half of Americans (47%) say that they would get the swine flu vaccine if it was available to them; an identical percentage says they would not get the vaccine. A clear majority of Democrats (60%) say they would get the swine flu vaccine if it was available, compared with 41% of Republicans and the same percentage of independents.

It might seem like Democrats are more inclined to trust this government, and that the anti-Administration bent of right wing nutters is taking a toll. After all, there's a partisan edge to this:

More than half of Republicans (54%) say news reports are overstating the swine flu's danger, compared with 42% of independents and just 35% of Democrats.

But given that this is a political blog, think of this as if it were an election. The main issue is not the hard core opposition (they are always there, fixed in their thinking, and not subject to rational discussion), it's the reasonable and persuadable public that needs convincing that this vaccine is safe, and they won't be reached by yelling at the nutters. To put this another way, there are legitimate concerns about wanting to see safety data that should be addressed rather than ignored. For example, whenever something gets studied, it ought to get published asap and made available. Here's a good start:

By day 21 after vaccination, antibody titers of 1:40 or more were observed in 116 of 120 subjects (96.7%) who received the 15-µg dose and in 112 of 120 subjects (93.3%) who received the 30-µg dose. No deaths, serious adverse events, or adverse events of special interest were reported. Local discomfort (e.g., injection-site tenderness or pain) was reported by 46.3% of subjects, and systemic symptoms (e.g., headache) by 45.0% of subjects. Nearly all events were mild to moderate in intensity.

Do rare adverse events happen? Sure. But the rare real event doesn't mean everyone else should, for example, abandon flying.

Sullenberger Flies Fateful Route Again, to Cheers

And if you were on that plane and won't fly the route again, bless you, I understand.

Absent more data like that above, safety is the number 1 issue (Pew again):

Note that only 16% "don't believe in vaccination" (even that small number includes those who think flu shots make them ill, which can happen for the egg allergic or those who have had previous reactions) and that as many (9%) "want to give their slot to someone who needs it more" as those (10%) who think "the swine flu risk is exaggerated". The big chunks of concern are safety (35%) or those who simply think they are too healthy to worry (23%).

The betting is that local deaths will increase demand, while stories about side effects will do the opposite. But if those flu numbers keep spiking, demand will start to grow.

So what's the best way to proceed? Follow the advice in this Nature editorial:

Public-health authorities, who are keen to contain the pandemic's spread, need to realize that their best hope of dealing with such public reluctance is to patiently address the concerns that underlie it.

Sometimes, it's true, those concerns go beyond any appeal to reason. They grow out of a visceral mistrust of authority in general - and of government, regulatory agencies, medical researchers and multinational pharmaceutical companies, in particular. A sophisticated anti-vaccine movement has emerged that plays on this wariness, and helps to feed the conspiracy theories about the H1N1 vaccine that are circulating on the Internet and in viral e-mails.

But far more often, say researchers who have studied this subject, people are assessing vaccination through a perfectly rational cost-benefit analysis.

[snip]

More generally, for officials and researchers at all levels, the scepticism over the pandemic vaccine should serve as a timely reminder of the imperative to work to gain greater public trust in science-based advice and in those who give it.

Most vaccine skeptics have legitimate reasons for concern and are indeed making their own decisions for this voluntary program. Think of them as the independents. I completely agree with the thrust of the editorial, and think it's worth time to discuss the pros and cons of vaccination with them. It'll save lives to do so.

Oh, yeah, and there's this:

Skepticism is healthy. And as I noted here, I think a persuasive voluntary program is the best way to get as many people as possible to accept vaccination.  In the meantime, I reserve the right to give the nutters a hard time.

See Rimjob's recommended diary on vaccine fact and fiction. There's more to skepticism than just the nutters, but they're no help at all.

It is ironic that Michael Jackson had always yearned, through his words and music, to see the world as a place that would someday be devoid of prejudice and racial separatism.  In songs such as "Black and White" the late singer would take on the mantle of the Pied Piper, as he invited us to sing and dance with him in celebration of a racially diverse nirvana that would make us all spiritually healthy and once again whole.

Needless to say, he did not achieve such a nirvana, and apparently, far from it. There has been a great deal of outrage concerning the coverage of Jackson’s death, and according to a just released national poll, a major element to the outrage is based upon the perspective of race.

It's a Pew poll, so lots of meat and potatoes, and lets start with health care:

There continues to be widespread support for changing the health care system so that all Americans have insurance that covers all medically necessary care: 75% favor this currently, while 21% are opposed. However, the percentage favoring this proposal is down from 83% in April 1993. Similarly, while a large majority (61%) believes it is very important to limit annual increases in health care costs, fewer say that now than did so 16 years ago (69%).

When asked which is more important – to control annual cost increases or guarantee all Americans access to needed care – a majority (56%) says that it is more important to provide access to necessary medical care for all Americans while 36% say it is more important to control health care costs. In 1993, the public also opted for guaranteed access to care for all, but by a greater margin (74% to 20%).

