Margin of Σrror

Margin of Σrror -

Category Archives: Republicans

Same-sex marriage could take decades to be legal in every state | Harry J Enten

Unless the federal government or supreme court act, southern states will most likely oppose gay marriage for the foreseeable future

The gay marriage movement is racing forward faster than ever, and with a new burst of life. This week, Minnesota became the third state to pass same-sex marriage this year, and the twelfth state overall, but most surprisingly, this was a state that, according to polls, was willing to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage a year ago.

Minnesota won’t be the last state to make do a quick turnaround. National polling indicates that the majority support for same-sex marriage is picking up by 2pt per year. Among states, gay marriage is popular in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and many others.

Indeed, demographic models indicate that if put up for a vote, same-sex marriage would become legal in all but six states by 2020! Even Mississippi is projected to be up to near 40% support on the issue, gaining a little over 1.5pt per year. So the whole thing should be over soon, right? Not likely.

Unless the federal government or supreme court acts, it could take years and years for many southern states to legalize same-sex marriage.

As Nate Cohn notes, there’s reason to believe that the demographic models are off in the south. The south has a far higher percentage of white evangelicals than any other part of the country, and these voters have been very slow to change their views. The great majority of young, white evangelicals still oppose gay marriage, unlike other young voters.

State polls show a number of southern states running behind where the demographic models indicate where they should be.

Indeed, some states have shown very virtually no change since they approved constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. At the rate Arkansas is moving, it will take more than 20 or even 30 years for the majority of voters to be in favor of same-sex marriage. In Kentucky, only 30% of voters 18-29-years-old are in favor of gay marriage.

The problem, however, is not just that it will take a while for a majority of voters to support same-sex marriage. All the southern states except for West Virginia have a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage, which requires an amendment to repeal the previous one. The process for doing so in many southern states requires a majority in the state legislature, which is to say that voters can’t just petition to get something on the ballot.

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia can only get an amendment on the ballot with approval from the state legislature. West Virginia doesn’t allow referendums or initiatives to be voted upon, so it has to start in the legislature there, as well. Only Arkansas and Mississippi let voters directly pass a constitutional amendment.

The states that require legislature approval have very stringent rules, too: either a constitutional convention can be called, which is almost impossible, or the legislature can pass the amendment before sending it to the voters.

Alabama, Kentucky and North Carolina require +60% of each chamber of the state legislature to approve an amendment, just to get it on the ballot. A simple majority of voters must then approve. Right now, Republicans control over 60% of the seats in at least one chamber of all these state legislatures.

Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas require two-thirds of each chamber to approve an amendment for the ballot. Then, the amendments need a majority vote from the people. Republicans control over 55% of each house of these states.

Tennessee and Virginia require a majority of each chamber of the legislature in one session, then it must be voted upon again by the next legislature, which means an entire election must go by. In Tennessee, two-thirds of each house must then approve for it to be placed for a majority vote of the people; Virginia only needs a majority. Tennessee Republicans control 70% of each state chamber. Virginia Republicans hold two-thirds of the seats in Virginia.

The bottom line is that with the exception of Arkansas, Mississippi and Virginia, any southern state with a ban in place would need at least 60% each of their state houses to reverse the ban. Republicans have at least partial control of all the legislatures near the border and in the deep south. Many of these states were won over recently, as the last remnants of the Yellow Dog Democrats bit the dust. Change seems rather unlikely, except perhaps for peripheral states, like North Carolina and Virginia. The only one that isn’t Republican controlled, West Virginia, is so conservative that Joe Manchin, one of only two Democratic US senators who doesn’t personally support gay marriage, calls it home.

Republican control is a big deal because though the rest of the country has moved, Republicans, especially southern Republicans, have not. Only 26% of Republicans support gay marriage. The percentage of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage rose by 15pt over the past decade; the percentage of Republicans favoring gay marriage only rose by 3pt over the same period. That’s a growth rate of only 0.3pt a year.

Specific state polling is no more comforting to those looking forward to change. Support for same-sex marriage in these states is as follows: 10% of Georgia Republicans, 11% of Louisiana Republicans, 12% of Kentucky Republicans, 12% of North Carolina Republicans, 9% of South Carolina Republicans, 14% of Texas Republicans, and a quarter of Virginia Republicans.

With the exception of Virginia, it’s pretty clear that southern Republican support for gay marriage is lower than among Republicans nationally. As such, it’s difficult to see how support among southern Republicans will hit 50% anytime before 2040. It’s hard to imagine more than the stray Republican voting for same-sex marriage. Polarization is at all-time high, and politicians are more afraid about losing primaries than general elections. Republicans have no need to vote for same-sex marriage.

Thus, unless the federal government jumps in, most, if not all southern states won’t legalize same-sex marriage for the foreseeable future. Most of their citizens don’t want it, and by the time they do, most Republicans still won’t. Considering you’ll need a majority or supermajority of state legislators to get the bans reversed, and that Republicans have a strong hold over these chambers, same-sex marriage in the south doesn’t have much of a chance anytime soon.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Has the Millennial generation ‘overwhelmed’ the electorate? | Harry J Enten

Though they’ve drawn comparisons with the Greatest Generation for their liberal leanings, young people haven’t taken over yet

The Millennials are the most Democratic cohort in a generation. Some believe attribute their liberal inclinations to the racially diverse demographics within their generation, and while that may be partially true, I prescribe the Millennials’ (born after 1980 through the mid-90s) Democratic leanings to the fact they grew up during a strong Clinton administration and a weak Bush one. The Millennials today have mostly replaced the very white, very Democratic voters of the Greatest Generation (who were born 1910-1927) who came of age during the weak years under Hoover and a Roosevelt administration so strong it won FDR a third term.

