Tag: Barack Obama

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

Is Ohio a liberal place? Or is it a conservative place?

I suspect far more people would say the latter rather than the former.

In many respects, Ohio is politically similar to Florida. Both are well-known swing states that hold a bountiful electoral prize. Both lean Republican. Both have large cites that function as pools of Democratic votes. Both also have considerable rural, Republican regions.

But in other ways they could not be more different. Sunny Florida is diverse, growing, and service-oriented. While Florida often votes Republican, it is not exactly conservative. Cold, northern Ohio is a rust-belt giant. It is not very diverse. It is definitely not growing. Florida is new. Ohio is old and conservative.

For the moment Ohio is a bit more conservative than the country at large. For the past eight out of nine presidential elections, it has been a bit redder than the nation. Not much redder, but enough to be noticeable.

I do not think that the future looks bright for the Democratic Party in Ohio. The two are moving in opposite directions. Demographically, Ohio is staying static while the country at large changes. And there are not many truly liberal spots in Ohio – places like Boulder, CO or Seattle. There never were.

Ohio has a lot of unionized, working-class folk who are still voting against Herbert Hoover; they are a core part of its Democratic base. I am not sure how long they will continue to support a party that is becoming, quite frankly, fairly upper-class in ethos. People in West Virginia certainly don’t anymore.

Not that Ohio is doomed to become a Republican stronghold. Places like Columbus are rapidly turning blue, perhaps fast enough to offset losses in working-class counties. And it isn’t inevitable that those counties will start voting Republican. If West Virginia is a prime example of working-class voters who deserted the Democratic Party, Michigan is a prime example of working-class voters that still support it. Barack Obama won a landslide in that state.

Nevertheless, my gut still tells me that Ohio and the Democratic Party are shifting farther and farther away from each other. These things can reveal themselves very quickly in politics. In 1988, California was a red state that had voted Republican for six elections in a row. Then one day it was won by Bill Clinton – and it has never gone back since then. In 1996 West Virginia had gone blue for five out of the past six elections. Then George Bush won the state – and now we consider it a rock-hard Republican state.

That may be the fate of Ohio.

This is pretty remarkable:

President Obama and his political team is worried that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, and have signaled to him he should not run, two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation said Saturday.

The move represents an extraordinary intervention into a state political race by the president, and is a delicate one, given that Mr. Paterson is one of only two African-American governors in the nation.

The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.Top Democrats have grown increasingly worried that the governor’s unpopularity could drag down Democratic members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, in next fall’s election.

But Paterson isn’t backing down in the face of what has to be unimaginable pressure:

“I have said time and time again that I am running for governor next year,” he said at the 40th annual African-American Day Parade.

This is now the second statewide race in New York this cycle where Obama’s tried to urge someone to drop out – remember, he personally phoned up Steve Israel and told him to back off a primary challenge to Kirsten Gillibrand. Yet even though I’m completely done with Paterson, this latest move makes me uncomfortable. For a sitting president to try to push an incumbent governor out of running for re-election seems like a bridge too far. So far as I know, even Dick Cheney didn’t try this (or at least, didn’t try this publicly) with loser GOP govs like Frank Murkowski (AK) and Ernie Feltcher (KY).

And where does it end? A lot of Democratic governors have crappy approval ratings these days, such as Deval Patrick, Jon Corzine and Bill Ritter. Obviously each race is different, but is everyone supposed to be on notice now? Is this what the 3 am phone call is going to turn out to be?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m firmly in the “Paterson should not run again” camp. I’m also not the kind of person to shed a tear about candidates who decide to drop out because they can’t hack it and then blame “the establishment.” But when the president gets involved, that just seems over-the-top to me, and in these particular circumstances, it seems completely unnecessary, too. If Andy Cuomo were to run, he’d obliterate Paterson, and, if need be, Rudy Giuliani as well. And our congressional candidates would have a very popular attorney general running for governor at the top of the ticket. So really, what’s going on here?

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

This is the last part of an analysis on the swing state Florida.

Miami-Dade County

Here is how John Kerry did in south Florida:



Here is how Barack Obama performed:



Broward and Palm Beach are marginally smaller, when compared to Obama’s performance. The big difference, however, is with Miami-Dade. Kerry won it by 6%; Obama won it by 16%.