Perhaps the most important change since 1993 is in the public’s assessment of how much change the current health care system needs. In April 1993, a majority (55%) said the system needed to be completely rebuilt, 26% said it needed fundamental changes, while 15% said it needed only minor changes. Today, fewer than half (41%) say the system needs to be completely rebuilt, while 30% say it requires fundamental change and 24% say the system works pretty well and needs only minor changes.

That matches what we see from NBC/WSJ, by the way, also at 75% support for "public option". Nearly three quarters (71) want either fundamental change (30), or a complete rebuild (41) if the system, so tweaks around the edges won't do it.

More:

[T]here is less support for completely rebuilding the health care system than there was during the early stage of the Clinton administration’s unsuccessful effort to revamp health care. In April 1993, a majority of Americans (55%) said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt. As discussion of Clinton’s proposals progressed, support for completely rebuilding the health care system declined. By June 1994, just 37% said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt.

At 61%, Obama's job approval remains strong, similar to the CBS/NY Times poll.

A solid majority of Americans (61%) continue to approve of Barack Obama’s job performance, although they express mixed views of several of his policies. An important positive sign for Obama is the public’s continued optimism that his policies will improve the economy – fully 65% express this view. A smaller majority (55%) is optimistic Obama will reduce the budget deficit over the long-term. Nonetheless, Obama’s job approval on the economy has declined from 60% in April to 52% currently.

The slippage in the president’s economic ratings appears unrelated to the public’s assessments of his administration’s impact on current economic conditions – most (53%) say his policies have "not had an effect so far" or that it is too early to tell. Instead, it may have more to do with his relatively poor ratings for handling the problems of troubled automakers General Motors and Chrysler.

See also:

Substantial party differences remain in views of Obama’s handling of the economy, although the decline in approval is seen across the board. Fully 80% of Democrats approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, compared with 50% of independents and just 20% of Republicans.

Remember that there will always be a partisan split. Making Republicans happy is a task beyond any mortal Democrat, so keeping track of indies and Dems makes the most sense.

And, just like in every other poll,

While about a third of Republicans (34%) approve of the way Obama had handled problems with banks and financial institutions, an even smaller percentage (26%) approves of his handling of automakers’ problems. Large majorities of Democrats approve of Obama’s handling of both issues (67% banks, 65% automakers), while fewer than half of independents approve of Obama’s job performance on problems with banks (49%) and automakers (45%)...

Substantial majorities of both liberal (86%) and conservative and moderate (75%) Democrats approve of the stimulus package, while four-in-ten (40%) moderate and liberal Republicans and just 20% of conservative Republicans do so. As with other economic policies, independents are divided; a slim majority (52%) approves of the stimulus package.

There is always going to be concern about spending money, only 36% of Americans approve of spending billions to keep U.S. automakers in business, and "most Americans favor ensuring health coverage to all Americans, and most also say it is very important to limit the overall annual increase in health care costs" even if in slightly less numbers than in 1993. Obama has public support for change, and paying for that change will lead to stronger support. On national security, "most Americans (51%) say Obama is about right in his approach to foreign policy and national security issues, while 38% say he is not tough enough."

As for Republicans as an alternative:

The job approval of Republican leaders in Congress remains at near record lows. Currently, 29% approve of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing, while a majority (56%) disapproves. Approval ratings are little changed from March when Republican leaders received their lowest approval marks (28%) since Pew Research first began tracking the question in 1994.

In large part, low overall ratings for Republican leaders in Congress reflect ambivalence among those in their own party. Fewer than half of Republicans (47%) approve of the work their congressional leaders are doing; however, about as many (41%) disapprove. In addition, a majority of independents offer critical assessments of Republican leaders in Congress: 60% disapprove of their performance, just 25% approve. Democrats are predictably critical of the performance of Republican leaders (67% disapprove), but no more so than Republicans are of Democratic congressional leaders (75% disapprove).

There's more data in the poll on Dem approval,

The trend in opinion among political independents mirrors that of the general public: Currently, just 33% of independents approve of how Democratic leaders are handling their job while 53% disapprove; this represents an eight-point drop in approval from March.

foreign policy and security issues and SCOTUS discussion, as well as the observation that GOP leaders are assessed more blame (26) for not working with Obama than the other way around (12).

All in all, a very solid poll for Obama, and while he may be more popular than his policies, his policies, and his handling of issues is popular enough to give him whatever political currency he needs.

Senators, are you listening??

New Pew poll just released shows Pres Obama approval at 61% despite claims that "the Honeymoon is Over"

A solid majority of Americans (61%) continue to approve of Barack Obama’s job performance, although they express mixed views of several of his policies. An important positive sign for Obama is the public’s continued optimism that his policies will improve the economy – fully 65% express this view.

http://people-press.org/...

This country appears to be on the right track, at last. Was it release of the torture memos? The stock market? Michelle's arms? Teabagging? Regardless, the new AP and Pew polls have some striking changes in the political landscape, and some reaffirmation of Obama's leadership.

First, from AP (MoE +/- 3.1) there's the startling result of right track being higher than wrong track
for the first time in years (January, 2004, actually. And right track was 17 in October, prior to the election.)

Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction or in the wrong direction?
      Right  Wrong

4/20:  48    44
2/17:  40    49
1/14:  35    54
12/08: 32    60

Obama also gets a 76 for being a strong leader and Republicans are seen (by 65%) as not cooperating enough with him. His overall approval is 64 (67 in the last poll in February, 2009.) And Americans cut Obama slack in terms of when to expect economic improvement (72% say it will take longer than the first year.)

On the important question of how to spend the public's money:

As you may know, it is estimated that the federal budget deficit now exceeds one trillion dollars. If you had to choose, what do you think should be the HIGHER priority? [READ EACH ITEM.] [RANDOMIZE ORDER]

Increasing government spending on education, health care
reform, and the development of alternative energy sources,
even if that means the federal budget deficit will increase
even more  49

Reducing the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, even
if that means the government could not enact new programs
on education, health care reform, and the development of
alternative energy sources   43

That's actually pretty impressive as no one likes to spend money.

Other highlights include a 50-29 lead for support of Dems over the GOP in Congress on handling the economy, support for troops to afghanistan (53) and withdrawl from iraq by 2010 (74).

The respected Pew poll (MoE +/- 3.0) notes Obama exceeding recent history:

As he approaches the 100-day mark of his presidency, Barack Obama’s job approval ratings are higher than those of his most recent predecessors. However, the 44th president is even more distinguished by his strong personal popularity. Fully 73% of Americans – including as many as 46% of Republicans – hold a favorable view of Obama as a person. Fewer people held favorable impressions of George W. Bush (61%) and Bill Clinton (60%) early in their first years.

Obama’s job approval stands at 63%, while 26% disapprove of the way he is handling his job as president. His approval rating is up slightly from March (59%). Opinions about Obama’s performance remain highly partisan. Fully 93% of Democrats approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president, compared with just 30% of Republicans. Independents’ opinions fall in between, with 58% expressing positive views of his performance and 27% negative opinions.

In terms of the ever-popular "partisan" question, along with "what do independents think?" the answer is Obama's doing very well:

Obama’s approval rating among independents is on par with those of Bush and Clinton. However, more independents approve of Obama’s performance very strongly (37%) than did so for either Bush (29%) or Clinton (10%). About a quarter of independents (27%) disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, which is about the same as Bush’s disapproval mark (26%) and lower than Clinton’s (35%).

These are very strong numbers for Obama and his policies. Even Bayh, John Boehner and the media: take good notes. If you are going to try and stand in the way, you'd better have some aspirin and bandages handy. You're going to need them. Oh, and note what this means for the future, Republicans. Younger voters are not impressed with the party of "no".

But people 50 and older are more skeptical of the way Obama is handling his job and dealing with individual issues. The largest differences are in opinions about Obama’s handling of health care: 63% of those younger than 30 give him positive marks, compared with 55% of those 30 to 49, 42% of those ages 50 to 64, and 40% of those 65 and older.

Older Americans are divided in their opinions of Obama’s handling of the budget deficit, while majorities of those younger than 50 approve of his handling of the issue. That also is the case with opinions about Obama’s job performance on tax policy.

Obama is still seen as a change agent, and most see Obama fulfilling expectations. People really like Michelle, too. Democrats and lower income folks have an improved view of Obama's policies, and that's true (less so) for Rs and Is.  For out-of-power Republicans looking to the future, things couldn't get much worse. Could they?

More conversation with Paleo and indepenocrat.

we are almost at the 100 day mark and wheeew....its has been one heck of a ride.

Despite the attacks from the right and the left,our guy some how manages to remain cool.

Barack has not always been right in my view,there have been days when i wanted my vote back,lol.

Despite the Negative press,chavezgate,bowgate,geithnergate,teabagging the American people somehow still stand by this president.

To follow up on this intro piece for the treasure trove of data that Aaron Smith put together for Pew, let's take a look at a few of their graphics, with comments about what they show us about ourselves. [I added the red circles to highlight various points.]

Three-quarters (74%) of internet users went online during the 2008 election to take part in, or get news and information about the 2008 campaign. This represents 55% of the entire adult population, and marks the first time the Pew Internet & American Life Project has found that more than half the voting-age population used the internet to connect to the political process during an election cycle.

As you can see, there's a huge drop that we have noted before in newspaper readership, and a big increase in internet viewership for political news, now surpassing radio. The news print line will, of course, continue to drop and the internet line will continue to go up. This has now well-known major implications for the newspaper business model. But, the data in the report really concentrates on the demographic that uses the internet for political news, at least as of 2008.

Not only do young adults rely heavily on the internet (otherwise known as "the future", as in "young adults continue to skew Democratic"), only the 65+ group are heavily into newspapers. Only 20% of adults under 49 listed newspapers as a "most important source". There was little difference between 18-29 and 30-49 year olds.

These days, internet readers aren't passive. 18% of those who read will comment... somewhere. It's not always on blogs; it could be twitter (a tiny fraction in 2008), Facebook, online newspapers, First Read... wherever comments are allowed. However, it helps if you think your comments will be read and interacted with.