In both the 2004 and 2012 election, almost all age cohorts voted the same relative to other cohorts, and the Millennials were as Democratic relative to the nation in 2004 and 2012. The Greatest Generation was too small a percentage of the electorate in 2012 to collect poll data, but they voted as Democratic as the Millennnials did in 2004.

Proving the cohort point further, the then +60-year-old Greatest Generation has been the most Democratic cohort all the way back in 1988, when age cohorts didn’t differ all that much in how they voted – despite even some members of the Lost Generation still voting. The Greatest Generation crowd was the most Democratic in the 1992 election, as well.

Even the most ardent critics of the cohort theory will admit that a person’s views of the presidential administration he or she grew up with will shape their political views going forward. The real question is whether or not the Millennials have a a large enough portion of the electorate to “overwhelm” the rest: would Bush have still won in 2004 with 2012 demographics, and would Obama have still won with 2004 demographics? With the release of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) voter supplement, we can find out.

The CPS is a geographically defined sample that seeks to fully represents each type of voter. Respondents are asked simple questions such as race, registration, and whether or not they voted. It is generally seen as a more comprehensive survey than network exit polls to determine the exact composition of the electorate.

There are, however, reasons to be cautious about making too much of the CPS report. The CPS doesn’t have a perfect response rate, and as my friend Sean Trende points out, there are more people who claimed to the CPS to have voted than actually did. The CPS tabulators assume that those who didn’t respond didn’t vote, which is likely not true, but there’s no perfect way to account for the discrepancies. Preliminary examination of board of election data from different states shows that fewer African Americans, for instance, voted than the numbers that the CPS finds.

Either way, the CPS is a very solid starting point, and we can still take a preliminary step in answering whether or not Obama would have won without the Millennials. We can determine this by multiplying the percent of what Obama won among Millennials by the percentage they made up of the electorate. In other words, the percentage of vote the Millennials contributed to Obama’s margin of victory. Then we compare this with the percentage of the vote the Greatest Generation contributed in prior years, and we’ll have a solid answer.

The Millennials now make up 18% of the electorate, per the CPS. That’s less than the exit poll data reports, but exits have been known to count too many young voters. Meanwhile, the CPS data is backed quite well by Pew Research, which most would agree is one of the finest pollsters out there, if not the best.

Those born between 1910 and 1927 were just 2% of the 2012 electorate. In 1996, the election before the Millennials began voting, the Greatest made up 15% of everyone who cast a ballot. By the time 2004 rolled around, Millennials were 8% of the electorate, while the Greatest was down to 7%. Thus, as a percentage of the total electorate, there was a 5pt gain in the Democratic coalition of the Greatest Generation and Millennials from 1996 to 2012, and from 2004 to 2012.

Given Obama’s +20pt win among Millennials, what percentage of the vote is that 5pt difference worth? With the 2004 electorate, Obama would have won by 2.6pt instead of 3.85pt last year. Meanwhile, if the 2004 electorate had looked like the 2012 one, George W Bush would have won by 1.2pt instead of 2.45pt. So yes, the Democratic candidate would have done slightly better with the demographic boost, but neither election would have turned out any differently.

Further comparisons to 1996 and 2004 undersell the Greatest Generation’s impact. The Greatest were 17% of the electorate in 1992, 21% in 1988, 24% in 1984, and 27% in 1980, but have dropped steeply as more of their members pass away. The Millennials, meanwhile, are still far away from 24%, let alone 27%. If other age cohorts had voted the same relative to the national vote, Obama might have actually won by more in prior years.

To me, the evidence does not suggest the Millennials have “overwhelmed” the Greatest. They are, if anything, a new “Greatest Generation” both in terms of voting patterns and, to a lesser extent, size – though we can still expect the Millennials to grow somewhat as a percentage of the electorate, since people are more likely to vote as they get older. The question going forward is whether Generation Z (born in the mid-90s and later) will follow the voting patterns of the Millennials.

His small re-election margin and his projected historic ratings mean that the Obama administration has largely been seen as mediocre, which in turn suggests that the next age cohort will walk the middle of the road. The polling data agrees that Generation Z will be less Democratic, than the Millenials, but if one believes the racial diversity theory, then the next generation should actually be more liberal, as it will have fewer white voters.

We don’t know whether the age cohort or racial diversity theory will end up being more correct in the long run. If it’s the diversity one, Republicans are in a lot of trouble. If it’s the age cohort theory, then it will be politics as usual. I’d bet on age.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Why Chris Christie’s weight loss could actually work against him | Harry Enten

Polls have shown surprisingly that when it comes to male candidates, voters look more favorably on overweight aspirants

Sometimes, Washington DC seems like Hollywood for nerds. No clearer was that the case than the media’s reaction to the news that New Jersey governor Chris Christie submitted himself to lapband weight-loss surgery. Never mind that Christie said he was simply losing weight to be healthy for the sake of his family. The first question the press, as they would in Hollywood, asked is how being slimmer would impact Christie’s future career. So do Christie’s chance of becoming president improve because he is carrying fewer pounds?

Some of us may be too young to remember that the press wondered if Christie was “too fat” to be governor from New Jersey. In fact, it was the subject of a Newsweek article and Democrat Jon Corzine’s attacks in 2009. Back then, 78% of voters said that Christie’s weight made no difference in their vote. You might think that the voters were lying until you realize that Christie became arguably the most conservative Republican governor from New Jersey in modern history. He did so while winning a larger percentage of the vote than any Republican candidate for governor in New Jersey in 24 years.