There is no other place in Florida (and, perhaps, the country) like Miami-Dade. Palm Beach and Broward counties are retiree destinations; Miami is home to immigrants and refugees from all Latin America. More than 60% of the population is Latino – and only 3% of them come from Mexico. The Miami accent is unique compared with the nation. Local government is distinct from other counties in Florida.

One would expect Miami to be one of the most Democratic places in the nation, much like New York City or Chicago.

It is not.

Continued below the flip.

Obama won the five boroughs of New York City by 59%: a 4 to 1 margin. He won Cook County (Chicago) by 53%, with more than three-fourths of the vote. In contrast, Obama took 58% of Miami-Dade county – less than the amount by which he won New York City. The 2008 Democratic performance in Miami is comparable to their performance in cities such as Dallas (57% of the vote) and Sacramento (58% of the vote).

Much of this is due to the Cuban vote, the city’s largest demographic group. Refugees from Castro’s Cuba, staunchly anti-Communist, and faithful Republicans ever since the Bay of Pigs fiasco; Cubans vote as strongly Republican as Jews vote Democratic. In 2000, George W. Bush won about four out of five Cubans, helped by Cuban anger over Al Gore’s role in the Elian Gonzalez affair. In 2008 Obama won around 35% of their vote, based on exit polls. This was the best performance of a Democrat with Cubans in recent memory.

Their influence ensures that Miami remains a competitive, Democratic-leaning city. Democrats usually end up winning it, but their margins are severely cut. And occasionally it will turn up in the Republican column – as happened during the 2004 Senate race. There, Mel Martinez, a Bush ally, won Miami-Dade on his way to a one percent victory.



Democrats often hopefully comment that demographic shifts will slowly move Cubans leftward, as a new generation of Cubans, less concerned with Castro and communism, replaces their more militant elders. Perhaps. But that process will be the work of decades, not a single election cycle. For the moment the Cuban vote remains strongly Republican.

In 2008 the Democrats challenged two entrenched, Republican congressmen in south Florida: the Cuban Diaz-Balart brothers. The races were closely watched, so much that the New York Times Magazine aired an article dedicated to them. In the end, both Republicans won by margins larger than expected. Their continuing presence points to the steadfastness of the Cuban Republican vote.



Conclusion

Of the three most commonly cited swing states, Florida is the most conservative. The state can be divided into unique blocs, each of which has a distinct culture. The first, northern Florida, shares much/is part of the Deep South. Voting patterns reflect this. The populous I-4 corridor – Florida’s so-called swing-region – leans Republican, although Democrats perform well in Tampa Bay and Orlando. Finally, south Florida – diverse and populous – is the Democratic base, although the Cuban vote in Miami blunts their strength.

Whether Florida will remain this way is uncertain. Florida is an immense and diverse state. It is home to the Panhandle and Miami – two places opposite as night and day. Most every part of America can be found in the varied peoples that reside there. And certainly, it will continue to be an important swing state, sought after by both parties. Whoever ends up winning Florida is well on his or her way to becoming president.

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…



This is the fourth part of an analysis on the swing state Florida.



The Miami Metropolis

Diverse, populous, sun-baked – south Florida is far different from the rest of the state. It is the Democratic base, where liberals win their biggest margins.

Like most liberal places in this country, south Florida contains incredibly diversity; ethnic minorities compose a large share of the population. The region as a whole has reached majority-minority status. Blacks, Jews, Latinos ranging from Cubans to Nicaraguans, and many others call south Florida home.

Urban and densely populated – again, a trait common to Democratic-voting regions – South Florida is the seventh largest metropolitan region in the country. Most of its population resides along Florida’s southeastern shore, on a strip of land often only a few miles wide. More people voted in Miami-Dade and Broward than any other county out of the three swing states being reviewed (Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylania). Both counties are part of south Florida.



If south Florida, with its vast population, behaved like liberal Philadelphia, John Kerry would be president of the United States and Barack Obama would have won the state by double-digits.

That does not happen.

Continued below the flip.

While Palm Beach County and Broward County (the two top counties in south Florida) are solidly Democratic, they are far and away from the most liberal places in the country. Palm Beach, like many liberal-leaning suburbs, gives Democrats a 3:2 edge. Broward, a deeper shade of blue, gives Democrats two-thirds of its vote. Both places have voted this way consistently for the past four elections. Miami-Dade county, which is culturally and economically an entity by itself, behaves somewhat differently.