As is their M.O., Pew this week has posted a wealth of data about internet users during the 2008 political campaign. Here's a little factoid for you:

Supporters of Republican presidential candidate John McCain were more likely than backers of Barack Obama to be internet users (83% vs. 76%). This reflects the fact that McCain supporters and Republicans in general have higher amounts of education and income than Democrats - and those are two of the strongest predictors of internet use. However, online Obama supporters took part in a wider range of online political activities-from posting their own thoughts and comments about the election online to going online to volunteer for campaign activities or donate money.

Look at those first two columns (we're obviously proud to have been a small part of that) in terms of Democratic activity on the internet:

By the way, Republicans apparently have little taste for satire. Of all online political users:

• 34% visited the websites of major national newspapers such as USA Today, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Men, college graduates and wireless internet users are especially interested in this type of news.
• 26% visited blogs that cover news, politics or the media. Democrats and users of other social media tools such as Twitter and social networking sites are particularly fond of reading blogs.
• 19% visited news satire websites like The Onion or the Daily Show. More than one-quarter (27%) of online political users under the age of 30 visit these sites, although one in five 30-49 year olds (21%) do so as well. Republicans, on the other hand, stay away from these sites in droves—just one in ten Republican online political users visit news satire websites, compared with 26% of Democrats and 21% of independents.

And more:

Among those who got election news from one or more of the thirteen specific sources listed above:

• 13% visited just one source
• 13% visited two sources
• 14% visited three sources
• 15% visited four sources
• 10% visited five sources
• 35% visited six or more sources

Put another way, 87% of political news consumers sought out multiple genres of online news over the course of the election. Men, young adults, those who are affiliated with the Democratic party and those with high levels of income and education tend to be the most intense online news consumers.

There's a wealth of info here, and I encourage spending some time sifting through the data. Our reading habits on the internet are really not so unique. Too bad they didn't poll how often people click the provided links. Oh, well, whether they did or didn't, our demographic apparently found their way to multiple sources of info. And that, in the end, is a good thing.

In David Broder’s syndicated column, published in the Sunday Seattle Times, he says this:

As for the voters, the Pew Research Center reported earlier this month on a survey that showed the partisan gap in Obama's job approval scores is the widest in contemporary history. He rated a thumbs-up from 88 percent of the Democrats and only 27 percent of the Republicans in the poll — a gap of 61 points.

Rove and Limbaugh and Steele and many others have said the same thing.

Republicans are claiming that, mathematically and statistically, Obama is the most divisive President in 40 years.  How can you argue with a scientific poll?  The math proves it, right?

Nope.

I suppose this should be filed under other breaking news like "the sky is blue," and "grass is green," but I'll say it anyway: Republicans continue to lie about the recent Pew Poll, using it to say things like

Yet no president in the past 40 years has done more to polarize America so much, so quickly. - Karl Rove

But as reported by Greg Sargent at The Plum Line:

Many on the right have grabbed on to the Pew poll’s finding that Obama’s approval rating has a 61-point partisan gap — 27% of Republicans approve, while 88% of Dems do. Pew called the numbers “the most polarized” in decades but didn’t blame Obama.

Pew associate director Dimock, however, says this is a misreading of the poll. Dimock says the divide is driven by long term trends and by the uncommonly enthusiastic reaction to Obama by members of his own party — by what he calls “the way Democrats are reacting to Obama.”

Interestingly, Dimock also said this phenomenon is partly caused by the recent tendency of Republicans to be less charitable towards new Presidents than Dems have been.

In contrast to the 27% of GOPers approving of Obama now, more than a third of Dems (36%) approved of George W. Bush at a comparable time in 2001. Before that, only 26% of Republicans approved of Bill Clinton at the same time in his presidency, while 41% of Dems approved of both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at comparable times.

And as Chuck Todd explains:

And then the other thing that Republicans ought to be aware of when they're making these charges, is that the pool of Republicans has gotten smaller, and so sure, the most conservative part of the party is still identifying themselves as Republicans, and absolutely, three out of four disapprove of the President's job. But there are a lot of former Republicans sitting in that independent category now, Nora, and a majority of independents do approve of the President's job. So it is a, it's one of these things that Republicans ought to be careful about how they're writing it because it's not, it's not the best news. It's a smaller group of Republicans that are identifying themselves that way and when you're getting shellacked in the middle like that, it doesn't matter what the ends look like. The middle is what decides these elections and right now we're seeing the President, he had big numbers with the middle during the election and he still has big numbers with them now.

It's getting to be a usual poll result, this time from the respected Pew poll, MoE approx. +/- 3:

There is no evidence that increased perceptions of a politically divided country have affected President Obama’s standing with the public. His overall job approval rating of 61% is largely unchanged from March (59%), and the early reviews for his first major overseas trip as president are positive. In the survey, conducted before Obama’s surprise visit to Iraq, 63% say Obama did either an excellent (28%) or good job (35%) in representing America’s interests on the trip; just 28% say he did only a fair (19%) or poor job (9%) in representing the nation’s interests.

