Rasmussen Illinois Senatorial Survey

• Alexi Giannoulias 42% [41%] (38%)
• Mark Kirk 39% [41%] (41%)
• Other 3% [4%] (4%)
• Not sure 15% [13%] (17%)

• Mark Kirk 42% [43%] (47%)
• Cheryle Jackson 39% [39%] (30%)
• Other 4% [4%] (6%)
• Not sure 15% [13%] (17%)

• Mark Kirk 42% [43%]
• David Hoffman 38% [33%]
• Other 3% [8%]
• Not sure 17% [16%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mark Kirk 50% / 32% {+18%}
• David Hoffman 40% / 27% {+13%}
• Alexi Giannoulias 48% / 36% {+12%}
• Cheryle Jackson 38% / 34% {+4%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 40% [41%] (37%)
• Somewhat approve 18% [15%] (19%)
• Somewhat disapprove 9% [11%] (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 33% [33%] (34%)

How would you rate the job Pat Quinn has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 8%
• Somewhat approve 43%
• Somewhat disapprove 25%
• Strongly disapprove 22%

A proposal has been made to house some Guantanamo prison inmates in Illinois at the Thomson correctional facility. Do you favor or oppose housing Guantanamo prisoners at the Thomson correctional facility in Illinois?

• Favor 39%
• Oppose 51%

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 27%
• Somewhat favor 23%
• Somewhat oppose 8%
• Strongly oppose 38%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 57%
• Reduce the deficit 10%
• No impact on the deficit 22%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 53%
• Somewhat likely 18%
• Not very likely 19%
• Not at all likely 4%

Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?

• Favor 43%
• Oppose 39%

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

• Favor 26%
• Oppose 56%

Overall, how would you rate President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan?

• Excellent 16%
• Good 30%
• Fair 30%
• Poor 23%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s proposal to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan?

• Favor 55%
• Oppose 33%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s commitment to a timetable that would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 18 months?

• Favor 49%
• Oppose 38%

Overall, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s new plan for the war in Afghanistan?

• Favor 45%
• Oppose 33%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted December 9. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 14 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 11 are in parentheses.

From The Lobbyist:

Senator Reid, when The Mayo Clinic, possibly the most respected medical establishment in the nation, dislikes your bill, you are in trouble.

President Obama and The Mayo Clinic have worked together on health care reform this year. Mayo has critiqued the health care reform efforts before, but also praised efforts on payment reform. However, consider the following regarding the current Senate bill: “Expanding this system [Medicare] to persons 55 to 64 years old would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country. A majority of Medicare providers currently suffer great financial loss under the program. Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.  Despite these provider losses, Medicare has not curbed overall spending, especially after adjusting for benefits covered and the cost shift from Medicare to private insurance.  This is clearly an unsustainable model, and one that would be disastrous for our nation’s hospitals, doctors and eventually our patients if expanded to even more beneficiaries.”

Mayo spends a fraction what the most expensive Medicare-accepting hospitals do on patients and uses fewer resources by far. When they can’t break even on Medicare, who can? Yet Democrats want to expand Medicare? Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean was on MSNBC the other night- I was in the gym and decided to watch Keith Olbermann for a few minutes- and he fully supported the expanded Medicare concept. That alone is almost enough for me to oppose it, though when a single-payer advocate in Congress supports it as well and Stuart Butler of The Heritage Foundation is against it the opposition becomes complete.

Mayo has its critics- but many of those critics merely claim Mayo can keep costs down because it has patients that are less racially diverse, wealthier, etc. Those critics add to the case Mayo makes above, because if Mayo does have the advantages critics claim and still can’t break even on Medicare reimbursement, how can the vast majority of the rest of the nation’s hospitals even come close?

Liberals make the argument that Medicare brought millions of elderly people out of poverty- this may or may not be true, but the simple fact is that many or perhaps even most Congressional Democrats don’t have a clue about financial sustainability- granted, nor do most Congressional Republicans- and by expanding Medicare they hasten the bankruptcy of America.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 50% (46%) [50%] {49%} (50%) [54%] {53%}
• Disapprove 44% (46%) [41%] {45%} (42%) [39%] {40%}

Among Independents

• Approve 44% (34%) [49%] {42%} (46%) [51%] {49%}
• Disapprove 48% (51%) [34%] {47%} (41%) [42%] {44%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing on the following issues?

Afghanistan

• Approve 49% {41%} [51%]
• Disapprove 44% {43%} [32%]

Among Independents

• Approve 48% {38%} [49%]
• Disapprove 46% {46%} [31%]

Economy

• Approve 45% {48%} [55%]
• Disapprove 52% {49%} [40%]

Among Independents

• Approve 33% {41%} [50%]
• Disapprove 62% {56%} [44%]

Health Care

• Approve 39% {42%} [44%]
• Disapprove 54% {50%} [48%]

Among Independents

• Approve 31% {36%} [35%]
• Disapprove 63% {53%} [53%]

Job Creation

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 52%

Among Independents

• Approve 35%
• Disapprove 57%

Federal Deficit

• Approve 33%
• Disapprove 58%

Among Independents

• Approve 21%
• Disapprove 70%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Biden is doing as vice president?

• Approve 38%
• Disapprove 35%

Among Independents

• Approve 28%
• Disapprove 37%

Among Republicans

• Approve 15%
• Disapprove 55%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Hillary Clinton is doing as Secretary of State?

• Approve 66% {66%}
• Disapprove 22% {24%}

Among Independents

• Approve 64% {69%}
• Disapprove 17% {18%}

Among Republicans

• Approve 45% {38%}
• Disapprove 40% {49%}

In the next congressional election in 2010, are you more likely to vote for the Democrat to help Barack Obama pass his policies and programs; or vote for the Republican to provide a check on Obama’s power?

• Vote for the Republican 42% (42%) [40%] {42%} [35%] {40%}
• Vote for the Democrat 39% (39%) [39%] {38%} [40%] {40%}

Among Independents

• Vote for the Republican 34% (43%) [31%] {35%} [28%] {30%}
• Vote for the Democrat 29% (23%) [30%] {22%} [29%] {28%}

What are your expectations for Barack Obama’s presidency? Do you think he will be one of the country’s greatest presidents; a good president; an average president; a below average president; or one of the country’s worst presidents?

• One of the greatest 13% <19%>
• Good 30% <43%>
• Average 24% <23%>
• Below average 12% <5%>
• One of the worst 16% <6%>

Among Democrats

• One of the greatest 26% <30%>
• Good 51% <56%>
• Average 15% <10%>
• Below average 3% <1%>
• One of the worst 1% <1%>

Among Republicans

• One of the greatest 2% <5%>
• Good 9% <27%>
• Average 33% <40%>
• Below average 22% <10%>
• One of the worst 30% <13%>

Among Independents

• One of the greatest 8% <18%>
• Good 29% <43%>
• Average 28% <23%>
• Below average 10% <5%>
• One of the worst 17% <5%>

Just your best guess — as of today, do you think Barack Obama will be reelected president in 2012, or not?

• Yes 44%
• No 46%

(more…)

Several recent polls, including the venerable Gallup Poll now show Obama having the lowest approval scores of any President at this point of his Presidency, lower even than Ford who pardoned Nixon. One such poll, PPP, showed only 50% of Americans prefer Obama over Bush. 44% said they would prefer George W as President.

Consider that George W. Bush had to endure almost daily beatings by the MSM — the same MSM that is now engaged in a massive group lovefest over his successor. And still Obama’s numbers are the worse of any President in history.

“Yes, Mr. President. It seems that we do.”

I remember reading accounts of President Bush getting booed and jeered at Obama’s inauguration. My thoughts at the time were that these sorts of things tend to boomerang back upon those who do them. Adoration can turn into hatred in the blink of an eye. People who engage in such childish antics are exceptionally vulnerable to it. If things don’t work out just right, they can and will viciously turn on you. Such is the nature of a mob.

I suspect we are reaching a tipping point for this Presidency. I sense that Obama only has a few short months — perhaps just until spring 2010 in which to turn this thing around. If he cannot, the bottom will likely drop out of this administration. Obama could easily be in the 30s and even lower by the 2010 mid-term elections. Losing control of the House is looking more and more likely all the time. Losing the Senate though less likely is not out of the realm of possibility either.

