Archive for the ‘Polls’ Category
Click on figure to enlarge. The NY Times article on their September 12-15 survey is available here.
For the first time in American statistical history, the majority of American adults are single. 124 million or 50.2% of Americans are single. Some will get married, but increasing numbers never will.
Demographically a population of single adults means the death of the Republican Party. It eliminates the possibility of libertarian and fiscally conservative policies. It leads inevitably to the welfare state.
Single people are less likely to have a support system that keeps them from becoming a public charge. Children born to single parents perform poorly in school and are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. A nation of single people will inevitably become a welfare state and a police state.
The statistics have always been known and the conclusions to be drawn from them are inescapable.
A lot of attention is being paid to the political consequences of the nation’s changing racial demographics, but it’s not a coincidence that the racial group that Republicans perform worst with is also the least likely to be married. While there are other factors in the mix, Republicans do better with married than unmarried black people.
The same is true of most other racial groups.
The latest Reuters poll shows that 36% of married Hispanics are planning to vote for a Democratic candidate in the upcoming midterm election and 28% are planning to vote for a Republican candidate. Among unmarried Hispanics, those numbers change to 42% Democratic and %15 Republican.
If Republicans want to start getting serious about the Hispanic vote, they might want to spend less time muttering about amnesty and more time thinking about where their strength with married voters lies.
Married white voters lean toward a Republican candidate by 43% to 24%. Among single white voters, Democrats lead 34% to 26%. There are other factors that affect these numbers such as age, race, sexual orientation and religious affiliation. Growing minority demographics have certainly helped make single Americans a statistical majority, but it’s dangerous to ignore the bigger picture of the post-family demographic trend.
If Republicans insist on running against the nanny state, they will have to replace it with something. That something was traditionally the family. Take away the family and something else has to fill its place.
In the West, government has become the new family. The state is father and occasionally mother. The nanny state is literally a nanny. It may be hated, but it is also needed.
That is why married whites oppose ObamaCare 65% to 34% while single whites also oppose it, but by a narrower margin of 53% to 47%.
ObamaCare’s support base among whites is highest among single white men and women. (Despite Julia and Sandra Fluke, the latest poll numbers show that young single white women oppose ObamaCare by a higher margin than young single white men. Pajama Boy with his hot cocoa is more likely to be a fervent proponent of ObamaCare than Julia. But the margins for both sexes remain narrow.)
It’s unrealistic to expect people to vote against their short term interests. Without family, the individual is vulnerable. A single bad day can leave him homeless and hungry.
While the current Rothenberg Political Report ratings don’t show it, I am now expecting a substantial Republican Senate wave in November, with a net gain of at least seven seats.
But I wouldn’t be shocked by a larger gain. . . .
Of the seven Romney Democratic seats up this cycle, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia are gone, and Arkansas and Louisiana look difficult to hold. Alaska and North Carolina, on the other hand, remain very competitive, and Democrats rightly point out that they have a chance to hold both seats.
But I’ve witnessed 17 general elections from my perch in D.C., including eight midterms, and I sometimes develop a sense of where the cycle is going before survey data lead me there. Since my expectations constitute little more than an informed guess, I generally keep them to myself.
This year is different. I am sharing them with you.
After looking at recent national, state and congressional survey data and comparing this election cycle to previous ones, I am currently expecting a sizable Republican Senate wave. . . .
“Americans indicate that these negative attitudes will increase their probability of voting this fall, and history suggests it is more likely that Democrats than Republicans will suffer as a result, given Democratic control of the White House.”
Of course, there is also Nate Silver giving Republicans a 65.1% probability of taking over the Senate.
Meanwhile, a new ABC/Washington Post poll shows most Americans view Obama as a “failure.” That is a pretty tough way to phrase things.
Why are women much more likely to think that we are in a recession and also believe that Democrats have the solution
After almost six years of Obamanomics, why is such an overwhelming majority of want more Democrat solutions. What I would like to see is how these percentage compare to 2008, 2010, and 2012. From the Wall Street Journal:
. . . This week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that women are more in sync with Democrats on a range of economic issues, including minimum wages and concerns about growing income inequality. With Republicans holding substantial advantages this year, the Democrats’ appeal among women could provide a bulwark against a political drubbing.
As members of the party that doesn’t hold the White House, Republicans might ordinarily stand to gain most from the broad pessimism in the new poll that the nation is on the wrong track. But the poll found that women would prefer this fall’s elections to produce a Democratic-controlled Congress, by a 51% to 37% margin—a 14-point gap. The reverse is true for men, who preferred a Republican Congress by 52% to 35%—a 17-point lead for the GOP. . . . .
There are times when I suspect that people like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Boxer and Durbin, should have their photos on the wall of the post office as suspects in the killing of America. Other times, I remember that all of these people, along with the likes of Elijah Cummings, Brad Sherman, Henry Waxman, Sheila Jackson Lee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, have all been elected numerous times, so perhaps it’s America that’s chosen to commit suicide.
As many of you recall, a doctor named Jack Kevorkian was generally reviled for assisting the terminally ill achieve a painless death. Some people called him a vulture. I was not one of them. It seems to me that if a person chooses to end his pain and suffering by ending his life, he shouldn’t be denied that which we bestow, ironically, on both our beloved pets and the vilest serial killers.