Here is how Barack Obama did in the Miami metropolis:



Like most Democratic candidates, he obtains huge margins. Compare the size of the circles here to those in the I-4 corridor (this can’t be done regarding northern Florida, unfortunately). They’re a magnitude bigger.

Several demographic factors lie behind Democratic strength in Palm Beach and Broward, the top two blue circles (Broward is the middle one). Palm Beach has a substantial black population, slightly above the national average. Latinos also compose a double-digit voting bloc – although many are Cubans, diluting their impact. Moreover, Palm Beach is the wealthiest county in Florida. While not all extremely rich areas vote Democratic, as a whole they tend to be bluer than the country at large.

Then there is the Jewish vote.

More Jews live in south Florida than anywhere else in the world, except for the state of Israel. Most are retirees living out their golden days in sunny Florida. Jews, much like their Catholic brethren, have a long history of voting for Democrats. In today’s world, their leftward stances on social issues drive them to Democrats. Mike Dukakis was the last Democrat to win less than 70% of the Jewish vote. The last Republican to beat a Democrat amongst Jews was Warren Harding, in 1920. And that was because 38% of them voted for a socialist.



Up to 20% of Palm Beach County is Jewish, an important Democratic advantage. This constituency gave Obama 78% of the vote in 2008, contributing heavily to his overall victory. In neighboring Broward County, approximately 12-13% of the population is Jewish (a decrease in recent years). There too, Jews helped increase Obama’s margin in the county.

Broward County is similar in many respects to Palm Beach. It is one of Florida’s wealthiest counties. Latinos comprise more than one-fifth of the population (although, again, there are many Republican-leaning Cubans). There are a number of Jewish voters, as noted previously. Finally, African-Americans comprise slightly less than one-fourth of the population. Their relatively larger presence translates to a stronger Democratic vote compared with Palm Beach.

A final note. In 2000, Al Gore chose Senator Joe Lieberman, a Jewish-American, as his running mate. In large part due to this, he performed extraordinarily well in Palm Beach and Broward; Lieberman’s presence ensured unusually high Jewish support. In fact, Gore did better than Obama in the two counties, despite Obama’s far stronger national performance.

Florida’s razor-thin margin in 2000 is a major reason pundits today regard it as a swing state. However, as the above analysis indicates, much of Gore’s strength was unique to him (or rather, his running-mate). Relative to the generic Democrat, Gore overperformed. This was why John Kerry’s campaign, which competed so hard in Florida, was taken aback by the margin he lost by. To this day, Democrats assume that Florida is a more liberal place than it actually is. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and the Jewish vote are largely responsible for this.

This is part three of a series on the political structure of the swing state Florida.

The I-4 Corridor

If there is a holy grail of Florida politics, it is winning the I-4 corridor. This refers to the Interstate 4 highway, which begins in Tampa Bay, travels though Orlando, and ends in Daytona Beach.

Quite a lot of people live in the I-4 corridor. It’s far more populated than northern Florida (and northern Florida itself is relatively dense compared to other parts of the South). While parts of south Florida are far more people-heavy, as an aggregate central Florida has a slightly greater population. The I-4 corridor can be compared to a gigantic suburb, with an unusually high number of retirees. Granted, there are cities, but they are more alike to Phoenix (which is really just a big suburb with skyscrapers) than New York.

The picture above indicates counties in which more than 100,000 votes were cast in 2008; it is a rough indication of voting density. There are a scattering of counties with more than a hundred thousand voters in northern Florida; actually Obama does quite well in the highlighted counties. Most of south Florida is also yellow. Then there is an empty region – the Everglades. And above that is the I-4 corridor, which is nearly entirely highlighted. The center yellow counties are actually a rough definition of the I-4 corridor.

The I-4 corridor is often considered to be the “swing” region of Florida. The metropolitan areas that lie inside it are the heart of central Florida, and they have enormous importance. The percentage by which a politician wins the I-4 corridor often mirrors his overall performance in the state.

Continued below the flip.

For a so-called “swing” area, though, central Florida is quite conservative. It can be characterized, like Florida itself, as a Republican-dominated region with a few Democratic strongholds. The “average” county in central Florida leans Republican, with a few exceptions. And remember, the “average” county is quite populated.