Putting one or both Houses of Congress in the hands of the Republicans will only make things worse for this President. It would give the GOP the power of subpoena. Think of the many things that have been swept under the rug that Congress would then investigate. The letting-off of the Black Panthers. The letting off of Bill Richardson. The firing of Walpin. The list goes on and on.

It would not be the end of the world, of course. The same thing happened to Bill Clinton in 1994, and he had the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He was still able to turn things around and make a fairly decent Presidency out of it, especially after Newt overplayed his hand in his confrontations with the President. Clinton even managed to get re-elected two short years later in 1996.

Could Obama also recover Clinton-like from a 1994-esque debacle in 2010? Anything is possible I suppose, but I suspect it will be far harder. The situations are different. For one thing, Clinton is a whole lot smarter than Obama. For another, he had a great deal more experience in these sorts of things. Also, Clinton was able to dodge his scandal by saying, “Everybody lies about sex”. Obama’s scandals will not be so easy to rationalize. They deal with incompetence and corruption — an entirely different kettle of fish from dilly-dallying on the side. And finally, I don’t see us putting up another hapless Bob Dole in 2012. The people who are leading our polls at the moment are almost the diametric opposite of Senator Dole.

It all adds up to the possibility that we may be seeing an historic Presidential meltdown in the months and years ahead. Stay tuned.

Rasmussen Ohio 2010 Senatorial Survey

• Rob Portman 38% (41%)
• Lee Fisher 36% (40%)
• Other 8% (6%)
• Not sure 18% (14%)

• Rob Portman 40% (40%)
• Jennifer Brunner 33% (38%)
• Other 7% (5%)
• Not sure 20% (18%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rob Portman 48% (45%) / 21% (23%) {+27%}
• Lee Fisher 36% (42%) / 35% (34%) {+1%}
• Jennifer Brunner 34% (37%) / 36% (36%) {-2%}

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 28% (27%)
• Somewhat favor 13% (17%)
• Somewhat oppose 10% (7%)
• Strongly oppose 43% (45%)

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 64% (61%)
• Reduce the deficit 10% (9%)
• No impact on the deficit 14% (22%)

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 61% (57%)
• Somewhat likely 16% (20%)
• Not very likely 12% (13%)
• Not at all likely 2% (4%)

Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?

• Favor 40%
• Oppose 38%

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

• Favor 26%
• Oppose 58%

Overall, how would you rate President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan?

• Excellent 11%
• Good 25%
• Fair 30%
• Poor 32%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s proposal to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan?

• Favor 48%
• Oppose 30%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s commitment to a timetable that would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 18 months?

• Favor 53%
• Oppose 37%

Overall, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s new plan for the war in Afghanistan?

• Favor 38%
• Oppose 33%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted December 7. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 23 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Fisher does slightly better than Brunner among both Democratic voters and voters not affiliated with either party. However, Portman leads both Democrats by over 20 points among unaffiliateds.

Gerstein-Agne New America Foundation Israel National Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Benjamin Netanyahu is handling his job as Prime Minister?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 45%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the current government is handling its job?

• Approve 41%
• Disapprove 53%

Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of how Prime Minister Netanyahu is handling each of the following issues.

Security

• Approve 69%
• Disapprove 27%

Relations with the United States

• Approve 61%
• Disapprove 33%

Economy

• Approve 49%
• Disapprove 48%

Achieving peace with the Palestinians

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 49%

Progress toward an agreement with the Palestinians

• Approve 44%
• Disapprove 50%

Violent crime

• Approve 30%
• Disapprove 62%

Now, I’d like to rate your feelings toward some people, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold. You can use any number from zero to one hundred, the higher the number the more favorable your feelings are toward that person or organization. (Mean score in parentheses)

Warm / Cool (Mean)

• Bill Clinton 59 / 19 (62.2)
• The United States 56 / 18 (60.4)
• Hillary Clinton 48 / 23 (55.9)
• Benjamin Netanyahu 51 / 30 (55.0)
• George W. Bush 48 / 33 (51.5)
• Barack Obama 41 / 37 (48.7)
• Tzipi Livni 40 / 36 (46.9)
• Avigdor Lieberman 38 / 42 (45.2)
• Ehud Barak 30 / 46 (41.4)
• Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) 16 / 64 (26.7)

Thinking about United States President Barack Obama and the role America plays in the world, do you think the election of Obama to the presidency is good or bad for addressing the problems facing the world?

• Good 52%
• Bad 39%

Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Benjamin Netanyahu well or not well.

Stands up for Israel

• Well 76%
• Not well 22%

Strong leader

• Well 62%
• Not well 36%

Has not changed since the last time he was Prime Minister

• Well 45%
• Not well 50%

Puts political interests ahead of the country’s interests

• Well 52%
• Not well 44%

Puts the rich people ahead of everybody else

• Well 53%
• Not well 40%

Honest and trustworthy

• Well 36%
• Not well 60%

Shares my values

• Well 39%
• Not well 55%

Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama well or not well.

Strong leader

• Well 48%
• Not well 46%

Weak on terrorism

• Well 50%
• Not well 42%

Supports Israel

• Well 42%
• Not well 55%

Shares my values

• Well 36%
• Not well 54%

Will strengthen America’s standing in the world

• Well 52%
• Not well 42%

Honest and trustworthy

• Well 55%
• Not well 36%

Naïve

• Well 43%
• Not well 51%

Muslim

• Well 39%
• Not well 49%

Now I’m going to read you some pairs of statements. After I read each pair, please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right.

• The United States is Israel’s most important ally, and we must not attack Iran’s nuclear sites if the Americans request us not to attack. 41%
• If Iran continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Israel will have to attack Iran’s nuclear sites even if the Americans request us not to attack. 51%

• Iran is developing nuclear weapons and will soon become an existential threat to Israel. 56%
• Iran is not capable of destroying Israel even if it develops nuclear weapons. 39%

• I trust that Prime Minister Netanyahu would not agree to a peace deal that endangers Israel’s security, and I will support any agreement he reaches with our enemies. 59%
• I do not trust Prime Minister Netanyahu to sign a peace deal that adequately protects Israel’s security, and I might oppose an agreement that he reaches with our enemies. 34%

(more…)

CNN/Opinion Research Survey on Health Care

As you may know, the U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would make major changes in the country’s health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that bill, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?

• Favor 36%
• Oppose 61%

From what you know about the Senate health care bill, which of the following statements comes closes to your view?

• Those proposals would help you and your family if they became law 22%
• Those proposals would help other families in this country, but not you and your family 46%
• Those proposals would not help anyone in the country 29%

Who do you trust more to handle major changes in the country’s health care system – the Democrats in Congress or the Republicans in Congress?

• Democrats 43%
• Republicans 40%

Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?

• Favor 53%
• Oppose 46%

If a bill similar to the one that the Senate is considering becomes law, do you think the federal budget deficit would or would not increase?

• Would increase 79%
• Would not increase 19%

If a bill similar to the one that the Senate is considering becomes law, do you think your taxes would or would not increase?

• Would increase 85%
• Would not increase 14%

Do you think the country would be better off if the Republicans controlled Congress, or if the Democrats controlled Congress?

• Democrats 40% (44%) {49%} [56%]
• Republicans 39% (34%) {34%} [31%]

Survey of 1,041 adults was conducted December 2-3. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted April 3-5 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 12-15 are in square brackets.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 46% [49%] (47%) {48%} [47%] (48%) {50%} [52%] (49%)
• Mike Huckabee 45% [44%] (43%) {41%} [44%] (42%) {43%} [39%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 47% [48%] (48%) {48%} [47%] (49%) {48%} [53%] (50%)
• Mitt Romney 42% [43%] (40%) {39%} [40%] (40%) {40%} [35%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 50% [51%] (52%) {53%} [52%] (51%) {52%} [56%] (53%)
• Sarah Palin 44% [43%] (40%) {38%} [38%] (43%) {40%} [37%] (41%)

• Barack Obama 48% (50%)
• Tim Pawlenty 35% (30%)

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 47% [44%] (41%) {46%} [41%] (42%) {35%} [55%] (52%)
• Mitt Romney 37% [42%] (40%) {35%} [41%] (43%){42%} [30%] (35%)

• Barack Obama 49% [49%] (43%) {46%} [42%] (44%) {40%} [55%] (53%)
• Mike Huckabee 41% [42%] (40%) {33%} [41%] (43%) {46%} [35%] (37%)

• Barack Obama 49% (46%)
• Tim Pawlenty 30% (29%)

• Barack Obama 50% [51%] (47%) {52%} [50%] (47%) {46%} [52%] (51%)
• Sarah Palin 41% [42%] (35%) {35%} [34%] (41%) {41%} [37%] (44%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 44% of the Independent vote (29% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Independent vote.

