A Different Party

According to Marc Ambinder, new polls show that Republicans in Iowa think Rudy Giuliani is the most electable candidate, yet they're still not voting for him.  I have trouble imagining that same finding on the Democratic side.  I can't figure out if that's because the party out of power is simply more desperate to reenter it or because Republicans are genuinely more ideologically oriented than Democrats, but it's a fascinating finding.  Meanwhile, Dick Morris argues that though Rudy's national numbers are good, his numbers in the relevant primaries are very bad.  It's a convincing case, and I'm thrilled to hear it.  Mitt Romney not only seems less likely to win the general election, but also less likely to explode the earth.

Is The Surge Working?

Given all the domestic dispute over whether the Surge is working, and whether the measurements are honest, and what "working" really means anyway, it's interesting to actually find out what the Iraqis think. So the BBC and ABC News polled them:

So the overwhelming majority thought the surge made things worse. Then came those who thought it made no difference. And then, hovering around 10 percent, were those who thought they detected some improvements. Given that the Surge is in theory, about Iraqi security rather than American politics, these are disheartening numbers.

Also: Could someone please inform the BBC that blue should fill the bar for things going well and red should should be the color for all that's gone awry? I find this pleasing, powder-blue denoting increases in deadly violence to be a bit confusing.

The Kids Are Alright

According to a new New York Times/CBS poll, they're not only alright, they're downright Democratic. They disapprove of Bush's handling on, well, everything, would vote Democratic by a margin of 54%-32%, and 58% have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party while only 38% are positively inclined towards the Republicans. The one surprising result is their pessimism: 48% think their generation will be worse off than their parents' generation, while only 25% think they'll be better off.

Whether for that or another reason, they seem to have more trust in government than their parent's do:

So kids, it turns out, are much better than alright: They're collectivists! My hunch is coming of political age after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Reagan era will leave you much less skeptical of government than having endured through the period when "big government" meant a murderous and hegemonic regime we were in an undeclared war with, and the nation's dominant political party demonized the state in exactly those terms. As Ruy Teixeira and John Judis explain in the latest issue of TAP:

The Democratic majority in 2006 was also bolstered by support from voters ages 18 to 29. Almost all of these voters fall into the category that pollsters call "millennials" or "Generation Y" (those born after 1977). In contrast to the previous generation, dubbed "Generation X" (those born between 1965 and 1977), they prefer Democrats over Republicans and the center-left over the center-right. According to a 2006 Pew survey, 48 percent of 18- to 25-year-old millennials identify themselves as Democrats, and only 35 percent identify themselves as Republicans. In 2006, 18- to-29-year-olds voted for Democratic congressional candidates by 60 percent to 38 percent. By contrast, 55 percent of 18- to 25-year-old Generation Xers had identified themselves as Republicans in the early 1990s. Political generations don't often change their allegiance. The New Deal generation sustained a Democratic majority for decades; Generation X has remained a bulwark of the Republican vote; and the millennials can be expected to bolster a new Democratic majority.

Clearly, different political experiences have shaped these two generations. Generation X grew up during the Carter and Reagan years, which were marked by Democratic failure and Republican success. The millennials grew up in years of the Clinton boom and Bush's disastrous failure in Iraq. Their political outlook most clearly resembles that of postindustrial professionals: socially liberal, in favor of government regulation of business, more secular, and less inclined than any other generation to accept the Republican identification with the religious right. In a 2006 Pew survey, 20 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds reported they had no religion or were atheist or agnostic, compared with just 11 percent among those over 25.

If these trends endure -- and unlike other shifts in the past few years, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Democrats have achieved lock-in with millenials -- the Left is going to have a much stronger base from which to build over the next few years.

The Kids Are Alright

According to a new New York Times/CBS poll, they're not only alright, they're downright Democratic. They disapprove of Bush's handling on, well, everything, would vote Democratic by a margin of 54%-32%, and 58% have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party while only 38% are positively inclined towards the Republicans. The one surprising result is their pessimism: 48% think their generation will be worse off than their parent's generation, while only 25% think they'll be better off.

Whether for that or another reason, they seem to have more trust in government than their parent's do:

The kids are much better than alright: They're collectivists! My hunch is coming of political age after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Reagan era will leave you much less skeptical of government than having endured through the period when "big government" meant a murderous and hegemonic regime we were in an undeclared war with, and the nation's dominant political party demonized the state in exactly those terms. As Ruy Teixeira and John Judis explain in the latest issue of TAP:

The Democratic majority in 2006 was also bolstered by support from voters ages 18 to 29. Almost all of these voters fall into the category that pollsters call "millennials" or "Generation Y" (those born after 1977). In contrast to the previous generation, dubbed "Generation X" (those born between 1965 and 1977), they prefer Democrats over Republicans and the center-left over the center-right. According to a 2006 Pew survey, 48 percent of 18- to 25-year-old millennials identify themselves as Democrats, and only 35 percent identify themselves as Republicans. In 2006, 18- to-29-year-olds voted for Democratic congressional candidates by 60 percent to 38 percent. By contrast, 55 percent of 18- to 25-year-old Generation Xers had identified themselves as Republicans in the early 1990s. Political generations don't often change their allegiance. The New Deal generation sustained a Democratic majority for decades; Generation X has remained a bulwark of the Republican vote; and the millennials can be expected to bolster a new Democratic majority.

