PPP: Obama has CA on lock

[Ben Romney]

California is trending bluer over time, and has not voted GOP for president since 1988.  But Barack Obama dominated there far more than John Kerry, Al Gore, and even Bill Clinton did.  His 24-point win over John McCain was a bigger margin of victory than any candidate of either party has gotten since FDR routed Alf Landon in 1936--besting even California residents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan in their 1972 and 1984 landslides.And for Obama, there's no looking back.  In our latest poll, he beats all the Republicans by at least 21 points, and his approval rating has not faltered since we last surveyed the state in late January.  Then, 53% approved, the same as now.  His disapproval rating has only ticked up to 43% from 41%.  This is the rare state where voters haven't soured on him over the course of this year--even in his native Hawaii, his approval margin took a 15-point nosedive between March and October.  Ahead of California, only three states of the 37 in which we've polled Obama this year see him better--the aforementioned Hawaii and the reliably blue New England states of Rhode Island and Vermont.

The president leads Mitt Romney by 21 points (57-36), almost unchanged from 56-36 in the previous survey.  Obama tops new frontrunner Newt Gingrich by 26 points (60-34), up two from 58-34.  The others were not tested last time.  Ron Paul trails by 25 points (57-32), and Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann each by 29 (61-32, and 60-31 for the latter two).

It's no wonder Obama is doing so well.  Even ignoring his +10 approval spread, none of the GOP contenders has a favorability rating approaching where a competitive presidential candidate would want to be.  Romney's -21 is best off, followed by Bachmann's -23, Cain's and Gingrich's -27, Paul's -31, and Perry's astonishing -53.  So Obama more than doubles and almost triples his approval margin in the horseraces, and the Republicans roughly match their favorability spreads, suggesting that here, the vote is more a referendum on the Republicans than on the president.

California voters like this slate of Republicans so little that Obama outperforms his approval marks with Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.  An already healthy 12% of Republicans approve of Obama, but 11% (against Romney) to 19% (versus Cain) are pledging to vote for him.  14% of Obama’s own party disapproves--not great news--but only 5-6% of them defect.  Independents disapprove by a four-point margin, but Paul is the only GOP contender to beat the president with independents, and by only one point.  The others trail by four (Romney), nine (Cain), 10 (Gingrich), 11 (Bachmann), or 19 (Perry).

We've generally been finding Obama holding his ground with Hispanic voters around the country, and it'll be hard for Republicans to win anywhere they're a large portion of the electorate.  Here they're about 22%.  According to exit polls, the president got about three-quarters of the Hispanic vote in California in 2008.  Right now, his approval with them is only 56%, and 35% disapprove.  But only 18-31% of them see the Republican candidates favorably, and 48-68% unfavorably.   So when it comes time to vote, Obama gets a similar 69-74% of the Hispanic vote as three years ago.  Only 20-27% pledge for the Republicans, right in range with McCain's 23%.

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/obama-has-cali-on-lock.html

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

Which is why the Electoral College has got to go.

[Ty440]

California is trending bluer over time, and has not voted GOP for president since 1988.  But Barack Obama dominated there far more than John Kerry, Al Gore, and even Bill Clinton did.  His 24-point win over John McCain was a bigger margin of victory than any candidate of either party has gotten since FDR routed Alf Landon in 1936--besting even California residents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan in their 1972 and 1984 landslides.And for Obama, there's no looking back.  In our latest poll, he beats all the Republicans by at least 21 points, and his approval rating has not faltered since we last surveyed the state in late January.  Then, 53% approved, the same as now.  His disapproval rating has only ticked up to 43% from 41%.  This is the rare state where voters haven't soured on him over the course of this year--even in his native Hawaii, his approval margin took a 15-point nosedive between March and October.  Ahead of California, only three states of the 37 in which we've polled Obama this year see him better--the aforementioned Hawaii and the reliably blue New England states of Rhode Island and Vermont.

The president leads Mitt Romney by 21 points (57-36), almost unchanged from 56-36 in the previous survey.  Obama tops new frontrunner Newt Gingrich by 26 points (60-34), up two from 58-34.  The others were not tested last time.  Ron Paul trails by 25 points (57-32), and Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann each by 29 (61-32, and 60-31 for the latter two).

It's no wonder Obama is doing so well.  Even ignoring his +10 approval spread, none of the GOP contenders has a favorability rating approaching where a competitive presidential candidate would want to be.  Romney's -21 is best off, followed by Bachmann's -23, Cain's and Gingrich's -27, Paul's -31, and Perry's astonishing -53.  So Obama more than doubles and almost triples his approval margin in the horseraces, and the Republicans roughly match their favorability spreads, suggesting that here, the vote is more a referendum on the Republicans than on the president.