Among Republicans

• Mike Huckabee 83% [87%] (79%) {77%} [80%] (76%) {79%} [74%] (77%)
• Barack Obama 7% [5%] (10%) {13%} [11%] (12%) {17%} [15%] (13%)

• Mitt Romney 78% [83%] (77%) {72%} [74%] (71%) {74%} [66%] (71%)
• Barack Obama 8% [6%] (10%) {14%} [11%] (18%) {19%} [18%] (16%)

• Sarah Palin 80% [84%] (77%) {70%} [74%] (79%) {72%} [65%] (71%)
• Barack Obama 12% [7%] (15%) {18%} [15%] (14%) {18%} [27%] (21%)

• Tim Pawlenty 67% (59%)
• Barack Obama 9% (11%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 90% of the Republican vote (32% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 93% of the Republican vote.

Among Moderates

• Barack Obama 65% [59%] (60%) {57%} [57%] (56%) {57%} [64%] (63%)
• Mitt Romney 24% [31%] (28%) {30%} [30%] (32%) {28%} [24%] (26%)

• Barack Obama 67% (60%)
• Tim Pawlenty 17% (20%)

• Barack Obama 63% [62%] (61%) {58%} [56%] (58%) {64%} [66%] (65%)
• Mike Huckabee 29% [30%] (29%) {31%} [32%] (32%) {28%} [25%] (26%)

• Barack Obama 69% [65%] (66%) {68%} [63%] (62%) {68%} [71%] (65%)
• Sarah Palin 24% [28%] (25%) {23%} [25%] (31%) {25%} [22%] (30%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 39% of the Moderate vote (44% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 45% of the Moderate vote.

Among Men

• Mike Huckabee 52% [44%] (47%) {47%} [49%] (49%) {48%} [41%] (47%)
• Barack Obama 42% [49%] (43%) {44%} [43%] (43%) {45%} [50%] (46%)

• Mitt Romney 49% [42%] (46%) {46%} [44%] (46%){44%} [38%] (44%)
• Barack Obama 42% [48%] (46%) {44%} [44%] (46%) {46%} [49%] (49%)

• Sarah Palin 48% [42%] (42%) {41%} [41%] (47%) {44%} [41%] (47%)
• Barack Obama 45% [52%] (50%) {50%} [48%] (47%) {48%} [53%] (49%)

• Barack Obama 44% (47%)
• Tim Pawlenty 41% (34%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 48% of the Male vote (47% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 55% of the Male vote.

Among Women

• Barack Obama 50% [47%] (50%) {52%} [50%] (51%) {50%} [56%] (52%)
• Mitt Romney 35% [44%] (36%) {34%} [36%] (35%) {37%} [31%] (34%)

• Barack Obama 50% [49%] (51%) {50%} [50%] (53%) {54%} [54%] (52%)
• Mike Huckabee 40% [45%] (39%) {36%} [39%] (36%) {37%} [36%] (37%)

• Barack Obama 53% [51%] (54%) {55%} [56%] (54%) {55%} [58%] (56%)
• Sarah Palin 41% [45%] (37%) {36%} [35%] (40%) {36%} [34%] (36%)

• Barack Obama 52% (52%)
• Tim Pawlenty 29% (28%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 43% of the Female vote (53% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Female vote.

Northeast

• Barack Obama 57% [53%] (50%)
• Mitt Romney 30% [41%] (38%)

• Barack Obama 57% [55%] (52%)
• Mike Huckabee 32% [42%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 55% [57%] (54%)
• Sarah Palin 36% [39%] (38%)

• Barack Obama 57%
• Tim Pawlenty 27%

South

• Mike Huckabee 51% [45%] (48%)
• Barack Obama 38% [47%] (37%)

• Mitt Romney 51% [43%] (47%)
• Barack Obama 35% [48%] (41%)

• Sarah Palin 50% [42%] (46%)
• Barack Obama 41% [51%] (45%)

• Tim Pawlenty 41%
• Barack Obama 38%

Midwest

• Mike Huckabee 56% [53%] (44%)
• Barack Obama 38% [41%] (47%)

• Sarah Palin 52% [50%] (38%)
• Barack Obama 44% [44%] (55%)

• Mitt Romney 49% [46%] (38%)
• Barack Obama 40% [41%] (47%)

• Tim Pawlenty 42%
• Barack Obama 40%

West

• Barack Obama 64% [53%] (56%)
• Mitt Romney 30% [40%] (38%)

• Barack Obama 66% [57%] (58%)
• Sarah Palin 31% [38%] (35%)

• Barack Obama 59% [59%] (57%)
• Mike Huckabee 35% [30%] (37%)

• Barack Obama 67%
• Tim Pawlenty 21%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mike Huckabee 35% [36%] (33%) {38%} [45%] (42%) {43%} [44%] (42%) / 35%[37%](29%){36%}[28%](33%){34%}[32%] (34%){0%}
• Mitt Romney 32% [30%] (34%) {33%} [37%] (37%) {41%} [40%] (40%) / 36% [39%] (34%) {38%} [34%] (37%) {36%} [36%] (35%) {-4%}
• Sarah Palin 41% [40%] (36%) {37%} [40%] (47%) {43%} [42%] (42%) / 50% [49%] (51%) {55%} [49%] (45%) {49%} [50%] (49%) {-9%}
• Tim Pawlenty 12% (11%) / 24% (16%) {-12%}

Among Independents

• Mike Huckabee 34% [32%] (34%) {32%} [48%] (44%) {46%} [44%](37%) / 41%[41%](27%){38%}[24%](30%){31%}[36%](36%){-7%}
• Tim Pawlenty 13% (13%) / 21% (17%) {-8%}
• Mitt Romney 28% [31%] (38%) {38%} [40%] (45%) {40%} [37%] (36%) / 39% [37%] (28%) {33%} [31%] (28%) {33%} [42%] (39%) {-11%}
• Sarah Palin 39% [36%] (34%) {33%} [37%] (45%) {44%} [34%] (38%) / 54% [49%] (48%) {59%} [49%] (43%) {42%} [58%] (51%) {-15%}

Among Republicans

• Sarah Palin 73% [75%] (72%) {69%} [72%] (76%) {75%} [76%] (76%) / 18% [15%](18%){22%}[16%](19%){20%}[15%](18%) {+55%}
• Mike Huckabee 57% [65%] (56%) {70%} [66%] (66%) {70%} [64%] (67%) / 14% [11%] (13%) {12%} [13%] (19%) {17%} [20%] (18%) {+43%}
• Mitt Romney 51% [48%] (54%) {50%} [52%] (54%) {63%} [67%] (60%) / 15% [19%] (20%) {21%} [18%] (25%) {21%} [17%] (21%) {+36%}
• Tim Pawlenty 16% (15%) / 18% (9%) {-2%}

Among Conservatives

• Sarah Palin 73% [80%] (65%) {69%} [68%] (73%) {72%} [73%] (67%) / 16% [12%](19%){22%}[20%](18%){21%}[17%](20%) {+57%}
• Mike Huckabee 59% [66%] (53%) {59%} [61%] (65%) {68%} [60%] (56%) / 14% [8%] (12%) {15%} [13%] (16%) {17%} [19%] (18%) {+45%}
• Mitt Romney 50% [46%] (49%) {46%} [49%] (53%) {58%} [59%] (54%) / 16% [22%] (16%) {20%} [22%] (20%) {22%} [18%] (19%) {+34%}
• Tim Pawlenty 19% (17%) / 15% (9%) {+4%}

Among Moderates

• Tim Pawlenty 8% (8%) / 27% (19%) {-19%}
• Mitt Romney 23% [26%] (29%) {32%} [34%] (33%) {35%} [35%] (34%) / 44% [37%] (37%) {41%} [36%] (39%) {40%} [42%] (44%) {-21%}
• Mike Huckabee 22% [25%] (24%) {29%} [40%] (34%) {33%} [40%] (36%) / 43% [45%] (34%) {43%} [30%] (36%) {38%} [36%] (41%) {-21%}
• Sarah Palin 23% [23%] (22%) {20%} [29%] (33%) {33%} [29%] (28%) / 70% [62%] (66%) {71%} [58%] (58%) {58%} [64%] (67%) {-47%}