Clearly, different political experiences have shaped these two generations. Generation X grew up during the Carter and Reagan years, which were marked by Democratic failure and Republican success. The millennials grew up in years of the Clinton boom and Bush's disastrous failure in Iraq. Their political outlook most clearly resembles that of postindustrial professionals: socially liberal, in favor of government regulation of business, more secular, and less inclined than any other generation to accept the Republican identification with the religious right. In a 2006 Pew survey, 20 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds reported they had no religion or were atheist or agnostic, compared with just 11 percent among those over 25.

If these trends endure -- and unlike other shifts in the past few years, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Democrats have achieved lock-in with millenials -- the Left is going to have a much stronger base from which to build over the next few years.

The ARG Poll

I don't think Michael Crowley's read of the ARG poll's trend lines is quite right. It's not so much that "Clinton's ARG lead over Obama in New Hampshire has also soared," it's that Obama's position in the poll has plummeted. Take December out of the the equation, as it's both the oldest month and, by far, the lowest for Clinton, suggesting it's a possible outlier. Over the past four months, she's held steady between 39% and 37%, a two percent swing. Obama has dropped from a high of 23% in March to 14% in April, a nine percent loss. And Edwards has risen from 13% in January to 26% now, a 13 percent improvement. So what you're seeing is an apparently durable lead for Clinton, significant downward motion for Clinton, and serious improvement for Edwards.

As The Poll Turns...

It's good, every once in awhile, to dig through a comprehensive poll and see where the country's at. For instance, I wasn't aware that only 20 out of every 100 people approved of George W. Bush's job performance. I thought he'd have at least, oh, four more supporters in there. And I am surprised that only 23% of the country thinks the country is on the right track. That matches the low from May 2006, and the two are lower than at any point in the past 25 years. Bush's foreign policy and Iraq ratings have cratered, of course, but support for his handling of terrorism has also drifted downward, hitting a new low of 40% (53% disapprove). And only 24% approve his handling of health care, despite the fact that he used much of the State of the union to announce a new initiative on the subject.

Indeed, health care appears to be rising in salience, as 55% name "health insurance for all" as more important than reducing taxes, strengthening immigration laws, or even promoting traditional values. Further, 62% say the Democrats are the likeliest to improve the health care system, while only 19% name the Republicans. As it is, 54% of the country wants fundamental changes to the system, while 36% want to completely rebuild it. That's the highest number since 1993 -- and it's notable that it's not coming amidst a recession. This is an enduring trend, not a temporary squeeze. Indeed, 57% are dissatisfied with the quality of health care in the country, even as 77% are generally satisfied with the quality of care they receive. The unhappiness manifests in the next question, wherein 60% are dissatisfied with the overall cost of care, 52% are upset about what they personally pay.

What surprised me is that 61% say providing care to the uninsured is more important than keeping costs down for average Americans. 95% think the uninsured are a serious problem, and 63% think the government should guarantee care for all Americans. This drops, however, to 48% if it means individual costs will rise. That said, 76% say access to insurance is more important than retaining Bush's tax cut,s suggesting that John Edwards' formulation of using the cuts to pay for care may resonate. Indeed, 60% are willing to pay more in taxes to guarantee care and 49% remained willing when the pollsters specified an extra $500 in taxes per year.

These anxieties may be part of the reason the Republican Party is in such an image crisis, with only 34% rating them favorably, as compared to 48% approving of the Democrats. That's a moderately low number for the Dems, but an atypical pit for the Republicans. All this suggests health reformers have a real opportunity. But these numbers that existed in early 90s -- and reformers failed. The difference, though, is that the early 90s was a serious recession. The current anxiety comes from enduring trends in the system, and so may prove a more stable base for change.

Also at Tapped.