California voters like this slate of Republicans so little that Obama outperforms his approval marks with Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.  An already healthy 12% of Republicans approve of Obama, but 11% (against Romney) to 19% (versus Cain) are pledging to vote for him.  14% of Obama’s own party disapproves--not great news--but only 5-6% of them defect.  Independents disapprove by a four-point margin, but Paul is the only GOP contender to beat the president with independents, and by only one point.  The others trail by four (Romney), nine (Cain), 10 (Gingrich), 11 (Bachmann), or 19 (Perry).

We've generally been finding Obama holding his ground with Hispanic voters around the country, and it'll be hard for Republicans to win anywhere they're a large portion of the electorate.  Here they're about 22%.  According to exit polls, the president got about three-quarters of the Hispanic vote in California in 2008.  Right now, his approval with them is only 56%, and 35% disapprove.  But only 18-31% of them see the Republican candidates favorably, and 48-68% unfavorably.   So when it comes time to vote, Obama gets a similar 69-74% of the Hispanic vote as three years ago.  Only 20-27% pledge for the Republicans, right in range with McCain's 23%.

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/obama-has-cali-on-lock.html

Wow

[Miles]

Darn! Rasmussen had Mr. "Generic Republican" within 4 points of Obama just last week!

[Niemeyerite]

Darn! Rasmussen had Mr. "Generic Republican" within 4 points of Obama just last week!

Yeah, poor republicans... Mr. Generic hasn't filed for the IA Caucus and NH Primary...

[redcommander]

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

Which is why the Electoral College has got to go.

Sure let's give more of an incentive for Hugo Chavez and Geert Wilders types to run with a popular vote system.

[FloridaRepublican]

Darn it! Because everyone knows a Republican can't win the White House without California. Oh wait...

[redcommander]

Darn it! Because everyone knows a Republican can't win the White House without California. Oh wait...

It would be nice if they could gain a lock on it and force Democrats back into the wilderness in presidential elections. Republicans can win the White House without California, but Democrats must win the state for the presidency.

[FloridaRepublican]

Darn it! Because everyone knows a Republican can't win the White House without California. Oh wait...

It would be nice if they could gain a lock on it and force Democrats back into the wilderness in presidential elections. Republicans can win the White House without California, but Democrats must win the state for the presidency.

That would be amazing, but realistically it's not happening. At least not any time soon.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

Which is why the Electoral College has got to go.

Sure let's give more of an incentive for Hugo Chavez and Geert Wilders types to run with a popular vote system.

Or we can continue electing George Bush-type presidents with the electoral college system.

[redcommander]

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

Which is why the Electoral College has got to go.

Sure let's give more of an incentive for Hugo Chavez and Geert Wilders types to run with a popular vote system.

Or we can continue electing George Bush-type presidents with the electoral college system.

It's better than letting even more crazies gain traction.

[memphis]

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

Which is why the Electoral College has got to go.

Sure let's give more of an incentive for Hugo Chavez and Geert Wilders types to run with a popular vote system.

Or we can continue electing George Bush-type presidents with the electoral college system.

It's better than letting even more crazies gain traction.

Somebody is suggesting that Hugo Chavez would have a snowball's chance if not for the Electoral College? Cause that's pretty out there.

[redcommander]

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

Which is why the Electoral College has got to go.

Sure let's give more of an incentive for Hugo Chavez and Geert Wilders types to run with a popular vote system.

Or we can continue electing George Bush-type presidents with the electoral college system.

It's better than letting even more crazies gain traction.

Somebody is suggesting that Hugo Chavez would have a snowball's chance if not for the Electoral College? Cause that's pretty out there.

If part of the electorate actually considered Herman Cain as Presidential material for several weeks, than yes I do believe enough Americans are ignorant enough to elect someone like Hugo Chavez.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

Which is why the Electoral College has got to go.

Sure let's give more of an incentive for Hugo Chavez and Geert Wilders types to run with a popular vote system.

Or we can continue electing George Bush-type presidents with the electoral college system.

It's better than letting even more crazies gain traction.

Somebody is suggesting that Hugo Chavez would have a snowball's chance if not for the Electoral College? Cause that's pretty out there.

Exactly.  Besides, America is very capable of electing crazies no matter what system we go by, honestly.  But it'd be better that if we had American voters pick the president, not electors.

[memphis]

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

Which is why the Electoral College has got to go.

Sure let's give more of an incentive for Hugo Chavez and Geert Wilders types to run with a popular vote system.

Or we can continue electing George Bush-type presidents with the electoral college system.

It's better than letting even more crazies gain traction.

Somebody is suggesting that Hugo Chavez would have a snowball's chance if not for the Electoral College? Cause that's pretty out there.

If part of the electorate actually considered Herman Cain as Presidential material for several weeks, than yes I do believe enough Americans are ignorant enough to elect someone like Hugo Chavez.

But what does that have to do with the EC? You are making the classic argument against democracy, that people are stupid.

[redcommander]

The only bad news for Californians is this means the only time they'll see their president next year is for fundraisers.  Otherwise, he can ignore the state and put its 55 electoral votes in his pocket.

Which is why the Electoral College has got to go.

Sure let's give more of an incentive for Hugo Chavez and Geert Wilders types to run with a popular vote system.

Or we can continue electing George Bush-type presidents with the electoral college system.

It's better than letting even more crazies gain traction.

Somebody is suggesting that Hugo Chavez would have a snowball's chance if not for the Electoral College? Cause that's pretty out there.

Exactly.  Besides, America is very capable of electing crazies no matter what system we go by, honestly.  But it'd be better that if we had American voters pick the president, not electors.

Because it helps eliminate extremism in politics. People like Perot and Wallace would have had much more of an incentive for people to vote for them if they knew that their vote would directly contribute to them being elected rather than indirectly.

[Sbane]

71% of Asians are voting for Obama. There's the problem for Republicans right there. You don't need to win over working class Hispanics, but there's a problem when you can't even run even with middle class Asians. The Republican debates must be scaring them, since they come from a culture that values moderation.

[memphis]

71% of Asians are voting for Obama. There's the problem for Republicans right there. You don't need to win over working class Hispanics, but there's a problem when you can't even run even with middle class Asians. The Republican debates must be scaring them, since they come from a culture that values moderation.

The GOP sees the demographic time bomb coming. They know their days are numbered. Rather than trying to appeal to minorities, they are going out like Enron. They know their house of cards is falling down, so they are taking all the money on the way out. That is what recent GOP policy is all about..

[Sbane]

71% of Asians are voting for Obama. There's the problem for Republicans right there. You don't need to win over working class Hispanics, but there's a problem when you can't even run even with middle class Asians. The Republican debates must be scaring them, since they come from a culture that values moderation.

The GOP sees the demographic time bomb coming. They know their days are numbered. Rather than trying to appeal to minorities, they are going out like Enron. They know their house of cards is falling down, so they are taking all the money on the way out. That is what recent GOP policy is all about..

Or they could just moderate themselves, and instead of trying to show that they are foaming at the mouth at every second, could try to present their case in a calm and rational fashion.

[memphis]

71% of Asians are voting for Obama. There's the problem for Republicans right there. You don't need to win over working class Hispanics, but there's a problem when you can't even run even with middle class Asians. The Republican debates must be scaring them, since they come from a culture that values moderation.

The GOP sees the demographic time bomb coming. They know their days are numbered. Rather than trying to appeal to minorities, they are going out like Enron. They know their house of cards is falling down, so they are taking all the money on the way out. That is what recent GOP policy is all about..

Or they could just moderate themselves, and instead of trying to show that they are foaming at the mouth at every second, could try to present their case in a calm and rational fashion.

Dude, have you seen them? They're the party of Enron. They'd rather have the money

[Sbane]

71% of Asians are voting for Obama. There's the problem for Republicans right there. You don't need to win over working class Hispanics, but there's a problem when you can't even run even with middle class Asians. The Republican debates must be scaring them, since they come from a culture that values moderation.

The GOP sees the demographic time bomb coming. They know their days are numbered. Rather than trying to appeal to minorities, they are going out like Enron. They know their house of cards is falling down, so they are taking all the money on the way out. That is what recent GOP policy is all about..

Or they could just moderate themselves, and instead of trying to show that they are foaming at the mouth at every second, could try to present their case in a calm and rational fashion.

Dude, have you seen them? They're the party of Enron. They'd rather have the money

Yes, I have been watching the debates.

[krazen1211]

71% of Asians are voting for Obama. There's the problem for Republicans right there. You don't need to win over working class Hispanics, but there's a problem when you can't even run even with middle class Asians. The Republican debates must be scaring them, since they come from a culture that values moderation.

I would be curious to find out what percentage of Asians Chris Christie achieved in 2009. Guessing he ran even at least as he won Middlesex County.

[Sbane]

71% of Asians are voting for Obama. There's the problem for Republicans right there. You don't need to win over working class Hispanics, but there's a problem when you can't even run even with middle class Asians. The Republican debates must be scaring them, since they come from a culture that values moderation.

I would be curious to find out what percentage of Asians Chris Christie achieved in 2009. Guessing he ran even at least as he won Middlesex County.

Chris Christie did well with Asians. He also isn't a crazy. Taking on unions in a relatively non political way, and for the fiscal health of the budget, is not an extreme position in my view. I don't think he has tried to get rid of the unions altogether, has he? I will admit I am not quite in tune with NJ politics.

[memphis]

State politics is also a completely different game than national politics. The issues are completely different.

[Ty440]

All you Texans are you looking and paying attention?  This is what Texas is gonna look like in 8 to 12 years.