Recent polling backs up the older polling. A Quinnipiac poll taken in March 2013 of New Jersey voters found that only 21% of voters had any reservations about a generic candidate’s weight. A September 2012 Quinnpiac poll showed that 84% of New Jersey voters said it wouldn’t make a difference in their vote if a generic candidate was overweight. In New York, the percentage rose to 88%, so it’s not just a home state bias. Even after an asthma attack in 2011, only 18% of New Jersey voters said they were worried about Christie’s weight. Keep in mind that all of this New Jersey polling took place when Christie had a far lower approval rating than he sports now.

There are also signs that attacks on Christie’s weight backfire. I’m not just talking about the fact that Jon Corzine lost in 2009. I’m talking about an October 2011 Quinnipiac poll that showed that 71% of New Jersey voters said that jokes about Christie’s weight were in bad taste. This polling was consistent across political parties. Moreover, 79% of women, who Republicans have a problem with, thought that the jokes were in bad taste. Most were voters willing to go farther than just “bad taste”: 72% agreed with Christie that political commentators who brought up his weight were “ignorant”.

Some might say that the weight issue would be different in other states. I don’t buy it. New Jersey and New York are two of the slimmest states in the nation with obesity rates of less than 25%. If weight were an issue, we’d expect to be in these states. I would think it would be far less of an issue in the battleground states of the midwest given that 25% to, in some cases, over 30% of the population is overweight in these states. In a Republican primary, Christie’s weight shouldn’t deter him from winning southern states given that the majority have obesity rates over 30%.

Indeed, some of the livelier southern politicians of our day were at least at some point overweight while in office. Anyone remember Bill Clinton’s weight problem? His McDonald’s excursions didn’t stop him from becoming president. Haley Barbour was a well-liked two-term Republican governor of Mississippi. Mike Huckabee did slim down for health reasons before his presidential run, yet was popular as an overweight governor. Newt Gingrich’s health would likely benefit from losing a few pounds, but I think most would agree he didn’t lose in 2012 because of weight.

Examples and polling aside, you might think that these politicians’ weight did hurt them. That is, they would have been even more popular if they were slimmer. Given the polling, you’d have to believe the voters were unwilling to admit that weight kept them from pulling the lever for these overweight candidates.

The good news is that we actually have scientific research that seeks to control for this potential social desirability bias. A 2010 University of Missouri-Kansas City study looked at how people reacted to pictures of a potential candidate of normal weight. This control group was compared to other respondents who were shown pictures of the same candidate, except the candidate’s picture was morphed to be obese. Everything else about the candidate including political affiliation, views, and background remained the same.

And did the candidate’s weight make a difference? If the candidate was female, extra weight was a small negative. That concurs with a survey this year by Lake Research that found the mere mention of a woman candidate’s physical appearance hurt them. This was especially the case when the appearance coverage was unflattering.

For men, however, the 2010 University of Missouri study found that being obese was not a negative. It was actually a large positive! Respondents were over 20 points more likely to have a warmer feeling towards the same male candidate if he were obese than if were skinny. The obese candidate was 10% better liked than if he were skinny. The obese candidate was also thought to be more intelligent than the skinny one.

These positives for males make sense if you think about it. Society trains us to think this way. To bring it back to Hollywood, look at the Nutty Professor with Eddie Murphy. Murphy’s character Professor Klump was obese. He was, however, smart as a whip and very likable. Klump’s skinny equivalent Buddy Love was not nearly as smart and was a jerk. At the end of both Nutty Professor 1 and 2, the audience is rooting for Klump to beat his arch nemesis, and he does. Meanwhile, Klump doesn’t get together with an overweight woman. Instead, he ends up with characters played by the very attractive Jada Pinkett Smith in the first movie and Janet Jackson in the second one. These characters happen to be very kind and intelligent too.

When you take all the evidence into account, Chris Christie doesn’t need to lose weight to become president. Voters say they don’t care about weight, and their actions back them up. The research says that Christie’s electoral prospects might be better off keeping on the pounds. For now, can’t we just be happy that Christie wants to be a healthier individual?

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Yes, Mark Sanford really has a chance to beat Elizabeth Colbert Busch | Harry J Enten

South Carolina’s special election may turn into a referendum on President Obama, which is bad news for Colbert Busch

Republican Mark Sanford has closed the gap with Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in the South Carolina first district special election to take place on Tuesday. The latest poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP) has Sanford jumping into to a 1 pt lead 47% to 46% after being down in the same survey 9 pts just two weeks ago. A poll from Red Racing Horses (RRH) has Colbert Busch and Sanford tied at 46%.

A Sanford win in the final two weeks after being down 9 pts would be unusual. As I noted last week, only a little less than 15% of special election polls taken in the final two weeks of a campaign over the past decade have had a 9 pts or greater error margin. Even in the quick changing special Massachusetts senate election of 2010, Scott Brown gained only 4 pts in the final 10 days.

It’s not as if voters all of a sudden like Sanford, the former South Carolina Governor who is most well known nationally for cheating on his wife. Sanford’s less liked than Colbert Busch with a 43% favorable rating compared to 50%, respectively, per PPP. They just dislike President Obama. By a 4 pt margin, though, voters have a higher opinion of Sanford than President Obama. That reflects a district that voted for Republican Mitt Romney by 18 pts.

Therefore it shouldn’t be surprising that Sanford’s comeback is entirely built upon newfound Republican support likely gained by nationalizing the race. Some Republican voters are deciding that they would vote instead of staying home in disgust of Sanford’s affair and divorce. The electorate PPP now projects voted for Mitt Romney over President Obama by 13 pts versus a projected electorate of just a 5 pt edge for Romney in their last poll. Sanford has also expanded his lead among Romney voters from 49 pts two weeks ago to 61 pts now.