In other words, partisanship is another way of saying Republican opinion is different than everyone else's.

And here's an interesting table: every year, people seem to say "this year" is worse than others when it comes to partisanship. Polling around inauguration time this year was the exception and not the rule:

As the always insightful EJ Dionne points out, with House Republicans being more Southern conservative than in the past, it's tough not to be. "If you can't find common ground, that doesn't mean you're partisan," [Nancy Pelosi] said. "It just means you believe two different things." But guess who people don't have confidence in when it comes to the economy? The answer, of course, is Republican leaders.

Moreover, Obama garners considerably more confidence on the economy than either Democratic or Republican leaders in Congress. Fully 70% say they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to fixing the economy. A majority (55%) also say they have at least a fair amount of confidence in congressional Democratic leaders. By comparison, just 38% voice the same degree of confidence in Republicans leaders in Congress.

Let's look at partisan breakdown and, as always, look at the indies:

If there's an argument between Congressional Dems and Obama, the people have more confidence in Obama. And in every way, Republicans lose, including 30% of their own party (which, to remind people, is only 24% of the public according to Pew in March 2009.) That's called "political capital" and it needs to be spent while Obama still has it.

Next, Pew looks at issues. Guess what? Just like the CBS/NY Times poll, Pew finds:

In terms of budget tradeoffs, most Americans (59%) say they would place a higher priority on spending more money to make health care more accessible and affordable than on reducing the budget deficit. A nearly identical majority (58%) believes that spending more to improve education ranks as a higher priority than reducing the deficit.

However, opinion is more evenly divided over whether increasing funding to develop new energy technology should trump deficit reduction: about half (49%) say that spending on new energy technology is the higher priority while nearly as many say reducing the budget deficit (45%) is the higher priority.

Here's the deal on the issue people are most unhappy about:

Here's the Big Kahuna Obama chart, showing who approves and who doesn't in many of the interesting demographic categories.

White evangelicals don't approve (37%), and neither do Republicans. However, apparently everyone else does, suggesting that Republicans are isolated and out of touch (or, more charitably, representing a Southern conservative viewpoint the rest of the country doesn't share.) But that, we knew.

This is a Pew poll, and that means a wealth of data. There's little in the poll that is good for Republicans (even though by tradition polling is always good for John McCain), though energy does worst in terms of clear priorities. However, for those who claim that Obama wins on popularity and not the issues, the CBS/NY Times poll and this poll put that to rest. People approve of Obama's agendas and that's a strong message for Congress to heed, especially the Democrats.

A Pew commentary is getting a lot of play today. It notes a larger partisan gap for Obama than Bush II, Clinton or anyone else.

For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%).

However, they key findings are really about Republicans. They're the group that gave Obama a job approval of 27. While they are doing that, independents are giving Obama a 57 and Democrats a top-of-the-chart 88.

Pew notes:

The growing partisan divide in presidential approval ratings is part of a long-term trend.

The door is always open for Republicans. They seem to be the ones refusing to step through it. Is Obama really that partisan, or are the shrinking band of Republicans just out of the mainstream? And if they are, why should Obama adjust to them instead of the other way around? What's wrong with governance aimed at independents and Democrats?

Just asking.

PS Also from Pew

March, 2009
Republican  24
Democrat    34
Independent 35
Lean Rep    12
Lean Dem    17

We've seen for weeks in the Daily Kos Research 2000 tracking poll that Republican Congressional leaders are not popular. Mitch McConnell, for example, gets a 48/21 fav/unfav from self-identified Republicans and John Boehner gets an anemic 38/24, and Congressional Republicans get a 50/33. Contrast that with the 69/22 Democrats give Congressional Dems or the 70/12 Nancy Pelosi gets (Harry Reid is 59/19, still higher than anything on the other side of the aisle.)

We've seen in the Gallup poll (and ours) that the small drop in Obama's numbers (now 61%) are due to disaffected Republicans, that independents give Obama a 59% job approval, and that overall, he's running the same or better as Bush or Clinton at this point. We know Republicans think different than indies or Democrats at this point in time.

Now Pew weighs in, with a poll showing a 5 point drop in numbers for Obama compared to Feb, but still with a robust 59%. However, the bigger story is that the support for Republican Congressional leadership, including amongst Republicans is abysmal. Overall approval of GOP leaders in Congress is 28%, with 26% from independents.

There are no signs in the poll that Republican congressional leaders are benefiting from the public’s concern about major economic policies. In fact, approval of Republican congressional leaders has fallen from 34% in February to 28% currently, the lowest rating for GOP leaders in nearly 14 years of Pew Research surveys. Republicans, in particular, have become less supportive of their party’s leaders in Congress: just 43% of Republicans approve of their job performance, down from 55% just a month ago. By contrast, nearly half of Americans (47%) approve of the job Democratic congressional leaders are doing.

In addition, no single Republican figure, either in Congress or elsewhere, has emerged as the party’s leader. When asked who they think of as the leader of the Republican Party, 73% either say they do not know (58%), or volunteer that there is no leader (15%). John McCain is mentioned most frequently, but just 11% name the Arizona senator as leader of the Republican Party.

