Some crazy pills in that NBC/WSJ poll

Clinton's winning just over half of whites and something like 11% of African Americans at the ballot box. So what should be made of this stat from the latest NBC/WSJ poll? Whites think less of her, but vote for her in greater numbers? And of African Americans, the reverse?

Obama unfavorables hit all-time high

While Obama supporters fall all over themselves extolling the campaign's "turnaround" following the Wright controversy (evidenced by a Gallup poll published today showing Obama up by three,) I'll just toss out a contrary poll from Scott Rasmussen that shows Hillary up by two -- a swing of three in her direction.

And that's not all.

On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable.

The last time he was even close to this territory was November 20, 2007 when his favorables were at 44%, his unfavorables at 50%, and not a whole lot of people knew much about him.

Obama may come out of this tailspin, but Andrew, to say that he has based off of one poll is a bit much, don'tcha think?

Update: Thanks for the traffic, AP and IP! Please take a look around, and consider bookmarking our new TNB News page.

And Facebook's least preferred candidates are...

Discuss.

Early results calling a Mitt win?

The source touts that it is based on "citizen journalism" (meaning this could be a game of telephone or an outright fabrication,) but it seems to be affecting the Rasmussen Markets pretty drastically; McCain's gone from being a slight favorite to a one-in-four shot.

The (leaked?) story:

According to a report prepared by Edison Media Research for AP and published in Startribune the initial Michigan primary exit poll results favor Republicans and the Democrats seem to be minority. We project the winner of the Michigan primary exit poll results to be the Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Language of the post fits the style of a press release and precedes the Forbes report with some of the identical verbiage by ~three minutes. Only time will tell, but some apparently think this is reliable. Let's see if this turns into another New Hampshire.

Update: The Campaign Spot is reporting early results of Romney 25, McCain 29. That's consistent.

Support for abortion disintegrating in bellwether Missouri

In the July/Aug edition of Reason Magazine, Radley Balko reviews "The Politics of Abortion," a new book written by Anne Hendershott. Hendershott's conclusions about the future of Roe v. Wade fit in quite nicely with the study I'm about to cite.

First: the article from Reason.

IN 1985 A prominent liberal legal figure argued that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to an abortion, was a "heavy-handed judicial intervention" that "was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict." The writer was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court--and also now a strong supporter of Roe.

Ginsburg isn't the only backer of abortion rights to have taken issue with the 1973 decision. In 1995, for example, the University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein, a superstar among liberal law professors, wrote in the Harvard Law Review that the high court "should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges." Roe, he argued, centralized an issue centered around privacy, reproduction, and medical ethics, all matters that traditionally have been the province of the states. Moving those moral debates to Washington forced a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire country, raising the stakes, and therefore the contentiousness, of an already divisive issue.

A new book by a staunch critic of abortion also suggests a decentralized approach. In The Politics of Abortion, the conservative sociologist Anne Hendershott offers a scathing, unabashedly polemical history of the pro-choice movement. While Hendershott leaves no ambiguity about her own position on the issue, she closes the book by calling not for more federal antiabortion laws but for returning the issue to the states. It is time to end the "superficial slogans that rally the troops but build impenetrable barriers," she writes. "Taking the discussions out of the courts and back to the realm of local policy, where we might once again debate the politics of abortion as neighbors and friends, would be a good start."

I could not agree more.

The issue of abortion has been lingering as a national concern for a quarter-century because it wasn't, and isn't, the People making a final determination on whether, what, and when abortion procedures would be permitted in their communities; it is the Supreme Court that, for the last three decades, has had nearly exclusive power over the matter, leaving a volatile issue squarely on the table of American discourse but completely outside the People's control.

Which brings us to the Midwest, where it appears national bellwether Missouri is ripe for a fresh discussion of the abortion issue. (h/t GOP Bloggers)

Over 30,000 survey interviews were conducted in the state between 1992 and 2006. Participants were asked: "On the debate over abortion policy, do you consider yourself to be pro-life, pro-choice or somewhere in between?" Those who gave a definitive answer were then asked how strongly they held their view.

Results in 1992 were largely in step with what study authors Christopher Blunt and Fred Steeper call the "self-interest hypothesis." Women and men under 30 were the most ardently "pro-choice" (39 percent) and the least likely to be strongly "pro-life"( 23 percent).

Today, by contrast, among the current generation of 18- to 29-year-olds, 36 percent say they are strongly "pro-life," while just 18 percent say they are strongly "pro-choice," the study authors said.

The trend was particularly evident among women in that age bracket. Forty 40 percent identify themselves as strongly "pro-life" and only 20 percent as strongly "pro-choice."

To briefly summarize, the data show a pretty radical swing from 1992 "very pro-life" self-IDs to 2006 self-IDs. Roughly speaking, pro-lifers have doubled in Missouri over the last 14 years; meanwhile, pro-choicers have halved in number.

I fished around the Internet and found the full report, "Turnaround on Abortion," here. Below are a few of the graphs to give you a flavor of what the study's authors found; the results are, shall we say, remarkable in their implications.


If Roe v. Wade does get reversed, it doesn't mean the end of abortion. It would, however, restore authority to the states to decide what can and cannot happen within their borders, which for a state like Missouri, would have far-reaching -- and in terms of human rights, likely positive -- consequences.

Let's hope the decision comes down very, very soon. It is time.

Congressional Democrats move closer to Foley territory: Approval craters to 24%

Especially when speaking contextually, these are historically low numbers. Click an image for the full report.

If governing by the polls, Bush has a mandate over Democrat Congress

That is, by a comparative plurality.

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.

Congressional Job Approval

According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.

Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.

Misters and Missuses Unpopularity, indeed. Looks like they've one-upped themselves.

CNN boils Libby trial down to one sentence, includes "Cheney," and gets desired result

Okay, let's play along for the time being.

Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent's exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday.

Just 18 percent said they would support a pardon for Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, while 69 percent said they opposed the idea.

Interesting. That sounds like it may be pretty close to Cheney's approval rating... which has hovered around the 18% range before... which is really pretty irrelevant in the big picture... and is especially irrelevant to the Libby case. But I digress. Sort of.

Now you might think,

That's funny, I didn't think that many people were following the case, let alone understood it. Surely, the first question was,

1. Are you familiar with who 'Scooter' Libby is?

and for those who answer in the affirmative, the second question would be along the lines of,

2. Have you been following the case?

But no. Looking at the poll itself, here's the lone question CNN asked about Libby:

As you may know, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's former top aide, was recently found guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury in connection with the CIA leak investigation. Do you think George W. Bush should or should not give a presidential pardon to Libby?

Now I'm no statistician, but I'm pretty sure that if you didn't know anything else about me and CNN asked the following question -- "As you may know, Patrick Ishmael likes Dick Cheney. Would you like Patrick Ishmael?" -- the results would come out about the same. After all, if CNN can boil a whole situation down to one sentence, you really have all the information you need here. Everyone's just uninformed.

Further, in this question someone has been convicted of a crime. Knowing nothing else about the person or the case, would you have the President pardon them? I wouldn't. And that's the point.

Could someone please do the following poll?!

1. Do you know who "Scooter" Libby is?
2. Have you been following his court case?
3. Should President Bush pardon Libby?
   

I'd love to see the results, as I'm pretty sure they'd be radically different.

Update 3/13 @ 12:09pm: The NY Times is reporting Dick Cheney's favorability rating today. And the result? Exactly 18% of Americans approve of the job he's doing.

Amazing.