Among Men

• Mike Huckabee 40% [34%] (34%) {41%} [47%] (48%) {47%} [45%](47%) / 38%[45%](35%){40%}[28%](32%){39%}[33%](36%){+2%}
• Mitt Romney 37% [32%] (39%) {34%} [42%] (42%) {44%} [45%] (45%) / 37% [41%] (35%) {43%} [37%] (38%) {38%} [34%] (39%) {0%}
• Sarah Palin 45% [37%] (40%) {39%} [43%] (50%) {47%} [48%] (46%) / 50% [51%] (47%) {54%} [46%] (43%) {45%} [46%] (49%) {-5%}
• Tim Pawlenty 12% (16%) / 28% (20%) {-16%}

Among Women

• Mike Huckabee 32% [37%] (32%) {35%} [43%] (38%) {40%} [43%] (37%) / 32% [29%](23%){33%}[28%](34%){30%}[32%](32%){0%}
• Mitt Romney 27% [28%] (29%) {31%} [33%] (34%) {39%} [36%] (36%) / 35% [35%] (32%) {33%} [32%] (36%) {34%} [38%] (32%) {-8%}
• Tim Pawlenty 11% (7%) / 21% (14%) {-10%}
• Sarah Palin 37% [42%] (32%) {36%} [37%] (45%) {40%} [36%] (39%) / 51% [48%] (54%) {55%} [51%] (46%) {53%} [53%] (49%) {-14%}

Northeast

• Tim Pawlenty 11% / 26% {-15%}
• Mitt Romney 22% [25%] (32%) / 40% [44%] (38%) {-18%}
• Mike Huckabee 23% [31%] (27%) / 45% [45%] (29%) {-22%}
• Sarah Palin 32% [34%] (33%) / 61% [55%] (53%) {-29%}

South

• Mike Huckabee 37% [31%] (40%) / 30% [37%] (29%) {+7%}
• Sarah Palin 48% [39%] (44%) / 43% [48%] (43%) {+5%}
• Mitt Romney 37% [29%] (37%) / 32% [40%] (31%) {+5%}
• Tim Pawlenty 12% / 32% {-20%}

Midwest

• Mike Huckabee 48% [45%] (36%) / 27% [30%] (27%) {+21%}
• Sarah Palin 48% [47%] (34%) / 42% [41%] (52%) {+6%}
• Mitt Romney 35% [33%] (32%) / 34% [34%] (31%) {+1%}
• Tim Pawlenty 13% / 19% {-6%}

West

• Tim Pawlenty 7% / 19% {-12%}
• Mitt Romney 30% [35%] (35%) / 43% [35%] (34%) {-13%}
• Mike Huckabee 25% [31%] (27%) / 42% [40%] (30%) {-17%}
• Sarah Palin 27% [37%] (31%) / 64% [59%] (58%) {-37%}

Survey of 1,253 registered voters was conducted December 4-7. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 39% Democrat; 34% Republican; 27% Independent. Political views: 41% Conservative; 41% Moderate; 18% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted June 12-16 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted May 14-18 are in square brackets; from April 17-19, in parentheses.

Rasmussen 2010 Pennsylvania U.S. Senate Poll

• Pat Toomey (R) 46% {45%} (48%)
• Arlen Specter (D) 42% {40%} (36%)
• Some Other Candidate 4%
• Not sure 8%

• Pat Toomey (R) 44% {37%} (43%)
• Joe Sestak (D) 38% {38%} (35%)
• Some Other Candidate 6%
• Not sure 13%

This telephone survey of 1,200 Likely Voters in Pennsylvania was conducted by Rasmussen Reports December 8, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results from the poll conducted October 13 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 11 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

President Obama, Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell and other top Democrats welcomed Specter because it strengthened their party’s majority in the Senate and promised to campaign for his reelection. But Sestak, a retired Navy admiral, opted for a primary challenge, arguing that he is the “real Democrat” in the race.

Specter is viewed very favorably by 16% of Pennsylvania voters but very unfavorably by more than twice as man (35%). However, just six percent (6%) have no opinion of Specter.

Fifteen percent (15%) have a very favorable view of Toomey, while nine percent (9%) regard him very unfavorably. For Sestak, very favorables total 11%, and very unfavorables stand at 12%.

These numbers are little changed from October. At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.

Nineteen percent (19%) of voters in the state don’t know Toomey well enough to venture even a soft opinion of him, and for Sestak, that number is even higher (26%).

As we approach 2010, it is enormously disturbing that the persecution of gays and lesbians in Uganda is actually taking place. After intense international pressure, the government dropped from the proposed law the provision that would have allowed for the execution of “practicing” gays, but anyone who believes that this is cause for celebration rather than another offensive is blind to the enormity of the situation. The chilling law still would allow for life imprisonment of gays, and bans speech that defends their rights.

The Machiavellian in me raises his eyebrow as he looks at this situation. The media seem to think that Tiger Woods’ private life is more pressing than whether gay people are going to be executed. The GOP needs every distraction that it can get. It also needs to needs to position itself favorably in the eyes of minorities. Here, it could take the bold, bold stance of…opposing life imprisonment for gay people.

It’s so simple. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and other GOP leaders (Michele Bachmann?) could announce a press conference and insist that it’s an international matter of pressing importance — one that America can wield its prestige in preventing. Then, they would demand that the president speak up boldly against Uganda and threaten to cut off diplomatic ties if its barbarism continues. We have always stood for the rights of minorities, they would say, and we will stand with gays and lesbians in Uganda against the power of an oppressive government.

The first benefit is: it could lead to real action being taken by the White House. People’s lives will be saved. Individual rights would be defended. That’s obvious.

The second benefit is: the GOP could gain politically from this. It could position itself, for once, as the party of the little guy, the defender of the minority, the champion of gays against oppression. (And if anyone on the far right has the audacity to speak out against the party, then we’ll all know whose message we need to marginalize, no?)

It’s so simple. It’s so obvious. Why isn’t it happening?

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

New York Times/CBS News Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 50% [53%] (56%)
• Disapprove 39% [36%] (34%)

Among Independents

• Approve 43% [45%] (52%)
• Disapprove 41% [40%] (35%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 47% [49%] (54%)
• Disapprove 43% [43%] (38%)

Among Independents

• Approve 40% [40%] (47%)
• Disapprove 47% [48%] (41%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 42% [44%] (47%)
• Disapprove 50% [48%] (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 39% [38%] (44%)
• Disapprove 53% [50%] (43%)

From what you’ve heard or read, do you think the health care reforms under consideration in Congress will mostly help you personally, will mostly hurt you personally, or don’t you think they will have much of an effect on you personally?

• Help 16%
• Hurt 34%
• No effect 42%

Among Independents

• Help 10%
• Hurt 38%
• No effect 39%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation with Afghanistan?

• Approve 48% [38%] (42%)
• Disapprove 38% [43%] (34%)

Among Independents

• Approve 45% [30%] (44%)
• Disapprove 41% [49%] (36%)

As you may know, Barack Obama announced that an additional 30,000 U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan in the coming months. Do you approve or disapprove of sending additional troops to Afghanistan?

• Approve 51%
• Disapprove 43%

Among Republicans

• Approve 68%
• Disapprove 27%

Among Democrats

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 53%

Among Independents

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 45%

As you may know, Barack Obama has announced that he will begin bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan starting in the middle of 2011. Do you think it is a good idea for Barack Obama to set a date to begin withdrawing troops, or is it not a good idea to set a date?

• Good idea 41%
• Not a good idea 55%

Among Republicans

• Good idea 20%
• Not a good idea 78%

Among Democrats

• Good idea 62%
• Not a good idea 36%

Among Independents

• Good idea 38%
• Not a good idea 57%

Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?

• Doing the right thing 49%
• Should not be involved 39%

Among Republicans

• Doing the right thing 69%
• Should not be involved 22%

Among Democrats

• Doing the right thing 42%
• Should not be involved 46%

Among Independents

• Doing the right thing 42%
• Should not be involved 45%

So far, do you think Barack Obama has clearly explained his plan for Afghanistan, or hasn’t he clearly explained his plan?