As is often the case with Pew, this is an extremely detailed poll. One of my favorite nuggets of info is based on how they asked the question about bailouts:

Overwhelming majorities are at least bothered by both policies (87% banks, 83% mortgages), but a 48% plurality says bailing out banks and financial institutions that made poor financial decisions makes them angry. Fewer (39%) say they are angry about bailing out homeowners who took out mortgages they could not afford.

Is Obama doing enough?

A majority of Americans (60%) say that Obama is doing as much as he can to improve economic conditions compared with 30% who believe he could be doing more. Opinions about his predecessors' efforts on the economy were much more negative. In nine surveys between 2002 and 2004, no more than 48% (in January 2002) said George W. Bush was doing all he could to improve the economy. And in two 1992 surveys, just 21% said former President George H.W. Bush was doing all he could on the economy.

Republicans divide evenly on this question: 42% say he is doing all he can while about the same percentage (44%) says he could be doing more. Among independents, 52% say Obama is doing all he can on the economy and 37% say he could be doing more. By a wide margin (83% to 14%), Democrats believe Obama is doing all he can to improve economic conditions.

Pew doesn't have a regional breakdown, but as we have discussed before, the South tends to be different than the other regions, with more Obama support outside the South. In fact, the South may be the only thing propping Republicans up.

With the drop in GOP approval, the gap between public evaluations of Democratic and Republican congressional leaders is the largest Pew has recorded over the past eight years in which both party’s leaders have been evaluated. Currently, 47% of Americans approve of the job Democratic leaders in Congress are doing – virtually unchanged from a month ago and 19 points higher than the approval rating for Republicans. For most of the past decade, approval of Republicans and Democrats in Congress have tracked very closely together.

Since February, the drop in GOP approval has been the steepest among Republicans themselves. Just 43% of Republicans say they approve of the job their party’s leaders in Congress are doing – nearly as many (37%) say they disapprove. This is a 12-point drop in approval from a month ago, when 55% of Republicans gave their party’s congressional leaders a positive evaluation. Approval of GOP leaders has slipped among Democrats and independents, but only slightly. Today, 26% of independents approve of GOP leaders’ performance, as do 19% of Democrats.

The drop in Republican approval of their party’s congressional leadership spans most segments of the party’s base. In particular, neither conservatives nor moderates within the party are particularly happy with their party’s leaders today. Fewer than half (46%) of conservative Republicans offer a favorable assessment, down from 56% a month ago. And just 40% of moderate and liberal Republicans approve of the job GOP congressional leaders are doing, down from 52% a month ago. The decline in approval within the GOP base has been most severe among higher income Republicans (from 56% in February to 42% today) and those who are not college graduates (from 57% a month ago to 42% today).

Republicans are unhappy their party can't control deficits, and as noted above, every segment of self-identifed Republicans are unhappy.

There's good reading and reams of data herein about Rush Limbaugh ("Nearly four-in-ten Americans (39%) say they think Rush Limbaugh has too much influence over the Republican Party"), views on the economy, a desire for more government control (but smaller government), and much more, but let's not pretend the Party of No is doing themselves any good at the moment by not presenting alternatives. Democrats already don't like them, Independents are disposed not to like them at the moment, and as it turns out, even Republicans don't like them.

The problems for the GOP are much deeper than Michael Steele, and not getting better in any demonstrable way. So while the headlines will be about Obama's numbers, the interesting data is all about vanishing respect for Republicans as they paint themselves in a corner trying to be relevant to a shrinking base.

We've discussed the 2004 and 2008 turnout models when we look at polling. Gallup LV traditional (likely voter) and other polling organizations assume an almost even split between D and R. In 2004, the exit polls suggested 37% D, 37% R and 26% Independent.

One of the factors in the tighter polls offered by some of the pollsters is this idea of a closer D-R split. Research 2000, the Daily Kos tracking poll pollster uses 9% difference, and many others including Gallup and ABC use similar models. Hotline has used 5-6, as has Rasmussen (theirs floats a bit).

Pew, in an extensive data collection, has this to say:

In Pew surveys conducted since August of this year, 51% of all voters say they think of themselves as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, up five points from 46% during the same period in 2004. Meanwhile, the number identifying with or leaning toward the Republican Party has fallen from 45% to 41%. In this cycle, the Democratic Party enjoys a 10-point advantage in party identification, compared with a one-point edge in the fall of 2004.

and the gains skew young.

The proportion of voters identifying with the Democratic Party has grown significantly since the 2004 election, and the shift has been particularly dramatic among younger voters. Fully 61% of voters ages 18 to 29 identify or lean Democratic and a comparable percentage supports Barack Obama. But Democratic gains in party affiliation among older voters since 2004 have been much more modest. Moreover, support for Obama among voters ages 50 and older is slightly lower than the share of this cohort that identifies with the Democratic Party.

The implications for the different generations are quite interesting. The 30-44 age group has been a topic of discussion here, because they lean McCain (the only cohort that does.)

