Polling On Barbour, Obama & Mississippi
Public Policy Polling, who probably does as much informative public polling as anyone out there, recently polled Mississippi on Barack Obama, Haley Barbour, and the 2012 presidential race. Fair warning: PPP is a Democratic firm, but they do have a good track record.
** Obama has a 42 percent approval rating in the state with 54 percent disapproving. As you would imagine, Obama’s approval is pretty much from the strong support of blacks. A full 93 percent of blacks approve of the president, compared to just 16 percent of whites who feel the same way.
If you look at the crosstabs, you’ll discover something interesting on Obama’s approval. He has a 56-42 approval rating among residents 30 to 45. He is underwater with every other age bracket.
** Barbour has a 52 percent approval rating, compared to 39 percent who disapprove. The racial split is close to the reverse of Obama’s with 72 percent of whites approving with only 14 percent of blacks giving him the thumbs up. Those numbers are fairly healthy with what governors and senators have received in past polls from this firm.
** Voters did, however, say they do not want Barbour to run for president. In fact, just 33 percent said they did compared to 48 percent who didn’t. Those numbers are backed up by a much more unified Democratic base in opposition to Barbour compared to Republicans who want him to run.
** Republicans are almost assured to carry the state’s six electoral votes for the ninth straight presidential election in 2012. Every Republican candidate surveyed would defeat Obama in a hypothetical match up. Mike Huckabee performs the best, while Sarah Palin put up the worst numbers.
By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 7-5%,, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
A survey of 800 Mississippi voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 79% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 75% among Republicans, and 75% among Others.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 81% among 18-29 year olds, 79% among 30-45 year olds, 75% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 82% among women and 71% among men.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com