The good news for Colbert Busch is that most of Sanford’s comeback occurred about a week ago. You’ll note that RRH conducted their poll in the beginning to middle part of last week, while PPP’s was done over the weekend. Despite the differences in timing, the results are almost identical. That tends to indicate that Sanford has likely leveled off. The result is a race that is at this point simply too close to call with neither candidate having too much momentum.

So just how long will we have to wait for results on Tuesday Night? We should know by 9:30pm, if the primary for this election is any guide. The polls close at 7pm EST. During the primary this year, it took about 45 minutes (7:45pm EST) after the polls closed for results to start being reported. By 8pm, about 5% of precincts had posted their results. By 8:35pm, 50% of precincts were in. By 9:20pm, we had results for all but 1% of precincts.

Where are each of the candidates supposed to do best? The district is made up of five counties: Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleston and Dorchester. In the 2012 house election for this seat, Republican Tim Scott got between 60% and 65% in all the counties except for Colleston. Colleston, however, makes up less than 1% of the district’s population.

The RRH poll forecasts that we should see greater differences between the counties in this election. In their poll, which had a tie, Colbert-Busch led by 4 pts in Charleston and 13 pts in Beaufort. Sanford grabbed a lead of 13 pts in Dorchester and 20 pts in Berkeley.

Usually this county breakdown would be bad news for Colbert Busch given the populations each of these counties make up in the district. The issue for Sanford is that some voters the more culturally conservative areas in Dorchester and Berkeley seem to still be staying home. That’s why we’re expecting to see an electorate that voted for Romney by 13 pts, not 18 pts. If these counties vote their population weight, Sanford likely wins by 3 to 4 pts.

Thus, the key for Republican Mark Sanford winning is either high turnout or over-performing the expected county breakdown. Whether or not this occurs is what will determine either Sanford or Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch wins tomorrow.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

No Patriot Act II: Americans choose civil liberties over security laws | Harry J Enten

Unlike 9/11, the Boston attack will not lead to new anti-terror law. But Democrats are now less civil libertarian than Republicans

Terrorist attacks offer lawmakers an ability to react. After 9/11, the American government decided to go to war in Afghanistan and to enact new laws aimed at curbing future attacks. The Patriot Act, for instance, has been regarded by some as a necessary step for safety and by others as an infringement on civil liberties.

Following the Boston Marathon attack, we’ve heard Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain, among others, push for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be handled in a way that many believe would be a violation of his civil liberties. So, has the Boston bombing opened up an avenue for lawmakers to pursue controversial new anti-terrorism measures that may limit civil liberties?

Almost certainly not. The latest CNN/Time/ORC poll finds that 49% of Americans are not willing to give up civil liberties in order curb terrorism, while only 40% are. In fact, 61% of Americans are more fearful that the government will overreact to the Boston bombing, compared to 31% who are worried that the government won’t act strongly enough.

Other polls confirm these findings. Just after the attacks, Fox News found that 43% of Americans were willing to give up “some personal freedom” to reduce the threat of an attack, while 45% were not. A Washington Post poll, from before the bombers were caught, reported that only 41% of Americans were most worried that the government wouldn’t go far enough because of constitutional concerns. Almost half of Americans, 48%, were worried the government would go too far and compromise constitutional rights.

The reaction to Boston has been monumentally different to the polling results after 9/11. Immediately following the attacks on the WTC, 66% of Americans were willing to give up “civil liberties” to stop terrorism – 26pt higher than today. And 39% of Americans were concerned that strong laws wouldn’t be enacted, while 34% were more concerned about restricting civil liberties. That 4pt lead for enacting stronger laws is now a 30pt lead in favor of protecting civil liberties, per the ORC poll. After 9/11, 71% of Americans were willing to give up “personal freedom” to reduce the threat of a terrorist attack per Fox – 28pt higher than today.

Indeed, the party breakdown of new polling means that Graham and McCain have even less chance of getting their way. Democrats at large – who are unlikely to agree with hawkish senators – are now more willing to give up personal freedoms than Republicans. In the CNN/Time/ORC survey, 51% of Democrats were were willing to give up some civil liberties to curb terrorism, while only 41% of Republicans were. Fox found an identical 51% of Democrats were willing to give up “personal freedom”, against just 43% of Republicans. The Washington Post poll found the same 8pt spread between Democrats and Republicans on the question of whether the government might compromise constitutional rights.

Republicans, it seems, have become the standard-bearers of civil liberties due to two factors: who’s in the White House and shifting currents inside each party.

The executive branch, the government’s chief, is currently a Democrat – one who many Republicans believe, for instance, is out to take their guns. After 9/11, a Republican president held office, which likely accounts for the parties switching positions. We already know that a respondent or a politician will often oppose an issue or policy just because of who’s in charge.

Second, the Republican party is increasingly becoming the party of Rand Paul and civil libertarians. You would expect exactly these respondents to be against an intrusion on civil liberties. Many Paulites tend to call themselves independents, which would also explain why, in the CNN/Time/ORC and Fox News, independents were the least likely to give up personal freedoms, at 32% and 29%, respectively.

This puts hawkish Republicans like Graham and McCain in an awkward position within their own party. If there were a Republican in the White House, I think more Republicans would be willing to sacrifice civil liberties to prevent terrorism. At the same time, though, the Republican party simply is in a different place than it was a decade ago.