Testing The Exits

Given that Democrats had a very good night last night, it's worth taking another look at the exit polls to see how they fared, this time without the pressure of a vast and demoralizing reversal from earlier predictions.  Now, it's worth remembering that these polls are taken after voting, so the effects of suppression and intimidation (the garden variety methods used to tilt the table on election day) won't show up.  Further, this exit data came out around 5pm Eastern, so polls hadn't closed.  But just for kicks, I've matched the exit data with the final vote tallies to see how the polls performed:

POLLS V. POLLS

State	Exit Poll	Voting Results	Difference
Missouri	+2%	+3%	1%
Montana	+7%	+1%	6%
New Jersey	+8%	+8%	0%
Ohio	+14%	+12%	2%
Pennsylvania	+15%	+18%	+3%
Rhode Island	+7%	+6%	1%
Virginia	+7%	+0.7%	6.3%
Tennessee	-3%	-3%	0%

Bottom line?  The polls, early as they were, did staggeringly well.  Their largest misreads in Virginia and Montana, but the average margin of error was an astonishingly low 2.4%.  Whatever problems bedeviled the polls in 2004 -- cue the usual argument pitting error against theft -- was fixed for 2006.

Health Care Attitudes

Kaiser, ABC, and USA Today just released a pretty expansive poll documenting the country's opinions on health care. The nickel version is that your countrymen are mostly liberal, deeply confused, and more likely to loathe the status quo than clearly conceptualize potential alternatives. Respondents said it was the third most important issue in the country, behind Iraq and the economy, but before immigration, gas prices, or terrorism. That's probably because opinions towards the system are so overwhelmingly negative: 80 percent are dissatisfied with the cost of health care in the country, and 54 percent are dissatisfied with the quality. So the system starts out with few friends.

From there, things get more complicated. Nearly 90 percent are satisfied with the quality of care they received. Nearly 60 percent are satisfied with their costs. In other words, Americans believe everyone else's health care system costs too much and delivers too little. Their own system rocks. Meanwhile, a full 25 percent reported that they or someone in their household had problems paying for medical bill in the last 12 months, and 28 percent put off medical treatment due to cost. Of that 28 percent, 70 percent admitted that the delayed treatment was "serious." And remember, this is all in the last year.

Individual fears become more acute when asked about the future. 60 percent worry about affording insurance "over the next few years" and 56 percent fear losing their coverage if they lose their job. As for what's driving all these high costs, the reported culprits, in descending order, are excess profits of drug and insurance companies, medical malpractice lawsuits, fraud and waste, overpaid doctors, administrative costs, unnecessary treatments, unhealthy lifestyles, expensive new treatments, the aging population, and better medical care. That's depressing. In order to get an accurate view of what's driving health costs, you'd need to basically invert that list. To say the American people have it backwards is to be unusually precise.

How to fix it? Letting individuals shop around for the best prices they can get garners wide support, with 80 percent judging it some level of effective. Suggest far higher deductibles and low risk insulation, however, and watch that drop. 56 percent would prefer "a universal coverage program...like Medicare that is government run and financed by taxpayers" to the current system, but that number plummets if you ask about higher taxes, limited choice, or rationing. 70 percent support an employer mandate while a mere plurality support tax breaks for low-income workers (despite the fact that high income workers currently enjoy a massive tax break through employer deductions).

So, in sum: The health care system sucks, but nearly every American's health care is great. That would suggest the opportunities for reform are minor, unless directed at the loathed elements (like insurance or Pharma). Folks don't like the high costs and fear they'll soon be overtaken by bills, but they blame all manner of minor and moderate contributors for the problem, not their own health choices, overtreatment, or new technologies. Universal care is heavily desired, but only if it doesn't cost anything or demand any sacrifices. In other words, the appetite for reform outpaces the realism of would-be reformers. The tradeoffs of the current system seem poorly understood, and attitudes towards its desirability are contradictory. Not a whole lot of hope in here for anyone.

Geography Matters

It's old news that even while voters overwhelmingly loathe Congress, they tend to think their Congressman is doing a pretty good job. The new NYT/CBS poll sustains that fine tradition of voter confusion. Only 25 percent of voters approve of the job Congress is doing, but a full 53 percent approve of the job their representative is doing. That said, 48 percent think it's time to give someone new a chance in their district, while only 39 percent want to re-elect. Encouraging stuff.

Here's what's more surprising: This poll has trend lines stretching back to the 80's, so it's easy to compare and contrast. Turns out that in 94, year of the Republican Revolution, 56 percent of voters thought their representative was doing a good job, and the disapproval number, now at 29 percent, was at a mere 17 percent. Even weirder, in 98, 64 percent approved of their congressman. So going by those numbers, Democrats should win some 60 or so seats in November.

All of which is to say, this question may not matter very much. The swings in approval appear very minor (from the low 50's to the low 60's), and they don't seem to correspond to actual electoral outcomes. Which probably makes sense. After all, if 90 percent of voters think their congressman is doing just peachy, but the remaining 10 percent are clustered in a few dozen districts, you've got a landslide on your hands. In midterm elections, it's not the number of the disaffected, but their geographical concentrations that matters.

Peak Pony

by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math

Bush falls below 40% in the Rasmussen tracking poll. Cue Iran saber-rattling in five, four, three ...