• Has explained plan 42%
• Has not explained plan 47%

Among Independents

• Has explained plan 39%
• Has not explained plan 46%

In order to pay for the additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan, do you think the money should come from a tax increase, spending cuts in other areas of government or should it be added to the budget deficit?

• Tax increase 10%
• Spending cuts 53%
• Added to budget deficit 19%

Survey of 1,031 adults was conducted December 4-8. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 13-16 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 5-8 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 19-23 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 12-16 are in curly brackets. Party ID breakdown: 36% Democrat; 27% Republican; 37% Independent.

On Monday, Sarah Palin appeared on the Lars Larson program and had some strong words regarding Huckabee’s commutation (sentence reduction) for Maurice Clemmon in 2000 saying, “it was a horrible decision that he made.” In the same interview, she also has some kinder words for Huckabee saying, “I love him, and I feel bad for him to be in this position”.

Yesterday’s Mike Huckabee was on the Cavuto program and was asked to react to Palin’s harsher statements. You can view his response here:

My thoughts on this episode:

1. Palin’s initial comments have been blown out of proportion. If you actually listen to her talking it doesn’t seem as harsh as the single headlines have made it out to be.
2. Many liberals and establishments Republicans are no fans of Palin or Huckabee and would love to see the two of them fight it out. Any negative comment, even small, between the two of them will be magnified in an attempt to drive a wedge between two people who share virtually identical positions on most issues.
3. Palin needs to be more savvy and realize that the media has and will continue to dissect every word she says. She must think about how her words not only impact the audience in front of her but how they might be reported.
4. I am not sure that Palin was trying to make headlines for attacking Huckabee when she said her statements but she needs to be more careful. That said, if attacking strongly was her intention then I find her actions not very poised. A leader needs to understand that 2009 is not the time to be hammering fellow conservatives. I can understand strong statements in the heat of a primary but if attacking now was her intention then her actions are violating Reagan’s 11th commandment. I don’t know what she really intended so I am going to reserve judgment and just chalk it up to carelessness and a divisive media.
5. I am glad that Huckabee didn’t fire back at her in his response – that was politically wise  as well as the right thing to do as a leader. If this was the heat of a primary then I might think different but I was glad that he wisely avoided jumping into the trap.

______________________________________

Disclosure: David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy and reachable at david.schmidt@evercor.com, or on Facebook and Twitter

Ipsos/McClatchy National Political Survey

Overall, do you approve or disapprove the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 49% (53%) [56%] {56%} <58%>
• Disapprove 49% (43%) [40%] {40%} <37%>

Among Independents

• Approve 41% (45%) [47%] {54%} <57%>
• Disapprove 55% (41%) [41%] {37%} <34%>

What grade would you give President Obama for his performance when it comes to:

The Economy and Jobs

• A: 15% <21%>
• B: 20% <26%>
• C: 19% <17%>
• D: 18% <13%>
• F: 27% <21%>

Health Care

• A: 22% <23%>
• B: 19% <21%>
• C: 16% <18%>
• D: 12% <11%>
• F: 30% <25%>

The War in Afghanistan

• A: 14% <20%>
• B: 23% <25%>
• C: 24% <27%>
• D: 16% <11%>
• F: 22% <11%>

The War in Iraq

• A: 16% <23%>
• B: 23% <26%>
• C: 26% <24%>
• D: 15% <11%>
• F: 19% <12%>

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Democratic Party 51% / 46% {+5%}
• Republican Party 44% / 54% {-10%}

Which party could do a better job of:

Reducing the federal budget deficit

• Republican Party 41%
• Democratic Party 34%

Generating economic growth

• Republican Party 41%
• Democratic Party 38%

Dealing with taxes

• Republican Party 41%
• Democratic Party 39%

Dealing with the terrorist threat at home

• Republican Party 42%
• Democratic Party 35%

Dealing with the economy

• Democratic Party 40%
• Republican Party 39%

Making America more competitive in the world economy

• Democratic Party 40%
• Republican Party 37%

Reforming the health care system

• Democratic Party 40%
• Republican Party 36%

Improving morality in this country

• Democratic Party 37%
• Republican Party 36%

Protecting the environment

• Democratic Party 52%
• Republican Party 27%

Making wise decisions about what to do in Iraq

• Democratic Party 39%
• Republican Party 34%

Making wise decisions about foreign policy

• Democratic Party 40%
• Republican Party 39%

Making America more respected in the world

• Democratic Party 43%
• Republican Party 35%

Improving the educational system

• Democratic Party 45%
• Republican Party 30%

Survey of 1,120 adults, including 948 registered voters was conducted December 3-6. The margin of error is +/- 2.93 percentage points for all adults; +/- 3.18 for registered voters; +/- 4.26 for Democrats; +/- 4.48 for Republicans. Results from the poll conducted October 29 – November 1 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 1-5 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 27-31 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 30 – August 3 are in angle brackets.

Rasmussen Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Arlen Specter 48% {46%} [47%] (51%)
• Joe Sestak 35% {42%} [34%] (32%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Arlen Specter 66% {68%} [71%] (72%) / 25% {30%} [25%] (26%) {+41%}
• Joe Sestak 48% {45%} [54%] (57%) / 22% {25%} [23%] (21%) {+26%}

Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?

• Favor 62% {66%}
• Oppose 18% {21%}

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

• Favor 34% {37%}
• Oppose 48% {45%}

Survey of 442 likely Democratic primary voters was conducted December 8. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 13 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 11 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 16 are in parentheses.

Rasmussen Ohio Gubernatorial Survey

• John Kasich 48% (46%)
• Ted Strickland 39% (45%)
• Other 3% (3%)
• Not sure 11% (7%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• John Kasich 45% (47%) / 24% (25%) {+21%}
• Ted Strickland 46% (48%) / 46% (46%) {0%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 31% (33%)
• Somewhat approve 15% (15%)
• Somewhat disapprove 12% (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 41% (40%)

How would you rate the job Ted Strickland has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 11% (15%)
• Somewhat approve 37% (32%)
• Somewhat disapprove 26% (24%)
• Strongly disapprove 24% (26%)

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted December 7. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 23 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Strickland currently wins support from just 69% of the state’s Democratic voters and trails by 25 percentage points among voters not affiliated with either major party.

Adding to Strickland’s woes is a very public disagreement with the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus.

Currently, the governor attracts only 71% of the black vote. Thirteen percent (13%) of African-American voters say they will vote against the governor, and 15% are undecided.

The other day, I wrote about a recent Rasmussen poll demonstrating that “A Non-Existent Center-Right Political Party is More Popular than the Republican Brand.”

Look at the preference among unaffiliated voters, according to Rasmussen. It’s not at all “pro-Republican,” but it is pro-conservative:

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

It should not be a surprise, then, that the GOP lost ground this week in the generic ballot polling:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 39% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Although Republicans maintained their lead over Democrats, support for GOP candidates is down three points from last week. Republicans have held the lead for over four months now. Democrats currently have majority control of both the House and Senate.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes KansasProgress.com, based in Greater Kansas City. From 2005-2009, Hodge was a trustee at Johnson County Community College (JCCC), representing 300,000 voters and 40,000 students. He was a state representative from 2006-2008 and is a delegate to the Kansas Republican Party. Hodge’s conservative record is recognized by AFP, the NRA, the Kansas Press Association, the Kansas Association of Broadcasters, Kansans for Life, and FIRE. Connect with Hodge on Facebook, at Hodge’s Web site, and on Twitter.

CrossTarget New Hampshire Republican Primary Survey

Do you think Sarah Palin should run for the Republican Nomination for president in 2012?

• Yes 36%
• No 42%
• No opinion 22%

Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as President of the United States?

• Qualified 47%
• Not qualified 36%
• Not sure 17%

And one caveat from the Atlantic:

Note: CrossTarget’s spokesman, Carl Forti of the conservative PR form Black Rock Group, worked as the national political director for Mitt Romney’s 2008 campaign, but CrossTarget didn’t conduct this poll on Romney’s behalf.

Note also that likely primary voters participated in the poll, also according to the Atlantic. While Palin can take comfort that her qualification numbers didn’t fare poorly, this poll obviously did not single out Independents, the group she must really win over.