Overall, the chances of any major, hawkish changes in terrorist policy are significantly hampered by public opinion. Americans did not react to the Boston bombings with anything near the willingness to sacrifice civil liberties they showed after 9/11. That Republicans – usually hawkish on national security issues – are wary of giving power to the Democratic-run executive branch only further weakens the chances that any new law might pass.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

It’ll take more than a presidential library to make George W Bush popular | Harry J Enten

Don’t be fooled by a new poll showing Americans think fondly of ‘Dubya’. Of recent presidents, only Richard Nixon was less liked

The George W Bush presidential library is opening this week. Not surprisingly, fans of the former president are out in full force trying to help with the rehabilitation’s of Bush’s image.

Bush, of course, ended his presidency with an approval rating around 30%. This previous low, combined with the library opening, has helped give an impression of elevation to a new ABC/Washington Post poll that put his retrospective job approval rating at 47%.

The fact that President Obama’s approval rating in the current HuffPollster aggregate is a similar 48% only helps with the intrigue. The Washington Free Beacon wrote an article titled “Dubya’s Approval Matches Obama’s”. Add on the fact that Obama’s approval rating and Bush’s retrospective approval on the economy approval rating are about the same, and you got the makings of a great press narrative.

Let me be the one who tries to nip this story in the bud. I have no clue what type of person George W Bush is, or how history will view him in the future. What I do know is that the 47% retrospective approval rating should be put in context.

First, retrospective approval ratings should almost never be compared to current job approval ratings. Humans have a tendency to remember their elected officials more fondly than they did when they left office. Back in 2010, Gallup asked Americans what their retrospective approval rating was for Presidents John F Kennedy through George W Bush. In every instance except for one, the retrospective approval was higher than the final approval was when they left office.

Most Republicans, for instance, love to make fun of Jimmy Carter. Carter was the only president of the 20th century to lose re-election after replacing a president of a different party. He left office with a 34% job approval rating. His retrospective job approval rating in the 2010 Gallup poll jumped by 18pt.

Second, Bush’s retrospective approval is the second worst among presidents in the last 50 years ago. To save you doing the math, Carter’s 52% approval rating is higher than Bush’s 47%. Only the Watergate-tainted Richard Nixon recorded a lower retrospective approval than Bush.

Most presidents have retrospective approval ratings above 60%. All but Nixon and Bush have +10 or better retrospective net approval ratings. Thus, not only did Bush tie for the second worst final approval rating while in office, but he is also has the second worst retrospective job approval rating.

Third, the Gallup data should make clear that George W Bush hasn’t seen much recovery over the past three years in his retrospective approval rating. The 47% in the latest Washington Post poll is the same as the 47% that Gallup found in 2010. The 50% disapproval now is nearly identical to the 51% three years ago. Yes, people view him more rosily now than they did during his presidency, but that effect has been baked in for a while now. He’s not getting more loved as time goes by.

Finally, the retrospective approval rating probably gives a false sense of how Americans view Bush now. Remember that a retrospective approval is exactly that – retrospective. The better way to view how Bush stands with the American public is his current favorable ratings. In the past two years, there have been five polls conducted that have asked about Bush’s favorable rating with the American public.

Bush currently holds an average -5pt net favorable rating with the American public. President Obama’s favorable rating is almost exactly the reverse of that, at +7pt in the HuffPollster aggregate. Indeed, even the losing Republican nominee Mitt Romney ended the 2012 campaign with a higher net favorable than Bush, at -3pt.

It’s no wonder that President Bush continues to hurt the Republican party. Mitt Romney tried his hardest to tie what many saw as a lackluster economy in 2012 to President Obama. The problem was that most Americans still blamed Bush over Obama. In the network exit polls, 53% said the economic problems were more Bush’s than Obama’s fault. Only 38% of Americans disagreed.

So, George W Bush may be more fondly thought of now than he was when he left office, yet this is to be expected – and discounted. Almost all presidents see a boost after they leave office. Bush is still quite unpopular compared with other former presidents, and his current favorable rating is far worse than President Obama’s. No library opening is changing that. Republicans would be wise to stay away from embracing George W Bush for the time being.

• This article has been amended to reflect updated polling data as of 25 April 2013.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Immigration reform won’t deliver a Latino voter ‘bonanza’ to Democrats | Harry J Enten

To assume that 11 million undocumented immigrants potentially eligible to vote will change US political arithmetic is erroneous

I have been quite skeptical about the ability of the Republican party to win over Latino voters. As others and I have noted, Latinos don’t vote Democratic just because of immigration policy. They vote Democratic because they are more ideologically “in sync” with the Democratic party. That’s why I’ve felt that going along with immigration reform was unlikely to net Republicans many Latino voters.

That said, I can’t agree either with the math in a Politico article titled “Immigration reform could be a bonanza for Democrats”. The article starts off promisingly enough with the premise that if immigration reform passed and undocumented immigrants became citizens, Latinos would start voting Democratic in even larger numbers. I can go along with this because the main reason anyone votes for or against a political party is for its economic platform, and 81% of first generation Latino immigrants say they want a “bigger government with more services”, compared to only 48% of Americans overall.

Politico then uses the commonly quoted figure of 11 million undocumented immigrants and claims that there would, therefore, be “up to” 11 million undocumented immigrants up for grabs if they all became citizens. If these 11 million then voted along the lines of the Latinos who cast a ballot in 2012, Obama would have won the national vote by 7pt instead of 4pt. He could have carried Arizona and even Texas, which were each won comfortably by Republican Mitt Romney.

The problem I have, though, is why would anyone use the 11 million figure for reference.

First off, 1 million undocumented immigrants are under the age of 18. I don’t care what your immigration status is, you can’t vote in United States presidential elections if you are under the age of 18.