About this demographic R lean, Pew notes:

Voters ages 30 to 49, a group that includes the more conservative "Generation X, "also have shifted considerably since 2004. Nearly half (49%) of voters in this age group identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, up from 43% in 2004. Democrats currently have a six-point advantage over Republicans among voters in this age group; at a comparable stage in the last campaign, Republicans had a six-point advantage. However, voters who are now in their early to mid-40s, a cohort that came of age politically in the Reagan years, remain one of the most Republican-oriented age cohorts; they are about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

But think of the implications for the future:

The greatest gains for the Democratic Party have come among younger voters. The percentage of voters ages 18 to 29 identifying with the Democratic Party has increased from 48% in the fall of 2004 to 61% currently. Democrats now outnumber Republicans by a margin of nearly two-to-one (61% to 32%) in this age group, up from only a seven-point advantage in 2004.

This isn't your father's election. Moving forward, the Democratic party may well become the Big Tent it once was, that that means accomodating more moderate views.  And by that, I mean the country is not going to be falling for witch hunts to gin up electoral wins the way the Republicans love to do (see Elizabeth Dole.)

In some respects, the kids have more sense than their elders. That doesn't bode well for Sarah Palin's syle of Know Nothing conservatism. And if it breaks Joe Scarborough's heart that character assassination attempts and charges of "socialism" don't work the way they used to for the GOP, too frickin' bad.

The Pew poll is one of the most respected in the business, and a real narrative setter. Today's has very bad news for Palin McCain-Palin

McCain Support Continues Downward Spiral
Obama Leads by 19 Among Those Who Have Already Voted

Barack Obama leads John McCain by a 52% to 36% margin in Pew’s latest nationwide survey of 1,325 registered voters. This is the fourth consecutive survey that has found support for the Republican candidate edging down. In contrast, since early October weekly Pew surveys have shown about the same number of respondents saying they back Obama.

Check out enthusiasm.

This important stat means evereything in terms of who will show. People want to be part of a history-making election, and the first Serious Election in some time (one dominated by issues instead of the usual Republican character assassination. Republicans and conservatives are peeved about that, as if life is unfair because of it. The rest of America and the world is rejoicing.)

Here's another important observation:

The survey finds that the proportion of Americans who disapprove of Bush’s job performance has hit a new high in a Pew survey (70%); just 22% now approve of the way Bush is handling his job. Since January, when Bush’s job rating was already quite low, at 31%, his approval mark has declined by nine points.

As disapproval of President Bush’s job performance has edged upward, fewer voters say that McCain would take the country in a different direction from Bush’s. Currently, more voters say McCain would continue Bush’s policies than say he would take the country in a different direction (47% vs. 40%). Just a week ago (Oct. 16-19), voters were divided over whether McCain would continue Bush’s policies or not (44% continue, 45% take new direction).

Albatross!! Actually the NBC/WSJ poll says Palin is a bigger albatross.

Note also the undecideds (and don't predict how they'll vote, because they are not really paying attention):

On most issues, the positions held by undecided voters fall between those of Obama and McCain supporters, although they are somewhat more similar to McCain supporters on the issue of illegal immigration. Overall, these voters are more likely than supporters of either candidate to say they don’t have an opinion about most issues.

Undecided voters do clearly distinguish themselves from supporters of both McCain and Obama in their lower levels of participation and interest in this election, and partisan politics in general. A majority (51%) of undecideds do not identify with either the Republican or Democratic parties and fewer than half (48%) report having voted in the primaries this year; by contrast, 63% of both Obama and McCain supporters say they voted in a primary.

Not much good news for McCain here. The trackers are closer to 6-7 than Pew, but then again, Pew has better LV modeling than some of the trackers. But as for the final tally, well, we'll just have to wait on that one.

In any case, Gallup adds insult to injury:

Poll: 7 in 10 Americans Say Obama Will Win
Even McCain supporters slightly more likely to say Obama, rather than McCain, will win

Ouch.

see also dotmike's diary for more discussion.

Pew is one of the most respected pollsters in the business, and like Gallup, can drive media narrative without being a network-sponsored poll.

Barack Obama’s lead over John McCain has steadily increased since mid-September, when the race was essentially even. Shortly after the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, Obama moved to a 49% to 42% lead; that margin inched up to 50% to 40% in a poll taken just after the second debate. Currently, Obama enjoys his widest margin yet over McCain among registered voters, at 52% to 38%. When the sample of voters is narrowed to those most likely to vote, Obama leads by 53% to 39%.

Pew Oct 16-19, MoE +/- 2.5

Obama   52 (50)
McCain  38 (40)

It's McCain:

Obama’s gains notwithstanding, a widespread loss of confidence in McCain appears to be the most significant factor in the race at this point. Many more voters express doubts about McCain’s judgment than about Obama’s: 41% see McCain as "having poor judgment," while just 29% say that this trait describes Obama. Fewer voters also view McCain as inspiring than did so in mid-September (37% now, 43% then). By contrast, 71% of voters continue to think of Obama as inspiring.