Quinnipiac National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 46% (48%) [50%] {50%} (57%) [59%]
• Disapprove 44% (42%) [41%] {42%} (33%) [31%]

Among Independents

• Approve 37% (43%) [45%] {45%} (52%) [57%]
• Disapprove 51% (46%) [44%] {45%} (37%) [30%]

Among Men

• Approve 42% (44%) [46%] {45%} (54%) [54%]
• Disapprove 50% (47%) [45%] {46%} (38%) [36%]

Among Women

• Approve 51% (52%) [54%] {54%} (59%) [64%]
• Disapprove 38% (37%) [36%] {38%} (29%) [26%]

Among Whites

• Approve 38% (41%) [42%] {43%} (51%) [52%]
• Disapprove 51% (49%) [48%] {48%} (39%) [37%]

Among Blacks

• Approve 89% (89%) [93%] {91%} (94%) [93%]
• Disapprove 6% (6%) [3%] {8%} (0%) [2%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 41% (43%) [47%] {45%} (52%)
• Disapprove 54% (52%) [46%] {49%} (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 33% (38%) [40%] {41%} (47%)
• Disapprove 60% (58%) [51%] {53%} (46%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 38% (41%) [41%] {39%} (46%)
• Disapprove 56% (53%) [51%] {52%} (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 32% (35%) [36%] {34%} (37%)
• Disapprove 61% (59%) [56%] {60%} (48%)

Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care – President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

• President Obama 44% (45%) [47%] {46%} (53%)
• Republicans in Congress 37% (36%) [31%] {37%} (33%)

Among Independents

• President Obama 37% (40%) [41%] {41%} (46%)
• Republicans in Congress 37% (37%) [30%] {36%} (36%)

From what you’ve heard or read, do you mostly approve or mostly disapprove of the proposed changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress?

• Approve 38%
• Disapprove 52%

Among Independents

• Approve 32%
• Disapprove 57%

Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?

• Support 56% (57%) [61%] {62%} (69%)
• Oppose 38% (35%) [34%] {32%} (26%)

Among Independents

• Support 55% (55%) [59%] {64%} (66%)
• Oppose 40% (39%) [37%] {30%} (29%)

President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?

• Will keep promise 19% (19%) [19%] {21%}
• Will add to deficit 74% (72%) [71%] {72%}

Among Independents

• Will keep promise 11% (14%) [18%] {17%}
• Will add to deficit 82% (79%) [75%] {77%}

Do you think that extending health insurance to all Americans would increase your health care costs or not?

• Yes 63%
• No 30%

Do you think that extending health insurance to all Americans is worth increasing your health care costs or not?

• Yes 47%
• No 46%

Do you think that extending health insurance to all Americans would decrease your quality of health care or not?

• Yes 48%
• No 46%

Do you think that extending health insurance to all Americans is worth decreasing your quality of health care or not?

• Yes 21%
• No 71%

Survey of 2,313 registered voters was conducted December 1-6. The margin of error is +/- 2 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 9-16 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 29 – October 5 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 27 – August 3 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 23 – 29 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 26 – June 1 are in square brackets.

PPP (D) National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 49% {49%} (51%) [52%] {52%} (50%)
• Disapprove 47% {46%} (43%) [44%] {42%} (43%)

Among Independents

• Approve 46% {47%} (46%) [52%] {48%} (46%)
• Disapprove 47% {46%} (44%) [40%] {42%} (42%)

Who would you rather have as President right now: George W. Bush or Barack Obama?

• Barack Obama 50%
• George W. Bush 44%

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 54%
• George W. Bush 39%

Do you support the impeachment of President Obama for his actions in office so far?

• Yes 20%
• No 67%

Among Independents

• Yes 15%
• No 72%

Among Republicans

• Yes 35%
• No 48%

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s approach to Afghanistan?

• Support 47%
• Oppose 37%

Among Independents

• Support 45%
• Oppose 38%

Among Republicans

• Support 30%
• Oppose 52%

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 39% {40%} (42%) [45%] {40%}
• Oppose 52% {52%} (45%) [46%] {47%}

Among Independents

• Support 39% {36%} (40%) [46%] {35%}
• Oppose 52% {58%} (47%) [44%] {49%}

Who did you vote for President last year?

• Barack Obama 47% {47%}
• John McCain 45% {45%}

Survey of 1,253 registered voters was conducted December 4-7. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 39% Democrat; 34% Republican; 27% Independent. Political views: 41% Conservative; 41% Moderate; 18% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16 are in parentheses.

From The Lobbyist:

Being a former New Hampshireite, I try to follow state news fairly regularly. This past Tuesday, I was fortunate enough to see a column by former State Commissioner of Health and Human Services John Stephen of Manchester, a health care and government solutions consultant, regarding the state budget, which the majority Democrats have grown outrageously in the last few years, and apparently plan to do again next year.

Unfortunately, being Democrats, Governor Lynch and his friends in the state house aren’t going to seriously cut budgets, though to Lynch’s credit he did stand up to the state employees union, which rejected a compromise with the governor to save jobs. Instead, they want to, and have passed, a five percent tax on LLCs in the state, according to Stephen.

This is really bad- there are over 10,000 businesses that fall under this category, including my father’s general contracting business (soon to be my brother’s). When former Governor Benson held strong on a budget veto, he also created a state budget surplus. Lynch, meanwhile, proposed to raise taxes his first year in office. That has not stopped, and continues with this bill, HB 2.

Fortunately, the people can still voice their opinion. Thanks to the New Hampshire chapter of the Americans for Prosperity, this information was sent to me: “Mark your calendar for December 16, 2009 and promise yourself that you and others will take the time to testify at the only public hearing for the 5% Tax on LLC’s and Partnerships which the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) plans to hold at 10:00am at their Concord office on 109 Pleasant Street.”

The New Hampshire Advantage is at risk, and so are thousands of small businesses. I say small businesses because Wal-Mart and other big businesses will not be hit by this tax, as they are not LLCs. Thus, the party of the little guy is showing its true colors as the party of Big Business- note, not free markets- and is willing to crush the backbone of New Hampshire’s economy to brown nose to Big Business. Realtors, restaurants, and many other industries are going to be hit hard by this. Of course, given how the Democratic-controlled New Hampshire government passed a minimum wage raise in 2007, something Big Business loves, and passed a law essentially banning payday lenders in the state, this is no surprise.

New Hampshire citizens, this is on your shoulders. Make your voices heard. Good luck.

A few months ago, I wrote on Townsend’s Newsweek opinion supporting abortion and other non-Catholic beliefs. Now, she’s at it again, this time saying that the American bishops are ignoring health care over what she makes clear are minor concerns over abortion.

I don’t understand pro-choice Catholics. The Church has been against abortion since time unknown, and these Catholics want it to compromise? Why not join the Church in helping the poor, the homeless, orphans, preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place and couples with marital problems? By helping the Church do these things, Townsend would take away much of the “need” for abortions, as poorer, single woman who become “unintentionally pregnant” tend to have a higher number of abortions than married, affluent women.

Townsend clearly doesn’t understand the Church’s view on abortion, as is made clear when she writes the following:

Why is it that the bishops are more concerned with restricting millions of American women from making health care decisions that are best for them and their families than they are with ensuring that millions of Americans — women, men, children, immigrants, the poor, the middle class — get much-needed health insurance?

As a Catholic, I dare say it’s because the Conference of Catholic Bishops has lost its way. For example, in Missouri, the Catholic Conference issued an e-mail alert urging “those who are opposed to health care reform but are also pro-life” to “stay focused on the abortion issue and get the Stupak-like amendment adopted in the Senate.”

Really? As Catholics, are we so laser focused on the issue of abortion that we are willing to join tea partiers and the like to bring down the health care reform bill? And at the enormous expense of millions of Americans who suffer every day because they can’t afford to get checkups, because they must choose bankruptcy in order to save the life of their loved one?

There are at least three major flaws with Townsend’s statements above. First, pro-life stances are pro-healthcare reform. After all, the Church believes abortion is murder, and if health care reform is to be about improving life, health, happiness etc., than the Church’s position is 100% pro-health care reform.

Secondly, note what the Church did and did not do in the Missouri example Townsend uses. First, it asked people against the current health care reform efforts to support getting a pro-life amendment in. Essentially, the Church was asking its more conservative members to support saving the lives of unborn children by helping to pass health care reform, despite those members’ opposition to the latter. Secondly, the Church did not say- again, according to the limited information Townsend provides- that it wanted health care reform to fail. Instead, it specifically said it wanted the amendment included to pass health care reform.