What are the “exceptions,” the parts of I-4 that lean Democratic? They’re generally more populated than the mean. They have high levels of minorities. They’re places like Tampa Bay and Orlando. Osceola County has a large Puerto Rican community; it leans Democratic. Democrats sometimes do well in the communities north of Tampa. To be clear, “doing well” means winning these counties by ten percent or so; Democrats generally don’t pull off 60% or more of the vote anywhere in the I-4 corridor unless it’s a landslide.

Here is the performance of a relatively weak Democrat, John Kerry, in the I-4 corridor:



John Kerry gets absolutely pummeled. There is a sea of red counties. This is the reason why John Kerry lost Florida.

Here is the performance of a stronger Democrat, Barack Obama:



He does better. Obama’s probably winning the I-4 corridor, largely due to his landslide victory in Orlando – where he took 59% of the vote, the highest Democratic performance since 1944. Still, it’s a very very close thing (actually, Obama’s only leading by several thousand votes if one adds up all the counties pictured). Compared with how the Democrats did nationally, winning by 7.2%, that’s a very unimpressive result.

McCain and Obama essentially ran even in central Florida, or Florida’s “swing” region. They also ran even in Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina. To say that the I-4 corridor is as conservative as North Carolina is an eye-opening statement. But the data backs it up.

There is hope for Democrats, nevertheless. The type of conservatism typified by central Florida seems like a softer, more suburban type of conservatism. Central Florida voters are probably more accepting of Democrats and willing to vote for them. Republicans won most counties in the I-4 corridor – but they did by 10 points, not by 40. Using an analogy earlier from this post, Central Florida Republicans are more akin to Phoenix Republicans than their northern Florida counterparts. While the I-4 corridor didn’t vote for Clinton in ’92, it did so in ’96. In contrast, the conservatism typified by northern Florida and the Deep South is deeply ingrained and rock-hard. Only a tidal wave can change voting patterns there.

Moreover, demographic change may shift central Florida leftward. This is especially evident in Orange County (Orlando) and Osceola County. In 1992, Orange County gave George H.W. Bush one of his largest margins in central Florida; he won it by double-digits. In 2008, it was Obama’s best-performing county in the region. The U.S. Census estimates that around 40% of the population is black or Latino, highly Democratic voting blocs. Rapid Puerto Rican immigration into Osceola County, too, has led to a nearly 30% voting shift since 1992, according to the Times.

For the moment, nevertheless, the I-4 corridor is roughly as conservative as North Carolina in terms of votes. To summarize so far: northern Florida, commonly considered the Republican base, is as red as the Deep South. Not parts of the Deep South; the Deep South as a whole. The I-4 corrider, which is called Florida’s “swing” region, swings blue just as much as Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina did in 2008. Historically, it’s probably been closer to Missouri; to call central Florida as red as Indiana or North Carolina is probably an overstatement.

Miami, as we shall see, is about as liberal as Dallas and Sacamento.

–Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

Florida can be considered as three regions distinct in culture, economics, and voting patterns. Northern Florida is deep red; the I-4 corridor is light red; and the Miami metropolis is moderately blue.

Until recently, Florida was far different from what it looks like today. It was the quintessential Southern state, and it was fairly empty in term of people. Florida’s voting record reflected its southern roots. Until Eisenhower won it twice, Florida was part of the Solid South. In 1964, LBJ ran well behind his national average, due to his support for civil rights. The next election, George Wallace took 29% of the vote. Then in 1976, Jimmy Carter resurrected the Solid South for the last time, winning Florida by 5%. That was also the last time a Democrat ran above the national average in Florida.

Northern Florida and the Panhandle

Florida still is a Southern state to some extent. This is especially true in northern Florida and the panhandle, which borders Alabama and Georgia. Northern Florida is very conservative; it is not uncommon to see a Republican taking 70% or more of the vote in a number of counties there.

As the picture indicates, northern Florida constituted the place in which McCain performed best. There were no counties in which Obama won over 70% of the vote, although he comes fairly close in majority-black Gadsden County (where he won 69.1% of the vote).

Gadsden County provides a neat encapsulation of all that makes northern Florida tough going for Democrats. Like much of the Deep South, voting is racially polarized. If a county is like Gadsden, it votes blue; if, on the other hand, a county does not have many blacks, it is usually deep red. There are not many independents in this region; voting habits are deeply entrenched. The “average” voter and the “average” county is a hard-core Republican.

The result is something like this:

This is northern Florida in the 2008 presidential election.