Second, of the 10 million adults, 19% aren’t actually Latino; 11% are Asian. Asian voting patterns tend to be less stable than Latinos. In the past election, Asians went for President Obama by about 45pt. Twenty years ago, they went for Republican George HW Bush.

Without more research (and there is surprisingly little of it), it’s unclear to know how undocumented Asian voting patterns would change given immigration reform. Also, keep in mind that about 60% of these Asian immigrants are in California and Washington State alone – so they’re not exactly going to be a game-changer in the electoral college.

Third, I tend to doubt that all 8 million adult Latino undocumented immigrants would go for citizenship. A Latino Decisions poll says 87% of them would, but I’m skeptical. Only 60% of all legal immigrants actually apply for citizenship. Since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, only about 40% of the newly eligible immigrants by so-said act became citizens. It would be reasonable to expect a similar percentage this time.

Only 36% of Mexican immigrants who are eligible to become citizens have gone through the process. Mexicans make up 72% of all undocumented Latino immigrants. Six in ten of the other 28% of eligible Latino immigrants have become citizens.

All together, if undocumented Latino immigrants become citizens at the rate that eligible Latino immigrants do, then we’re looking at 3.5 million new voting-age citizens. That 3.5 million is a far cry from the 11 million we first talking about.

Finally, just how many of these 3.5 million undocumented Latino immigrants can be expected to vote in the presidential election? Per the standard census Current Population Survey (CPS), only 49.9% of all voting age Latino American citizens cast a ballot in 2008. (Note, there is no report available for 2012 as of this point.) Based on pre-election surveys and work by Michael McDonald, there is reason to believe that percentage may have dropped further in 2012.

All told, it would seem that only about 1.7 million new Latino voters would be added if undocumented immigrants were granted citizenship. Nationally, this would be a net of about 775,000 votes. This would increase Obama’s vote margin, but not to 7pt; it would only go up to about 4.4pt – in other words, half a point from where it actually was in November 2012. Even adding in new Asian voters, who vote at a lower rate than even Latinos, and other undocumented immigrants (and controlling for the percentage who apply for citizenship, percentage of citizens who vote, and the percentage who voted for Obama), the margin probably only goes up to, at most, 4.6pt.

The amount this would shift individual states in elections is debatable. Take Nevada, where, at last count, there were 190,000 undocumented immigrants – the highest percentage of any state population. Most of them are Latino. Apply the same math we did above, Obama would have gained about 17,000 votes. It would have increased his state margin of victory by 1.4pt. That’s not nothing, but we’re talking about the state with the largest percentage undocumented immigrants.

Most states aren’t close to Nevada’s undocumented immigrant population, while the ones that are simply aren’t competitive at the president level: Arizona, California, and New Jersey. No state in 2012 would have had a different outcome if undocumented immigrants were given the right to vote.

The truth of the matter is that passing immigration reform won’t be a votes “bonanza” for the Democratic party because of potentially or newly enfranchised undocumented immigrants. That doesn’t mean passing immigration reform will help the Republican party among Latinos; the GOP should probably still be worrying about its Latino voter appeal. But it’s not facing a landslide from a new citizen electorate.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Manchin-Toomey gun law defeat heralds trouble for Senate Democrats | Harry J Enten

Demographic shifts in the US, with Democratic support concentrated in big cities, are driving ever more partisan politics

On Wednesday, the United States Senate defeated the Manchin-Toomey proposal on background checks. The defeat was a setback for gun control advocates, though it should not have come as a surprise. The defeat with a manifestation of growing problem for Democrats: their coalition is bad for winning many seats in the Senate, so it’s bad for passing legislation, too.

Each state, regardless of size, gets two senators. The least populous state, Wyoming, at 576,000 residents, has two senators, as does the most populous state, California, at 38 million. These less populated states tend be mostly rural. The more populated states like California gain their population because of large cities.

The issue is that Democratic voters tend to congregate in larger cities. Per the 2012 exit polls, President Obama won cities with populations over 500,000 (or cities with populations about the size of all of Wyoming) by 40pt. They won cities with a population of between 50,000-500,000 by a still impressive 18pt. They lost the suburbs by 2pt, cities with populations between 10,000 and 50,000 by 14pt, and rural areas by an astounding 24pt.

Indeed, look at a key part of the Democratic coalition: Latinos. Forty-five percent of Latinos live in the ten largest metropolitan areas. Obama won 12 out of the 16 top states with the largest Latino population. Latinos have helped to solidify the Democratic hold on what was once the swing state of California with 38% of the state’s population – far greater than the national average of 16.3%. Forty-one states, however, have a Latino population at a lower proportion than the nation’s 16.3%; 33 have a population that is less than 10% Latino.

So, how did this manifest itself on the state level?

President Obama won a 7.3pt victory in 2008, yet only carried 28 states. Four years prior, President Bush won only a 2.5pt victory and carried 31 states. Eight years prior to that, in 1996, President Clinton won by 8.5pt and took 31 states. George HW Bush emerged victorious by 7.7pt and won 40 states. That’s right: GHW Bush’s national margin was about the same as Obama’s was 20 years later, but he took 12 more states.

Democrats have tended to win fewer states than Republicans given the same national vote victory, but it’s become worse. To win 30 states in the 2012 election, Obama would have needed to carry the national vote by about 9pt more than he did. He lost Arizona by 9pt, even as he won nationally by 3.9pt. It would have taken a true landslide for Obama to have won by 13pt nationally.

Twenty years ago, this concentration of Democratic strength might not have been too big of a deal, in terms of Senate representation. As I noted back in December, 49% of the Democrat’s 1993 senate caucus came from states that were more Republican the nation as a whole in the prior presidential election. Today, that percentage has been cut in half to only 25%.