Thirdly, the Church will never support abortion policies within our lifetimes. However, since it is clearly willing to give its substantial endorsement to a Senate bill that includes pro-life policies, perhaps Townsend could open her eyes to this fact and realize that by compromising on abortion, Democrats would already likely have a bill nearing completion in the Senate. As much as I dislike giving advice to Democrats, in this case it seems to be a no-brainer. Pass a pro-life amendment, you likely pass health care reform.

Unfortunately, it seems that Democrats didn’t get the memo. The Nelson/Hatch amendment mirroring the House Stupak amendment was tabled- essentially killed- yesterday. Also unfortunately, AllahPundit thinks Nelson left himself some wiggle room on filibustering a final Senate bill if it does not include the amendment. Let’s hope not, for the sake of millions of helpless unborn children who are currently at risk from this bill. Let’s contact the offices of Senators Nelson, Casey, Conrad, Pryor, Dorgan and Bayh, the six Democrats who voted for the amendment, and make certain they kill any bill that does not get the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

PPP (D) South Carolina Senatorial Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Lindsey Graham’s job performance?

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 35%

Among Democrats

• Approve 38%
• Disapprove 36%

Among Republicans

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 34%

Among Independents

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 36%

Among Moderates

• Approve 45%
• Disapprove 32%

Among Conservatives

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 37%

Do you think that Lindsey Graham is too liberal, too conservative, or about right?

• Too liberal 29%
• Too conservative 23%
• About right 49%

Among Republicans

• Too liberal 41%
• Too conservative 9%
• About right 50%

Among Independents

• Too liberal 31%
• Too conservative 16%
• About right 53%

Among Moderates

• Too liberal 18%
• Too conservative 28%
• About right 54%

Among Conservatives

• Too liberal 44%
• Too conservative 9%
• About right 47%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Jim DeMint’s job performance?

• Approve 44%
• Disapprove 29%

Among Democrats

• Approve 22%
• Disapprove 43%

Among Republicans

• Approve 62%
• Disapprove 16%

Among Independents

• Approve 45%
• Disapprove 31%

Among Moderates

• Approve 31%
• Disapprove 39%

Among Conservatives

• Approve 62%
• Disapprove 15%

Do you think that Jim DeMint is too liberal, too conservative, or about right?

• Too liberal 12%
• Too conservative 32%
• About right 56%

Among Republicans

• Too liberal 10%
• Too conservative 12%
• About right 78%

Among Independents

• Too liberal 8%
• Too conservative 37%
• About right 56%

Among Moderates

• Too liberal 15%
• Too conservative 46%
• About right 39%

Among Conservatives

• Too liberal 11%
• Too conservative 12%
• About right 77%

(more…)

The WaPo published an op-ed by Governor Sarah Palin, on the issue of climate change.

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

“Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse. The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

—–

Links:

• Copenhagen’s political science
• The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End
• The climate-change travesty

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Rasmussen Connecticut Senatorial Survey

• Rob Simmons (R) 48% (49%)
• Chris Dodd (D) 35% (39%)

• Linda McMahon (R) 44%
• Chris Dodd (D) 38%

• Peter Schiff (R) 40% (40%)
• Chris Dodd (D) 39% (42%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rob Simmons 48% (53%) / 30% (32%) {+18%}
• Linda McMahon 45% / 35% {+10%}
• Peter Schiff 35% (27%) / 31% (35%) {+4%}
• Chris Dodd 40% (40%) / 58% (59%) {-18%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 36% (44%)
• Somewhat approve 21% (15%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% (9%)
• Strongly disapprove 33% (30%)

How would you rate the job Jodi Rell has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 25% (17%)
• Somewhat approve 35% (38%)
• Somewhat disapprove 20% (26%)
• Strongly disapprove 19% (17%)

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 34% (34%)
• Somewhat favor 14% (18%)
• Somewhat oppose 11% (8%)
• Strongly oppose 40% (38%)

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 60% (58%)
• Reduce the deficit 12% (13%)
• No impact on the deficit 19% (23%)

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 59% (54%)
• Somewhat likely 21% (16%)
• Not very likely 14% (23%)
• Not at all likely 5% (3%)

Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?

• Favor 43%
• Oppose 37%

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

• Favor 30%
• Oppose 56%

Overall, how would you rate President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan?

• Excellent 15%
• Good 27%
• Fair 27%
• Poor 31%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s proposal to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan?

• Favor 54%
• Oppose 27%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s commitment to a timetable that would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 18 months?

• Favor 48%
• Oppose 39%

Overall, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s new plan for the war in Afghanistan?

• Favor 44%
• Oppose 35%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted December 7. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 10 are in parentheses.

MSNBC has the details here.

Why should we use TARP funds to pay down government debt? Why not simply cancel the unspent TARP money and avoid adding to the deficit, instead of taking on more debt/printing more dollars to pay down debt accumulated in the past? This sure seems like running in circles to me…

Why has the GOP become the Party of Medicare? How can we honestly expect to gain credibility on cutting spending if we vow to protect one of our largest federal entitlements?

I will also join fellow Race contributor Matthew Miller in asking how Republicans can hope to gain the public’s trust with deficit reduction if we swear off any drawdowns in defense spending?

And why can’t people discern between approval polls and favorability ratings? I can’t count how many articles with titles along the lines of “Palin-Obama Gap Narrows to One” I’ve seen in the past two days. While we should take heart in Palin’s strong showing in the CNN Favorability Survey that produced her “gap-narrowing” numbers, approval and favorability exist as two very different metrics, especially when comparing an unelected official to the sitting President.

Just some questions from a perplexed Republican.

Calm down everybody. Nothing is is going wrong in Canadian politics and Prime Minister Harper is, in all likelihood, going to hold his office for quite some time. That said, I’ve finally decided to pull the trigger on a column that I’ve been toying with for several months – almost a year actually.

Stephen Harper is doing great things for Canada – and one of the few points of agreement between myself and David Frum is that he provides a great model for the GOP in the U.S. (though we would differ on what that means). However, when thinking about Canada’s future, one can’t help but notice the giant elephant sleeping quietly in the corner of the room. What happens to the Conservative Party of Canada when Harper decides to retire or (gasp!) loses an election? Stephen Harper was the key figure in founding the Conservative Party, he’s the only person to have led the Conservative Party,  and in many ways Stephen Harper is the Conservative Party. If and when he decides to go, pandemonium will break loose as the party struggles to find a new identity.

Let us remember that, a little under ten years ago, what is now the Conservative Party of Canada was two separate right-wing parties who spent more time sniping at each other than the governing Liberals – and in many ways those parties still exist as factions within the new party.  On one hand, you had the once mighty Progressive Conservative (PC) Party, a relatively moderate party that had been reduced to a shell of its former self but clung to life in the Atlantic provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island). On the other you had the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party), a populist conservative party that almost totally replaced the PC  Party in the Prairie Provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba).  

In 2003 then-Canadian Alliance leader Harper was finally able to break the stalemate and strike a merger deal with PC leader Peter MacKay - ushering in a new golden age of Canadian conservatism. But the new party looked much different than the PC Party had looked before it split. Majority-voting power shifted from moderates in the Atlantics, Quebec, and Ontario to the more conservative Alliance voters from the West.

So far, Harper has held this new, more right-wing coalition together quite well – but what happens next. Ex-PC leader Peter MacKay (now Harper’s Defense Minister) will certainly think that he his status as the sole remaining co-founder entitles him to the leadership. But with the party membership dominated by western conservatives, do you really think they’re going to elect a moderate ex-PCer from Nova Scotia? Likewise, many East Coast PC stalwarts resent being dominated by the cowboy rebels who decimated their party. How will they react if the next leader is yet another Albertan from the old Canadian Alliance? It’s a recipe for civil war no matter which side wins.

I have been thinking for some time that the only way out of this pickle is for Harper to be succeeded not by MacKay or one of his old Alliance colleagues, but by one of the people he recruited to run in historically Liberal provinces after the merger – someone who represented neither faction and hence could lead them both.

For a while, I thought the answer would come from the team of up-and-comers who  re-established Conservative foothold in French-speaking Quebec. Rising stars like Josée Verner and Maxime Bernier excited me, but both left big question marks. Then, in last November’s election, a new and exciting leader came from nowhere and burst onto Canadian scene, and not unlike another leader I once promoted, she blew out of the frozen tundra of the far, far North.  For a while, even I thought this idea was too nutty to post, but after talking it over with a Canadian contact today, we both established that this idea may eventually slay the sleeping elephant and keep the Conservatives together.