There are three noticeable blue areas (out of five Democratic counties). One is Gadsden County, which is majority black. The other two are homes of major public universities: Tallahassee hosts Florida A&M University and Florida State University, while Alachua County is home to the University of Florida.

This is the Democratic “base,” such as it is. Blacks and college students have historically been the most faithful Democrats, and in northern Florida they are the only Democrats.

A final note before moving on to central Florida. Although Jacksonville most always votes Republican, there is a substantial black minority within it that, unfortunately, has had historically poor turn-out. A strong Democrat can mobilize these voters and essentially erase Republican margins in this county. Barack Obama was extremely successful at doing so, which is why the red circle is relatively small in the map. On the other hand, John Kerry was not as successful; he lost Jacksonville by 17 points, as the picture below indicates.



–Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

In 2008, Illinois Senator Barack Obama won Colorado by 9.0%, Florida by 2.8%, and Indiana by 1.0%. Guess which one was the “swing state” in 2004.

The answer is Florida, and if that seems strange in light of the above – it is. In fairness, one might counter that Obama did relatively poorly in Florida (where he didn’t campaign in the primaries) and relatively well in Colorado (where the Democratic convention was held).

Here’s another question. Colorado, Florida, Indiana. Only one of these three sends a majority-Republican delegation to the House of Representatives. Which one is it? (A hint: it’s not Indiana.)

It turns out that Florida elects 15 Republican congressmen and 10 Democratic congressmen. Again, to be fair, one might note that Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature gerrymandered Florida’s congressional districts to achieve an unbalanced result. This is relatively easy – most Democrats live in tightly clustered South Florida.

But that’s just it: Florida’s state legislature is Republican-controlled. In fact, Republicans have 60%+ majorities in both chambers. Florida’s governor is Republican Charlie Crist. Florida was voted Democratic in only two of the last eight presidential elections. John Kerry’s campaign was shocked by the margin he lost by in Florida. Bill Clinton won Georgia, of all states, while losing Florida in1992.

To be fair, I’m picking and choosing my numbers. If you go back to the past nine presidential elections, you’ll find Democrats batting three for nine, not two for eight. And three of those eight elections were big Republican victories.

But there’s only so many times one can say “to be fair.” There’s only so many excuses one can make for yet another indication of Republican dominance in Florida.

Because the closer one inspects as Florida, the more it begins to look less like a swing state than a conservative state with an unusually big Democratic base – which the media happens to call a swing state.

In the next section, I’ll be analyzing why exactly this is so.

–Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

In 2008, Illinois Senator Barack Obama won Colorado by 9.0%, Florida by 2.8%, and Indiana by 1.0%. Guess which one was the “swing state” in 2004.

The answer is Florida, and if that seems strange in light of the above – it is. In fairness, one might counter that Obama did relatively poorly in Florida (where he didn’t campaign in the primaries) and relatively well in Colorado (where the Democratic convention was held).

Here’s another question. Colorado, Florida, Indiana. Only one of these three sends a majority-Republican delegation to the House of Representatives. Which one is it? (A hint: it’s not Indiana.)

It turns out that Florida elects 15 Republican congressmen and 10 Democratic congressmen. Again, to be fair, one might note that Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature gerrymandered Florida’s congressional districts to achieve an unbalanced result. This is relatively easy – most Democrats live in tightly clustered South Florida.

But that’s just it: Florida’s state legislature is Republican-controlled. In fact, Republicans have 60%+ majorities in both chambers. Florida’s governor is Republican Charlie Crist. Florida was voted Democratic in only two of the last eight presidential elections. John Kerry’s campaign was shocked by the margin he lost by in Florida. Bill Clinton won Georgia, of all states, while losing Florida in1992.

To be fair, I’m picking and choosing my numbers. If you go back to the past nine presidential elections, you’ll find Democrats batting three for nine, not two for eight. And three of those eight elections were big Republican victories.

But there’s only so many times one can say “to be fair.” There’s only so many excuses one can make for yet another indication of Republican dominance in Florida.

Because the closer one inspects as Florida, the more it begins to look less like a swing state than a conservative state with an unusually big Democratic base – which the media happens to call a swing state.

In the next section, I’ll be analyzing why exactly this is so.

They’re considered a minority in the United States, composing a rapidly growing sub-set of the population. The majority are immigrants; public sentiment, aroused by nativism, is sometimes hostile towards them. They vote heavily Democratic, but because many are immigrants they turn-out in numbers not as great as the share of the population they compose.