When you combine the fact that Democratic presidential nominees are winning fewer states with the fact that there is more straight ticket-voting, the Democrats have a major problem on their hands. It’s simply going to get harder here on in to win a Senate majority, let alone a super-majority of 60 seats, which a party really needs to overcome the growing use of the filibuster.

The Democrats who are in “red” states recognize this fact and you saw it this week in the gun ownership background checks amendment vote. The four Democrats who bucked their party line were from states more Republican than the nation as a whole in the last presidential election. Three of the four are up for re-election in 2014. Of the red state Democrats running for re-election in 2014, three of five voted against the Manchin-Toomey compromise.

Just as bad for Democratic legislation is that there are no Republicans out there willing to compromise. Only 16% of the Republican Senate caucus comes from states where Obama won by a greater percentage than he won nationally. The percentage of blue state Republicans is also down by about half from the 28% it stood at after the 1992 elections. The Republicans who are elected now come from red states and just have no electoral need to compromise. If anything, they’re more fearful of a primary challenge from a stricter conservative.

Only one Republican from a red state, John McCain, voted for Manchin-Toomey. The other three were all from states that were more Democratic than the nation as a whole. The bill’s co-sponsor Pat Toomey, who is no liberal, likely benefitted from the politics of being on board with a bill that is popular in his home state of Pennsylvania.

None of this means that Democrats won’t get back to 60 seats, or can’t bring Republicans on board, in the future. It just means that it’s just much harder than it used to be and will get harder still. The current Democratic coalition is concentrated in a few states, which has resulted in fewer states being Democratic on the national level. Combine this with less split-ticket voting between presidential and congressional races, and it’s bad news for Democrats in getting proposals through the Senate.

The immediate result was the failure of Manchin-Toomey – an event that I expect to be repeated with much future Democratic legislation.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Republicans take note: Americans are embracing immigration reform | Harry J Enten

As with gay marriage, voter views on immigrants and immigration have ‘evolved’. The GOP can only lose by blocking reform

The electoral analysis of the immigration debate these days almost exclusively focuses on Latinos, which makes sense, but also misses the point. Not only do I personally think that most Latino voters won’t change their voting allegiance in response to any new immigration reform, but also let’s note that all Americans are shifting their views on immigration.

Back in 2010, politicians on both sides of the aisle were worried that they could be knocked out of office by people who wanted “build up a fence”. Immigration, for instance, was a major rallying cry for insurgent Tea Party activists. A New York Times report at the time noted:

“Enforcement would be more far-reaching than anything in place now – or anything proposed by the administration of President George W Bush.”

Now, however, Americans of all stripes have become increasingly progressive on almost all the issues around illegal immigration.

An overwhelmingly majority of Americans now believe that people who came to this country illegally should not be forced to leave it. In the latest CBS News poll, 74% of Americans – a record high – believe that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to apply for citizenship or stay as guest workers. That’s up from 57% in mid-2011. Per a Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) survey, there isn’t a single demographic group opposed to this proposal, and that includes Tea Partiers, Republicans and white people without a college degree.

More amazingly, more Americans now believe in a pathway to citizenship, rather than a guest worker program. CBS News found that a majority of Americans, 53%, are now in favor of letting citizens stay and apply for citizenship. That percentage is way up from 37% in 2011, while the percentage of Americans who support a guest worker program has stayed steady, at about 20%.

While Americans are pretty evenly split on offering outright citizenship to undocumented immigrants, they see young people differently. Well over 60% of Americans, and as many as 74% in a CBS News survey, are in favor of a pathway to citizenship for children who came here under the age of 30 – so long as they meet certain conditions. In the CBS News survey, this includes 60% of Republicans. This support is emphatically up from 2010, when only 54% of Americans would vote for a similar policy, per Gallup.

Perhaps more important than any one immigration policy is the motive behind the policy. A slim majority of Americans now believes that an immigration plan should focus on providing legal residency to people here, rather than on stopping the flow of immigrants into the country. Per CNN/ORC, the generational divide is wide. Over 60% of those under 50 put priority on integration, while those 50 and older are far more evenly split. Majorities of Democrats, independents and white people prioritize residency.

Since May 2010, there has been a 15pt increase in the percentage of Americans who want to concentrate on how best to let undocumented immigrants stay. The percentage of those who want to increase attention on policing the border has dropped from 60% to only 43%.

Indeed, the attitude towards immigrants themselves has changed tremendously over the past few years. Today, 49% of Americans believe that the hard work of immigrants strengthens the country, and only 41% believe they are a burden, according to Pew. In 2006, the margin was reversed with 52% saying immigrants were a burden and 41% disagreeing. We should only expect the margin to rise in the future, as 59% of 18-29 year-olds say immigrants strengthen society, while only 37% of people 65 and older agree.

So what does this all mean for the immigration debate going forward?

Whatever policy the GOP espouses, immigration, in and of itself, isn’t likely to cost Republicans many votes. The issue ranks very low for most voters, and most Latino voters are Democratic for other reasons.

The real problem for the Republican party is that its brand is currently in the can. With favorable numbers in the low 30s, the GOP is seen as out-of-step with Americans on many issues.

That’s why you’re seeing Democrats jumping out to a large lead on the House ballot for 2014. The latest Quinnipiac poll puts Democrats up by 8pt, more than enough for them to take back the House. Voters are, at this point, not willing to vote for the party that opposes what they believe in. What Republicans don’t need, then, is another issue – that is, immigration – that contributes to notion that they’re out-of-touch with the way most Americans feel.