And Sarah Palin remains a huge negative:

In addition, Sarah Palin appears to be a continuing – if not an increasing – drag on the GOP ticket. Currently, 49% of voters express an unfavorable opinion of Palin, while 44% have a favorable view. In mid-September, favorable opinions of Palin outnumbered negative ones by 54% to 32%. Women, especially women under age 50, have become increasingly critical of Palin: 60% now express an unfavorable view of Palin, up from 36% in mid-September. Notably, opinions of Palin have a greater impact on voting intentions than do opinions of Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate.

If one tries to look for good news for McCain in this poll with 2 weeks left in the campaign, good luck. Here's something, but it ain't much.

First, while somewhat more voters see Obama as well-qualified than did so in mid-September, only about half (53%) say this trait describes him; 72% say McCain is well-qualified. Second, swing voters continue to represent nearly a quarter of the electorate (23%). Notably, swing voters are less likely than all voters to say that McCain would continue Bush’s policies. They also express far more confidence in McCain than Obama to handle national security issues.

Great read, this poll. One thing about Pew is that they write a terrific narrative to go woth the numbers.In any case, this will give us lots of food for thought... until the next tracking poll (ABC at 5 pm EDT).

Pew (complete report here, .pdf):

The horse race number is interesting, but not surprising. The fascinating part of the poll lies elsewhere, and you get a peek at that from the above graphic (look at "strong support" for McCain vs other Republicans, especially Bush, which in context refers to "not likely to switch".)

Two unprecedented findings from the new survey support a potential Democratic turnout advantage. For the first time in Center polls conducted since 1992, a greater proportion of Democrats than Republicans are expressing strong interest in the campaign. Nearly eight-in-ten Democratic voters (77%) say they are giving a lot of thought to the election, up 18 points since June 2004. Republican engagement also has increased over this period (from 61% to 72%), but for the first time somewhat fewer GOP voters than Democrats say they are giving a lot of thought to the election.

There is an even larger gap in the percentage of voters in each party saying they are now more interested in politics than they were during the previous campaign. About seven-in-ten Democratic voters (71%) report they are more interested in politics than they were four years ago, compared with barely half of Republican voters (51%). As with other measures of political engagement, in the past there were no partisan differences or Republicans held the advantage.

People who perceive they might win are likely to be more interested in those who think they are going to lose. Also:

A second factor which may also contribute to a Democratic turnout advantage is that supporters of the Republican candidate, uncharacteristically, are less strongly committed to their choice than are supporters of the Democratic candidate. Overall, Obama leads McCain in the presidential horserace by 48% to 40%. Most voters who say they support Obama - 28% among the 48% - say they support him strongly. By contrast, only about a third of McCain's backers say they support him strongly (14% of the 40%).

Don't miss this! georgia10, this one's for you:

Compared with previous election cycles, voter engagement is up among all demographic groups, but has increased more among voters under age 50 than among older voters. Uncharacteristically, the youngest voters - those under age 30 - are at least as knowledgeable, and in some cases more knowledgeable, about candidates' positions on Iraq and abortion than are older voters.

And some of the more interesting pieces come in the afterword:

Other findings

• A majority of voters (55%) give Obama a grade of A or B for convincing them to vote for him. That is a higher grade than for any Democratic or Republican candidate in the past three campaigns. By contrast, just 32% give McCain a grade of A or B.
• A small but stable minority of voters (12%) of voters believe that Obama is a Muslim. That is about the same percentage that said Obama was a Muslim in March (10%).
• Most Democratic and Democratic-leaning women voters (60%) want Obama to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. But voters who supported Obama in the Democratic primaries remain cool to this idea.
• A quarter of liberal Democrats say they have contributed money to a presidential candidate in the past year, about double the proportion of conservative Republicans who have donated (13%).
• Democrats who favored Clinton for the nomination remain critical of Obama. Just 35% say he is more personally qualified than McCain to be president; former Clinton supporters are split as to whether McCain or Obama could better deal with terrorist threats.
• Conservative Republican voters are decidedly less optimistic about their party's chances in the fall than they were just a few months ago. Just 49% say McCain is mostly likely to win, down from 71% in April.

Bottom line: Obama hasn't reached his ceiling yet, but it's not so clear that's true for McCain (an observation made earlier by one of our commenters, fladem, but for different reasons.)

In any case, this is no 'statistical dead heat' regardless of what the tracking polls show from day to day. Oh, and by the way:

In this regard, nearly twice as many voters believe the fact that Obama is new to national politics will hurt him in the election as say that the fact that he is African American will hurt him (42% vs. 22%). But even more voters (51%) say that the fact that McCain is 71-years-old will hurt his chances this fall.

Ouch. Interestingly, while it got significant play on MSNBC this afternoon, ABC World News Tonight didn't bother to cover any of the Pew data. It's not their poll.

Pew just put out a new poll. The general findings won't surprise you, but the particulars might. It seem to validate the effort of Democrats to link McCain to Bush. (Of course, it's McCain who linked himself to Bush. We're just pointing it out.)