But some of us aren’t yet ready to go, and we certainly aren’t complacent about the homicidal impulses of the so-called Progressives. Everywhere we turn, we see them actively attempting to destroy America. We see them weakening our military, alienating our traditional allies, destroying the economy and erasing our borders. And none of these things are happening accidentally or as the result of unfortunate circumstances.
A friend of mine, Dr. Harry Maller, suggested that because Obama attended Columbia, perhaps he got his agenda from Cloward and Piven, two Columbia professors, rather than from Chicago’s Saul Alinsky. My own guess is that all three of them influenced young Obama.
Those of you who only know the names of Richard Cloward (1926-2001) and his wife, Frances Fox Piven, born in 1932 but still alive, from Glenn Beck might not know that their claim to fame was an article written in 1966, titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” that appeared in The Nation. At the time they were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work.
Basically, the plan they proposed called for overloading the U.S. welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that they believed would inevitably lead to replacing it with a guaranteed annual income. As they saw it, the bonus is that it would shore up support for the Democratic Party.
In recent years, we’ve seen signs of this strategy all around us. It is no accident, after all, that there are 48 million Americans now receiving free food through SNAP, that millions more are receiving extended unemployment benefits, that Medicaid is ballooning to the bursting point thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and that disability checks are being mailed out every month to a legion of shameless liars and cheats.
To see the strategy at work before your very eyes, you need only look to the southern border, where every day hundreds of illegal aliens, many of them children, are throwing themselves on the mercy of our welfare system. And the reason they keep coming is because this administration keeps inviting them, and because, like every other previous administration, it refuses to build a wall.
But it’s not the politicians alone who are guilty of this outrage to our sovereignty. They are aided and abetted by the Catholic and Evangelical churches.
These results are from a new Fox News poll. One thing that should be explained is that Democrats trust in government goes up when there is a Democratic president and Republican trust is up when there is a Republican. That explains the different results for Republicans and Democrats. Interestingly, despite all the scandals with the IRS, NSA, EPA, AP, State Department, Benghazi, VA, and others, the level of trust in the federal government is actually higher now than last year or in 2010.
The calm before the storm: polls moving in the right direction on guns, but the battle is about to get fierce
From Danny Franklin in the Washington Post has this piece of good news:
In 2000, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 51 percent of those surveyed believed having a gun in the house made it a more dangerous place to be, while only 35 percent believed it made a house safer. In a poll of 800 voters I conducted recently, opinions were almost perfectly reversed: Fifty-three percent now believe a gun makes a house safer and 35 percent more dangerous. . . .
He also argues:
The problem is that supporters of new gun restrictions have traditionally approached the issue of gun violence as a political problem to be answered by changing laws. Instead, we need to start looking at guns as a public health problem to be answered by changing minds and habits. . . .
I interpret this as confirming what I already knew: gun control advocates are planning a big push to control the facts used in the gun control debate. With literally hundreds of millions of dollars coming from the likes of Bloomberg, Soros, the Obama administration, and others, this battle is far from over.
Burt’s Webcast is every Wednesday at 1 PM Pacific Time.
Tune in at K4HD.com His Call-in Number is: (818) 570-5443
I don’t recall a time when it was so profitable to be in the polling industry. It seems as if there’s a new one every five minutes, and most of them, you’ve probably noticed, show Obama cratering at the speed of light. As a result, Republicans can hardly conceal their glee. I, on the other hand, look at the numbers and I feel like tearing my hair out. That is, I would if I had hair. Instead, I’d settle for tearing out someone else’s; perhaps Chuck Hagel’s or Harry Reid’s.
I know I should celebrate the fact that 59% of the electorate think Obama is doing a lousy job, but that means that 41% don’t see it that way. How can I feel good as an American knowing that 83% of the people believe that our country is weaker and less powerful than it was six years ago? For one thing, that’s not a situation in which I ever want America to find herself, but for another, it means 17% think we’re stronger and more powerful since Obama took office, and they can’t all be smoking pot in Colorado.
There are even 9% of our friends and neighbors who think Obama has been too tough with the Russkies! One of those nincompoops, I’m happy to say, is neither a friend nor a relative of mine; he is, however, Rand Paul’s old man.
Speaking of Rand Paul, I am happy to see him peaking in 2014 because I’m hoping that by 2016, he’ll be “Rand Who?” during the GOP primaries. I don’t think he’s a bad fellow, and I wouldn’t want to misjudge him because his father is an anti-Semitic nincompoop. But I do believe his crusade against the NSA is a cheap and dangerous political stunt. I think that anyone who actually believes the government is eavesdropping on several billion monotonous phone calls every day or monitoring tens of billions of email messages every 24 hours is either a paranoid schizophrenic or is addicted to pornography and is terrified that the NSA is going to snitch him out to his wife.
Even Paul’s receiving 31% of the votes cast at the annual CPAC convention isn’t all that great when you actually break down the numbers. I mean, when your platform involves legalizing pot and other illegal substances; accepting same-sex marriages as the norm; opposing a military draft; and turning a blind eye to any evil taking place outside our borders; and you realize that a totally disproportional 46% of the CPAC voters were very young, garnering a mere 31% of the vote has to be regarded as a massive underachievement.
While listening to radio host Dennis Prager the other day, I heard him mention that at Harvard, they have come up with a notion that anything that is said about a specific group, even if it’s positive in nature, should be regarded as bigotry. So if someone assumes that an Asian got a high-paying job as a computer programmer because Asians are widely assumed to be technically proficient, that’s racism.