So – let me introduce you to the woman who I think should one day succeed Harper – Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative Member of Parliament from the Territory of Nunavut.

Aglukkaq first arrived in Parliament last November after scoring the first-ever Conservative victory in Nunavut, and Harper shocked the nation by immediately installing his star rookie as the head of nation’s powerful Health Ministry. At the time, it  looked like an affirmative-action appointment designed to increase the number of women and minorities in the Cabinet (Aglukkaq is Inuk [or Eskimo] and hence an ”Aboriginal Canadian”). While it was not abnormal to see a few newsocmers in the Cabinet, and Aglukkaq had previously served as Nunavut’s Health Minister, it seemed like Harper was taking a huge gamble by putting a neophyte in charge of Canada’s massive socialized medical system. Then the swine flu pandemic hit and Harper’s gamble paid off.

Aglukkaq rose to the occasion by rolling out one of most organized responses in the world, far outshining the bumbling of the Obama Administration down South. Under her leadership, Health Canada distributed millions of doses of vaccine around the country, developed guidelines as to who should be vaccinated, and handled the various crises associated with producing and distributing tens of millions of doses of swine flu vaccine. And when Canadians rushed to get the new vaccine and found themselves confronting shortages and long lines, Aglukkaq was the calm, steady voice on TV telling them to be patient and explaining that it takes time to distribute so much medicine.

Even the opposition Liberals praised Aglukkaq as she managed the largest immunization campaign in Canadian history. The star rookie is performing better than anyone could have imagined, and the woman once pilloried as an affirmative-action pick has become one of the strongest ministers in the entire Cabinet.  My only question to the Conservatives is this: have you yet realized that this is the woman is not just an over-performer, but the future of your entire party?

Taking a step back from Aglukkaq’s obviously stellar leadership ability, she also possesses everything needed to unite the party. 

First, she has no roots in either the PC Party or the Canadian Alliance. She first ran for national office five years after the merger, and while she has experience in Nunavut’s territorial legislature, elections in Nunavut are non-partisan and there are no political parties at the Territorial level. She would have wide appeal in the West and among the reform-minded youth wing of the party (she’s only 41), but unlike many old Alliance stalwarts, she could carry that base without alienating Atlantic PCers.

Second, she eschews the divide between the Western and Altlantic wings of the party – also due to the fact that she is from Nunavut, where the partydoes not have any real history.

Third – while she needs to seriously work on her French language skills - Aglukkaq would dispel the notion that the Conservatives are only a party for English-speaking white Canadians. In fact, she exists entirely outside the traditional Anglophone-Francophone divide that plagues Canadian politics - she grew up speaking the Inuktitut language and didn’t use English at all until she entered grade school. So, it’s hard to have an argument about Anglophones and Francophones when your candidate for Prime Minister is an Inuktitutophone who had to learn both French and English as second languages. 

Furthermore, I shouldn’t even have to point out that Aglukkaq would theoretically be the first Inuit prime minister, the first prime minister from the “First Nations”, and the first elected female prime minister. Minus the spotty French skills, she’s a public relations dream (and Harper had to learn French on the fly as well).

Now, before you accuse me of going down this road only because I have an odd obsession with female politicians from very cold places – let me point out that the only personal qualities Leona Aglukkaq shares with Sarah Palin are a Northern heritage and a penchant for designer eyewear. Beyond that, they could not be more different. In fact, I like to call Aglukkaq “the anti-Palin” (similar life story, radically different style). Where Palin is outspoken, roguish, and charismatic – Aglukkaq is reserved, wonkish, and steady. However, that quiet confidence – and coolness under pressure -could be very marketable. Think of the slogan, “Less talk, more action – Re-elect Prime Minister Aglukkaq”.

There aren’t that many similarities between Nunavut and Alaska either. Alaska is a prosperous, oil-rich American state with almost 700,00 people. Nunavut is huge territory carved out in 1999 as a homeland for the Inuit people - and it is even more remote than Alaska. Despite sprawling over 800,000 square miles, it has only 31,000 inhabitants. It also has rates of poverty, disease, and illiteracy that remind one more of a third world country than the rest of Canada. To put it in terms that Americans will understand – the place is basically the world’s largest Indian Reservation…which brings me to my final point.

In Canada, as in the U.S., low-income and aboriginal populations are overwhelmingly leftist. Until 2008, Nunavut was a Liberal Party stronghold. Aglukkaq represents one of the nation’s poorest electorates (if not THE poorest), and previously served in local government in that area. She knows better than anyone in Canada how to handle poverty, and she could start swiping low-income and aboriginal voters from the Liberals and the socialist New Democratic Party (NDP).

This is a woman with a phenomenal personal story, the competence to lead, and the drive to win in one of the most rugged electorates known to man. In my opinion – she should be a shoo-in to succeed Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.

There has yet been little talk of Aglukkaq as a leadership contender - but honestly there’s little talk of anyone but Harper in that role. Far be it from me as an American to tell the Canadians what to do – but if the Conservative Party has any sense, they will start pushing Leona Aglukkaq forward as the voice of the new generation of Conservatives - and allowing her to lead on more than just health issues. She needs to be out front, all the time, as a potential heir apparent.

Mr. Harper – the opportunity to cement your legacy as the founder of an enduring, united party is staring you square in the face. Her name is Leona Aglukkaq and the only question is whether or not your are willing to take an even bigger gamble on your hotshot young recruit.

CLICK HERE TO SEE AGLUKKAQ IN ACTION

Update: Just found this story as well – love the picture.

Marist Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 46% [55%] (56%)
• Disapprove 44% [35%] (32%)

Among Independents

• Approve 41% [47%] (51%)
• Disapprove 44% [37%] (32%)

Overall, has Barack Obama met your expectations, exceeded your expectations, or fallen below your expectations as president?

• Met expectations 44%
• Exceeded expectations 9%
• Fallen below expectations 42%

Overall, would you describe the direction in which President Barack Obama is moving the country as:

• Change for the better 44%
• Change for the worse 35%
• No change at all 18%

Overall, do you have a favorable or an unfavorable impression of Barack Obama?

• Favorable 55%
• Unfavorable 41%

Among Independents

• Favorable 49%
• Unfavorable 43%

Do you approve or disapprove of how President Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 45% [52%] (53%)
• Disapprove 51% [41%] (41%)

Among Democrats

• Approve 75% [83%]
• Disapprove 22% [11%]

Among Republicans

• Approve 12% [18%]
• Disapprove 84% [74%]

Among Independents

• Approve 40% [47%] (50%)
• Disapprove 55% [45%] (45%)

Do you think the current economic conditions are mostly something President Obama inherited or are they mostly a result of his own policies?

• Economic conditions mostly inherited 65%
• Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 27%

Among Democrats

• Economic conditions mostly inherited 84%
• Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 12%

Among Republicans

• Economic conditions mostly inherited 42%
• Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 45%

Among Independents

• Economic conditions mostly inherited 63%
• Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 29%

Do you approve or disapprove of how President Barack Obama is handling the war in Afghanistan?

• Approve 47% {43%} (57%)
• Disapprove 43% {45%} (24%)

Among Independents

• Approve 46% {39%} (52%)
• Disapprove 47% {51%} (27%)

Survey of 858 registered voters was conducted December 2-3, 7. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 7-8, 12 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 3-6 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 1-3 are in parentheses.

Public Policy Polling has been running a monthly 2012 GOP tracking poll and they have hinted on their blog about the latest results due out very soon:

Our monthly look at the 2012 Presidential race, due out Thursday, will show Huckabee’s favorability at 35/35, pretty much unchanged from 36/37 on our November poll. And not only does it show him once again as the Republican who comes closest to Barack Obama, but it also shows him coming closer to Obama than he has in any of the previous nine monthly polls.

It is no surprise to hear that the Republican contenders are gaining on Obama, considering his falling job approval numbers, it is noteworthy that Huckabee continues to enjoy the support he does from Republicans and Independents after the hammering some gave him over the Clemmons case.

While it it unknown what Huckabee’s long-term plans are, or how the Clemmons case may be used against him, I think this data show how foolish it is to say that Huckabee doesn’t still command significant political clout and future political options. Think about this, if a vote was held today, this polls seems to indicate that the person with the best chance to beat Obama would be Huckabee. Would anybody have guessed that a week ago?