I’m not talking about Latinos. I’m talking about white Catholics in the early 20th century.

Today, Democrats hope that the Latino vote will be an essential part of a permanent majority, the keys to an unyielding period of Democratic dominance. Latinos were a major part of Obama’s victory in states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. They’ve turned California blue for the foreseeable future. Red states Arizona and Texas are home to millions of Latinos, who represent a threat to the Republican character of those two states. Opportunity beckons.

Or so it seems.

In reality, however, it seems that the path of the Latino vote is the same as that of the white Catholic vote. The more Catholics that entered the country and the more time that passed, the more assimilated they became. In the early 20th century, Catholics were seen as an “other,” as Italian and Irish immigrants not fully part of the Unite States. Today, however, such sentiment is long gone. We regard white Catholics as normal, dull. The days of anti-Catholic discrimination are long gone.

With it has disappeared the Democratic hold over the Catholic vote. JFK won nearly 80% of Catholics because he was Catholic, and because in that time there was still anti-Catholic sentiment. 40 years later, John Kerry lost the Catholic vote, despite being a Catholic.

Will Latinos follow the same path? It seems likely. A large part of what connects Latinos to the Democratic Party is that they are an immigrant community – and Democrats have always represented immigrants. If – when – they assimilate, and the word Latino becomes just another synonym for white, Latinos will behave much as white Catholics do today. Which is to say that they will vote no different from the rest of America.

–Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

The Bean Walker, Iowa’s copycat version of The Drudge Report, was thrilled to link to the latest approval numbers from Survey USA yesterday:

Iowa

Pres. Obama: 45 / 51

Sen. Grassley: 54 / 34

Sen. Harkin: 49 / 38

Gov. Culver: 36 / 51

This statewide poll of 600 adults was conducted on August 26 and 27 and is said to have a margin of error of 4 percent. It’s the first time any pollster has found the president below 50 percent approval in Iowa, and the first time any pollster has found the governor’s approval in the 30s. For more details about various demographic groups in this poll, you can find Culver’s chart here, charts on Harkin and Grassley here, and Obama’s chart here.

Looking at Survey USA’s trendlines for Culver since he took office, I noticed that Culver’s disapproval number is basically unchanged this summer, but his approval number has dropped significantly from 42 percent in June and 44 percent in July to 36 percent in late August.

Before anyone panics, note that Survey USA’s approval numbers for Culver tend to run low compared to other pollsters. In early July, the poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog found Culver’s approve/disapprove numbers to be 53 percent/41 percent. Later the same month, Hill Research Consultants’ poll for the Iowa First Foundation found Culver’s favorability at 52 percent. (The Iowa First Foundation did not release the governor’s approval number from that poll, but you better believe they would have if the number had been in the 30s or even the low 40s.) Meanwhile, Survey USA pegged Culver’s approval at 44 percent on July 20.

Survey USA’s numbers for Obama, Harkin and Grassley are also noticeably down in the latest poll. Obama is at a record low in Iowa. Grassley’s approval of 54 percent is the lowest Survey USA has found in at least four years. I couldn’t find a similar graph for Harkin’s numbers, but it’s been a very long time since I can remember seeing his approval rating below 50.

Of course, it’s possible that the recession and the health care debate have affected Iowans’ view of all political leaders. Still, I would like to see these numbers confirmed by some other pollster. Even with the best sampling techniques, approximately 1 in 20 polls is wrong just by chance.

I also agree with Steve Singiser that if Culver were this unpopular in Iowa, Democrat Curt Hanson would not have won yesterday’s special election in Iowa House district 90 (a swing district). The Republicans ran at least two television ads linking Hanson to Culver (see here and here).

I’m looking forward to the next Selzer and Associates poll for the Des Moines Register, which probably will come later this month or in early October.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 noticed this:

The sample composition:

D-28

R-34

NP-35

Obviously, if considering registered adults, the D/R fractions should be reversed. However, back in July, they used:

D-38

R-24

NP-34

so the Dem fraction was too high back then. Conclusion? Perhaps the July survey was a bit too favorable, and perhaps this one a bit too unfavorable.

In an off-year election, turnout among no-party voters is likely to be lower. Even with a demoralized Democratic base, I’d be surprised if Iowa’s electorate next year was comprised of 28 percent Democrats and 34 percent Republicans. Right now Democrats have a voter registration advantage of about 100,000 over Republicans.