Opposing immigration reform would be yet another instance of GOP “obstructionism”, which is what most people see as the Republicans’ biggest fault. Unlike certain issues on which Americans agree with Democratic positions but trust Republicans to handle better – gun control, for example – voters are connecting immigration position with political party. More voters trust the Democrats on immigration; voters trust Obama over congressional Republicans on immigration reform by a 17pt margin.

Whether or not voters will still think Republicans clueless in the run-up to the midterm elections is another question. Right now, though, we can only say that progressive immigration reform has become popular – and opposing change won’t help Republicans at all.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Five reasons why the Republican party shouldn’t take advice from Sarah Palin | Harry J Enten

Palin can still wow a GOP audience, but the polling says that not even Republicans, let alone US voters at large, like her much

Sarah Palin says the Republican party should forget about the consultants and not listen to “the big money men”. After getting past the hypocrisy – Palin’s own PAC spent 94% of its funds on consultants in 2012 – I have to wonder why candidates would take political advice from the former governor of Alaska.

In fact, here are five reasons why Palin’s own rise and fall with voters demonstrates why her political judgment should not be trusted.

1. Palin’s is probably the only vice-presidential bid in modern history to have cost her ticket

Palin burst onto the scene back in 2008, when her Republican National Convention speech launched her to a 57% favorable rating, with only 21% holding an unfavorable view, according to a CNN/ORC poll. This, in turn, provided new fuel to John McCain’s presidential run, and he took his first lead of the campaign.

Then, Palin started talking to reporters. By the time the campaign was over, Palin had a 48% favorable rating and a 49% unfavorable rating in a CNN/ORC survey. Only 38% of voters answered “yes” to the exit poll question of whether she was prepared to be president.

Palin was so divisive that her decline correlated highly with that of McCain’s standing against Obama. As Richard Johnston and Emily Thorson noted in 2009, the rise and fall of McCain’s polling numbers didn’t really correlate with how the economy was doing. Nor did they particularly have much to do with how voters saw McCain.

Roy Elis, Sunshine Hillygus,and Norman Nie calculated that Palin cost McCain four percentage points. Had she not been selected as vice-president, McCain would still have lost by 3pt – but the election would have been much closer. I’m not aware of any other vice-presidential candidate who has had that sort of effect, either negative or positive.

2. Palin quit her elected post

At a time when the Republican party is struggling, they need to look to a person who sees trouble and doesn’t shy away. Back in 2009, the party was struggling to find a standard bearer after George W Bush’s unpopular administration. Palin, at that same time, was facing ethics investigations in Alaska.

Did she govern the people of her state? Hardly. She decided to skip town in mid 2009, when she resigned as governor, and it’s unlikely anyone will ever know exactly why she did so.

Palin herself gave numerous explanations. She didn’t want to spend any more taxpayer money over the ethics investigation. Or she didn’t want to be a lame-duck governor once she knew she wasn’t running for a second term.

Other, less justifiably reasons for her departure might include the millions she could reckon on making on the speaking circuit and television. She may also have left because she didn’t think she could win a second term. Her approval rating in Alaska had dropped almost 30pt from its highest point, 82%, in mid-2008.

Whatever the reason, Palin took the easy way out. At least Mitt Romney finished his one term as Massachusetts governor, even after he chose not to run again.

3. Palin has palled on the American public

The Republican party’s troubles over the past seven years have mostly been because of George W Bush. The economy declined significantly under his administration, and his war in Iraq proved unpopular. Moving forward, Republicans should prefer a leader who is, at least, more popular than Bush.

But Sarah Palin is actually less popular than Bush. Palin’s favorables have continued to fall over the past four and a half years. She currently holds ratings of 34% favorable and 58% unfavorable in the latest CNN/ORC poll. That’s nearly a 40pt rise in her unfavorable rating since the 2008 RNC speech. George W Bush’s favorable rating, meanwhile, stands at 43%.

If the Republican party grassroots followers were to follow to Palin’s messaging advice, they might drive their entire party off the cliff.

4. Republicans themselves don’t want Sarah Palin

Perhaps the greatest indictment of Sarah Palin is that even Republicans don’t care for her. Her net favorable rating among conservatives is in the bottom half of all possible 2016 Republican contenders, per the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP). The only candidate with a noticeably lower favorable rating is Chris Christie, whom many Republicans won’t forgive for saying kind words about President Obama after Hurricane Sandy.

And despite near-universal name recognition, she finished with only 7% in her last appearance in a 2016 national primary poll. That’s tied for second to last, ahead only of Rick Santorum. Her ratings were so low that PPP dropped her from its latest survey. Other survey houses, like Harper and CNN/ORC, don’t include her in their 2016 questionnaires.

5. The Alaskans who know Sarah Palin best hold her in low regard

You can argue that Sarah Palin is misunderstood by the national press, and it could be argued that the “lamestream media” returns Palin’s compliment with negative stereotyping of the former Alaska governor. She should not have this problem with the local Alaskan press. Their reports should be noted, especially since Palin was once so successful there that she defeated an incumbent governor in 2006 and was enormously popular in 2008.

But Palin is just as unpopular at home as she is nationally. Her favorable rating in the latest survey by the right-leaning Harper Polling is 34%. The only person with a worse favorable rating is her protege, Joe Miller. Her unfavorable rating in Alaska is 60% – the highest of any of politician polled.

Most amazingly, Palin could not now even win a Republican primary in Alaska. In a hypothetical Senate primary between three other candidates and Palin, she only registers 27%, landing second place behind Sean Parnell, the governor who replaced her.

Conclusion

The truth is that Sarah Palin was very briefly a successful politician, then a divisive one; and she has chosen instead a career path as a celebrity. Republicans would be nuts to follow her advice, unless they wanted to follow her path to unpopularity.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds