Charts of the Day: % Democrats Falls to 8-Year Low
"The number of Republicans in the country was virtually unchanged in February, while the number of Democrats fell to 32.4%, a new low for the third month in a row (see top chart above). During February, 36.0% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 35.9% in January and the highest number of Republicans measured since December 2010."
As the percentage of Democrats has fallen to an eight-year low since 2004, the Republican-Democrat split has been shifting towards a Republican advantage and reached a record high in February of +3.6% (36% - 32.4%).
Meanwhile, Obama's Intrade odds of re-election remain steady at 60%.
HT: Junkyard Hawg
14 Comments:
I'm hesitant to put too much importance on the Intrade numbers right now, given the fact that the Republican nominee has yet to be picked. I'm thinking that once we see a definitive front runner (Romney can still be challenged by Santorum or Gingrich, depending on Super Tuesday, then we may get a more accurate reading on Intrade than now.
The key takeaways from these charts:
1) The 3.6% party ID advantage in February was higher than November 2010 (R+1.3%) when Republicans won a landslide.
2) The R+3.6% advantage is not a statistical fluke but a trend. In January 2012 it was R+3.4%. In December 2011 it was R+2.7%.
3) The party ID is among all adults, not registered voters, or more importantly likely voters. Republicans tend to actually show up to vote in higher numbers than Democrats based on party ID.
4) The party ID has shifted by 11.2% since November 2008! When both the electorate and Rasmusses showed a 7% advantage for Democrats.
5) The party ID showed a slight advantage for Democrats (D+1.5%)when Bush won re-election in 2004 with an electorate that was 37%R and 37%D.
6) At 32.4%, this is the lowest party ID ever recorded by Rasmussen for Democrats.
7) The last time Republicans had this type of party ID advantage, gold coinage was in circulation and less than half of American homes had radios!.
Romney may not be able to capture the evangelical item, against the Christian Obama.
Some evangelicals regard Mormonism as a Satanic Cult, and Romney as a "High Priest of a Satanic Cult." Some evangelicals do not even like Santorum, as he is a Catholic.
Interesting. The GOP has put a lot of stock in evangelicals in the last few elections--suppose the evangelicals vote for one of their own, the born-again Obama?
GOD VOTER.ORG
Is Rick Santorum a true Christian?
Rick Santorum identifies himself as a Christian. Rick Santorum believes he is Christian. And after the disappointments with the other 2012 candidates, including Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, many hope Rick Santorum is a Christian.
But is Rick Santorum the truly born-again Christian President that America needs?
While Rick Santorum has yet to answer our questions aimed at addressing this issue, his statements over the years, including the speech he gave at Ave Maria University (transcript) in 2008, provided intriguing details about his religion, beliefs and Catholicism (start here).
While Roman Catholicism shares many of the values of biblical Christianity, the two are different, as Rick Santorum indicated. A born-again Christian ultimately cannot remain within Roman Catholicism. A born-again Christian also would testify about Jesus, his Lord and Savior.
Rick Santorum's key strengths include his solid positions against abortion, homosexual marriage and Islamic threat, including from Iran's nuclear program. He also has exemplified family values, especially compared to Newt Gingrich.
His key weaknesses include lack of gravitas and relative inexperience, especially compared to Newt Gingrich.
Continued campaigning by both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich is dividing the conservative vote, risks handing the Republican nomination to the High Priest of a Satanic cult, and should therefore stop.
Pending Rick Santorum's Christian testimony, his presidential candidacy rating remains a C.
But the TV told me Americans are turned off by Republicans right now. Gosh, could they have an agenda or something?
The 2012 election may be a repeat of the 2010 election:
A Gary Shilling’s 2012 Investment Themes
January 10th, 2012
"...U.S. real annual GDP growth in future years - 2%, compared to the zero growth since the fourth quarter 2007 business peak and the 3.7% annual growth in the 1982-2000 salad days.
...severe recession now unfolding in Europe...hard landing in China with real GDP growth dropping back to 5% to 6% annual rates, well below the 8% needed to provide jobs for new labor force entrants.
We’re also forecasting a moderate recession in the U.S. as consumers retreat from their recent spending strength that flies in the face of declining real incomes.
In sum, we expect a global recession this year. A 2012 recession starting from a fourth quarter 2011 business peak would commence four years after the previous top in the fourth quarter of 2007."
A. Gary Shilling graduated from Amherst College, AB in physics - magna cum laude - Phi Beta Kappa, and earned an MA and PhD in economics at Stanford University.
Anyone remember the Intrade odds for the D's keeping the House only 6 months out?
It was 56%.
We all remember how that played out 6 months later, right?
Hard landing in China?
I do not think so.
Everything points against it.
This was a big debate in China and a big worry but now it seems the landing will be very soft.
Read the English edition of China Daily. This stuff is debated pro and con in what the US propaganda machine (the same one that is so pro-Obama so you know its reliability) calls a controlled Chinese press.
I do not think so. Read - it is on line - and learn.
Hard landing in China?
I do not think so.
Everything points against it.
This was a big debate in China and a big worry but now it seems the landing will be very soft.
Read the English edition of China Daily. This stuff is debated pro and con in what the US propaganda machine (the same one that is so pro-Obama so you know its reliability) calls a controlled Chinese press.
I do not think so. Read - it is on line - and learn.
Yes, but didn't Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" back in the year 2003 cause stock markets around the world to decline in the year 2008...?
"Everything points against it"...
I think walsh might be onto something if Tom Orlik writing in the WSJ is correct: Crisis, What Crisis? How to Beat Back the China Bears
FEBRUARY 24, 2012, 5:38 PM HKT
Higher wages may be a correct policy for China, although it's an export-led economy instead of a consumer-driven economy.
Consequently, higher wages may lead to unemployment and inflation, or stagflation, more than consumption.
Anyway, China has many major structural problems to correct, and they've been "festering" for a long time, since it hasn't had a massive "creative-destruction" process yet.
Liberals don't feel the same compulsion to belong to a club of like thinkers in order to get confirmation / justification for their beliefs.
"Liberals don't feel the same compulsion to belong to a club of like thinkers in order to get confirmation / justification for their beliefs."
Yeah, the Liberal vote is sooo up for grabs.
Did the sarcasm penetrate?
"Liberals don't feel the same compulsion to belong to a club of like thinkers in order to get confirmation / justification for their beliefs"...
hydra are you sure you meant to say liberals?
Post a Comment
<< Home