<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Mike&apos;s Washington Watch</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1</id>
   <updated>2012-04-28T13:57:24Z</updated>
   <subtitle>A collection of analysis, news and restaurant reviews from Mike Berman.</subtitle>
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 3.34</generator>

<entry>
   <title>State of the Nation</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/04/state_of_the_nation_27.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.271</id>
   
   <published>2012-04-28T14:00:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-04-28T13:57:24Z</updated>
   
   <summary>In the April NBC/WSJ survey, 59% say the country is on the wrong track. 33% say it is on the right track. The following are the Right Direction/Wrong Track findings from the NBC/WSJ and the CBS/NYT, dating back to the...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="April 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 109" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="529" label="april 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="498" label="State of the Nation" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[In the April NBC/WSJ survey, 59% say the country is on the wrong track. 33% say it is on the right track. The following are the Right Direction/Wrong Track findings from the NBC/WSJ and the CBS/NYT, dating back to the beginning of the Obama administration.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>Right Direction</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Wrong Track</strong></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>4/13-17/12 </td>
    <td>NBC/WSJ </td>
    <td>33%</td>
    <td>59%</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>4/13/17/12 </td>
    <td>CBS/NYT </td>
    <td>31</td>
    <td>61</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>4/8-12/12 </td>
    <td>WP/ABC </td>
    <td>33</td>
    <td>64</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>7/2011 </td>
    <td>NBC/WSJ </td>
    <td>25</td>
    <td>67</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>6/2011 </td>
    <td>CBS/NYT </td>
    <td>28</td>
    <td>63</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>6/2011 </td>
    <td>WP/ABC </td>
    <td>32</td>
    <td>66</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1/2011 </td>
    <td>NBC/WSJ </td>
    <td>35</td>
    <td>56</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1/2011 </td>
    <td>CBS/NYT </td>
    <td>32</td>
    <td>64</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1/2011 </td>
    <td>WP/ABC </td>
    <td>29</td>
    <td>60</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2/2010 </td>
    <td>CBS/NYT </td>
    <td>33</td>
    <td>62</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1/2010 </td>
    <td>NBC/WSJ </td>
    <td>34</td>
    <td>54</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1/2010 </td>
    <td>WP/ABC </td>
    <td>37</td>
    <td>62</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2/2009 </td>
    <td>NBC/WSJ </td>
    <td>41</td>
    <td>44</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2/2009 </td>
    <td>CBS</td>
    <td>23</td>
    <td>68</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2/2009 </td>
    <td>WP/ABC </td>
    <td>31</td>
    <td>67</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>	

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Ask the broader question somewhat differently and you get a somewhat different answer.
<br><br>
43% think that “things are going well” in the country today, compared to 67% who think things are going badly. And 11.5 times as many people think that things are going “very badly” as think they are going “very good.”
<br><br>
The low point during the Obama administration came in February 2009, when 21% thought things were going well and 79% thought they were going badly.
<br><br>
When President Bush stood for re-election in 2004, 55% thought things were going well.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>Going Well</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Going Badly</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>April 15, 2012 </td>
    <td>43%</td>
    <td>67%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nov 2011 </td>
    <td>25%</td>
    <td>74%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Aug 2011<br/></td>
    <td>24%</td>
    <td>75%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Jan 2011 </td>
    <td>43%</td>
    <td>56%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Jan 2010 </td>
    <td>32%</td>
    <td>67%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Feb 2009 </td>
    <td>21%</td>
    <td>79%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Oct 2004 </td>
    <td>55%</td>
    <td>44%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="3" align="right">[CNN/ORC] </td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>	

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

24% are satisfied with the way things are going in America. This is a slight drop from the satisfaction level in March, but higher than the 11% recorded last summer. Self-reported spending by Americans in March hit $74 per day, up from $63 per day in February. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 8.2% for the month of March. A year ago the rate was 8.9%. The average unemployment for 2011 was 8.9%, for 2010 it was 9.6% and for 2009, 9.3%.
<br><br>
Recalling a bit of history, the unemployment rate started to move up in May 2008, when it jumped from 5% in April to 5.4% in May. The rate increased every month thereafter (exception was August/September when the rate did not change) until it reached 7.3% in December. It continued upward in 2009, reaching 10% in October 2009. By the end of 2010, the rate was 9.4% and by the end of 2011 it had fallen back to 8.5% .
<br><br>
Gallup reported a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 8.5% for mid- April of this year. This is down from 8.6% in February. It also reported a drop to an unadjusted 18.1 % in the number of people unemployed or who are working part-time, but want full-time employment.
<br><br>
[Note: Gallup reports both a seasonally adjusted and an unadjusted number in its report of unemployment. However, it only reports an unadjusted number of those working part-time, but wanting full-time work. So, when compiling the total of the two, Gallup uses the unadjusted numbers.]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Jobs at 26%, and the economy at 22%, rank highest on a list of problems that Americans think the is facing the country today. Next highest are “politicians/government” at 9% and healthcare at 5%.
<br><br>
70% say the condition of the country is “bad,” while 27% say it is “good.” A year ago, 80% said the condition of the country was “bad.”
<br><br>
33% say the economy is getting better, while 28% say it is getting worse. 38% say the economy is staying about the same.
<br><br>
39% say they are falling behind, 43% say they are staying even, and 16% say they are getting ahead. This last number is the lowest number recorded since the question was first asked in 1995. [CBS/NYT 4/12]
<br><br>
60% of Americans say they have enough money to live comfortably. This is the smallest number of people to take this position in the last decade. A full ten years ago, 75% of Americans said they had enough money.
<br><br>
Conversely the number of people who say they do not have sufficient money to live comfortably has grown from 24% in 2002 to 39% in 2012. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The average income for Hispanic families in America is about 2/3rds as high as it is for white families. The average income for African-American families is about three-fifths as high was white families. [U of Phoenix/NAm Poll]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

68% of Americans now say they know someone who has lost her or his job in the last six months. This is the highest percentage registered by Gallup in the 20+ years it has asked this question. 77% think this is a bad time to being looking for a job. Last November, 90% of Americans had that view.
<br><br>
But, even given the above, 84% think it is at least “not too likely” that they will lose their current jobs. This includes 42% who say it is “not at all likely.” [Gallup 4/23/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

67% believe that the government “should be doing more to help improve the financial situation of middle class Americans.” Only 15% think the government should be doing less. [NYT/CBS 4/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

72% of us would favor changing Federal income tax rates so that people making more than $1,000,000 a year pay at least 30% of their income in taxes. [CNN/ORC 4/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

46% think they are paying too much in Federal taxes, while 47% say they think their tax level is about right. When asked, 53% think their taxes will rise in the next 12 months, while 43% think there will be no change. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>Different Takes On the Same Story</h2>

On Friday, April 13th, two major banks, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Company, put out their first quarter results. The next day two major newspapers reported on those results, with distinctly different “takes” on those reports.
<br><br>
The Wall Street Journal, reported on the results with a first section, front page, far right column, story. The headline and first paragraph follow:
<br><br>
“Bank Earnings Dismay Investors”
<br><br>
“Two of the nation’s largest banks released first-quarter results on Friday that disappointed investors, underlining the industry’s struggles with a sluggish economic recovery and the long hangover from the financial crisis.”
<br><br>
The New York Times put the story on the front page of the B section, far right hand column.
<br><br>
“Solid Results at 2 Banks Bode Well For Industry”
<br><br>
“Revenue is back.
<br><br>
“Hard hit by new regulations and a sluggish economy, banks have
struggled to revive top-line performance since the financial crisis, even as profits improved. But two of the nation’s largest lenders, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, reported strong revenue growth on Friday, a surprise that could bode well for the rest of the industry and the broader economy.”

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>It Makes A Difference How You Word the Question</h2>

55% of respondents, when asked about the Federal government’s assistance to the U.S. automakers who were in financial trouble, think the companies should have been left alone to succeed or fail on their own. 36% have the opposite view. The “no help” point of view is expressed by 42% of Democrats, 58% of Independents, and 73% of Republicans. [UT/NJCCpoll 2/2011]
<br><br>
A Gallup survey at roughly the same time found 51% against “financial bailout,” while 44% approved. But if the language used to describe the government assistance is changed, so is the survey result. A Pew survey found 56% thought “government loans” to the car companies were “mostly good,” while 36% thought they were “mostly bad.”
<br><br>
According to 42% of Americans, the “energy situation” is very serious. In mid-2001 the number hit 58%. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

84% of African Americans do not believe that blacks and other minorities receive treatment equal to whites in the criminal justice system. [WP/ABC 4/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

43% of us are supportive of intermarriage of different races. As one would expect the strength of support is age-based. The breakdown is as follows:
<br><br>
63% of those 18-29<br>
45% of those 30-49<br>
35% of those 40-64<br>
28% of those 65+
<br><br>
[Pew]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

An increasing number of children are being born of biracial parents in the United States. Something over 7 percent of children born in 2009 had parents of two or more races. This compares with 5% ten years earlier. [WP 4/26]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Mississippi is the most religious state in the Union, with 59% falling into the category of “very religious.” Coming right behind are Utah at 57% and Alabama at 56%. At the other end of the spectrum are Vermont and New Hampshire in which only 23% are classified as “very religious.” [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Here is some history of college freshmen who entered school in 2006:
33% of all students transfer; 25% transfer more than once; 37% transfer in their 2nd year; 22% transfer in their 4th or 5th years; 43% transfer into a public two-year college. [National Student Clearing House Republican Center]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

In the ordinary course, WW does not recommend particular articles. However, I recommend to your attention an article entitled “In Nothing We Trust,” by Ron Fournier and Sophie Quinton, in the April 21, 2012 National Journal. It is well worth the twenty minutes it will take you to read it.

<br><br>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Odds and Ends</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/04/odds_and_ends.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.272</id>
   
   <published>2012-04-28T13:59:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-04-28T14:02:44Z</updated>
   
   <summary>At least for some, if not many, the ubiquity and ease of email has changed what we would have thought of as the practice of social graces. Before email, when a response or circumstance dictated a response, a visit, a...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="April 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 109" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="529" label="april 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="531" label="odds and ends" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[At least for some, if not many, the ubiquity and ease of email has changed what we would have thought of as the practice of social graces. Before email, when a response or circumstance dictated a response, a visit, a phone call, and/or a handwritten or typed note, would be the order of the day. This is no longer the case. Increasingly, an email replaces other methods of communication. There are some arguments in favor of this new way of communicating in these circumstances. It is easier, less complicated, and, since you can do it right away, you are more likely not to forget. On the other hand, it dumbs-down human interaction.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

At the end of February there were an estimated 2,459,646,000 internet users in the world. Estimates of the number of Facebook users range from 850 to 900 million. The estimates of the Twitter universe range from 300 – 462 million.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Americans engage with cable, satellite and broadcast TV about 147 hours per month. They also spend about 4.5 hours viewing online video per month. The group that only watches free broadcast TV continues to drop, hitting a low of 5.8 million households in the 3rd quarter of 2011. [WP 4/24]
<br><br>
It’s no surprise that self-described over-use of cell phones , the internet and social media is age-driven. Adults were asked whether they personally spend too much time using particular devices or outlets. Here are the percentages of each age group that say they spend too much time on that device/outlet.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>18-29</strong></td>
    <td><strong>30-49</strong></td>
    <td><strong>50-64</strong></td>
    <td><strong>65+</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Using Internet</td>
    <td>59</td>
    <td>27</td>
    <td>15</td>
    <td>5</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Cell phones or smart phones</td>
    <td>58</td>
    <td>30</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>8</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Using social media sites</td>
    <td>48</td>
    <td>17</td>
    <td>8</td>
    <td>1</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="5" align="right">[Gallup]</td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>	

<br><br>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>President Obama</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/04/president_obama_15.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.273</id>
   
   <published>2012-04-28T13:58:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-04-28T14:14:55Z</updated>
   
   <summary>With 6 months to go before the general election, the public’s grade for the job President Obama has done so far is lower than that of 6 of the previous Presidents at this point in their first term. The President’s...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="April 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 109" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="532" label="April 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="355" label="President Obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[With 6 months to go before the general election, the public’s grade for the job President Obama has done so far is lower than that of 6 of the previous Presidents at this point in their first term.
<br><br>
The President’s current job approval rating (April 16-22) in Gallup is 48% approval and 46% disapproval. The following is the list of 8.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="50%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td width="50%">&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>App</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Dis</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Eisenhower </td>
    <td>69</td>
    <td>19</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Clinton </td>
    <td>56</td>
    <td>37</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Reagan</td>
    <td>54</td>
    <td>36</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nixon</td>
    <td>54</td>
    <td>37</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G Bush (II)</td>
    <td>52</td>
    <td>45</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Obama</td>
    <td>50</td>
    <td>44 (4/22-24)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G Bush (I)</td>
    <td>42</td>
    <td>48</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Carter</td>
    <td>39</td>
    <td>50</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>	
<br><br>


The following are several additional cuts at the President’s job approval rating over the last 16 months.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>NBC/WSJ</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>NYT/CBS</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>WP/ABC</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>CNN/ORC</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">April 2012</td>
      <td valign="top">49/46%</td>
      <td valign="top">48/42%</td>
      <td valign="top">50/45%</td>
      <td valign="top">49/48%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">March 2012</td>
      <td valign="top">50/45%</td>
      <td valign="top">41/47%</td>
      <td valign="top">46/50%</td>
      <td valign="top">---</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">February 2012</td>
      <td valign="top">---</td>
      <td valign="top">50/43%</td>
      <td valign="top">50/46%</td>
      <td valign="top">50/48%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">January 2012</td>
      <td valign="top">48/46%</td>
      <td valign="top">45/47% (CBS)</td>
      <td valign="top">48/48%</td>
      <td valign="top">47/51%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">December 2011</td>
      <td valign="top">46/48%</td>
      <td valign="top">44/46% (CBS)</td>
      <td valign="top">49/47%</td>
      <td valign="top">49/48%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">October 2011</td>
      <td valign="top">44/51%</td>
      <td valign="top">46/46%</td>
      <td valign="top">42/54%</td>
      <td valign="top">54/52%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">August 2011</td>
      <td valign="top">44/51%</td>
      <td valign="top">48/47%</td>
      <td valign="top">42/54%</td>
      <td valign="top">45/52%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">January 2011</td>
      <td valign="top">53/41%</td>
      <td valign="top">48/49%</td>
      <td valign="top">54/43%</td>
      <td valign="top">53/45%</td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

And here is how Obama is rated on a number of other issues.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td colspan="2" align="center" valign="top"><strong>WP/ABC 4/12 </strong></td>
      <td colspan="2" align="center" valign="top"><strong>CBS/NYT 4/12 </strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Approve</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Disapprove</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Approve</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Disapprove</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">The Economy </td>
      <td valign="top">44%</td>
      <td valign="top">54%</td>
      <td valign="top">44%</td>
      <td valign="top">48%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Gas Prices</td>
      <td valign="top">26%</td>
      <td valign="top">56%</td>
      <td valign="top">24%</td>
      <td valign="top">64%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Housing &amp; Mortgage Situation</td>
      <td valign="top">---</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">36%</td>
      <td valign="top">40%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Situation in Afghanistan</td>
      <td valign="top">48%</td>
      <td valign="top">43%</td>
      <td valign="top">43%</td>
      <td valign="top">42%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Int'l Affairs/For Policy </td>
      <td valign="top">---</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">46%</td>
      <td valign="top">36%</td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Currently, 48% of us have positive feelings toward the President and 39% have negative feelings. A year ago it was, 50% to 36%, and two years before that, 50% to 38%. [NBC/WSJ 4/12]

<br><br>
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>2012 Republican Presidential Nomination</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/04/2012_republican_presidential_n_2.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.274</id>
   
   <published>2012-04-28T13:57:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-04-28T14:32:06Z</updated>
   
   <summary>22 people have been tempted or have joined the race. 19 people have announced they are not running, quit the race, or have written it off. 3 people are still running (sort of): Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul....</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="April 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 109" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="521" label="2012 republican presidential nomination" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="529" label="april 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[22 people have been tempted or have joined the race. 
<br><br>
19 people have announced they are not running, quit the race, or have written it off. 
<br><br>
3 people are still running (sort of): Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul.
<br><br>
1 is the number of real players remaining at the moment.
<br><br>
The Goal: 1,142 Committed Republican Convention Delegates by the time of the Republican National Convention, August 27-30, 2012 

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The contest is over. It effectively ended late on the evening of April 3rd , when Romney won all three of the primaries held that day in Wisconsin (most important because Santorum competed there), Maryland and DC. By then he had finished 1st in 23 states and 2nd in 9. Santorum had finished 1st in 11 states and 2nd in 13 states. Gingrich had won 1st place in 2 states and 2nd in 6. Paul had not won a single state.
<br><br>
Subsequently, on April 24th there were 5 more contests. The chart below includes those contests.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>1st Place</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>2nd Place</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>3rd Place</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>4th Place</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Zero</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Romney</td>
      <td valign="top">28</td>
      <td valign="top">9</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">-</td>
      <td valign="top">-</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Santorum</td>
      <td valign="top">11</td>
      <td valign="top">13</td>
      <td valign="top">8</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Gingrich</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">7</td>
      <td valign="top">12</td>
      <td valign="top">17</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Paul</td>
      <td valign="top">0</td>
      <td valign="top">10</td>
      <td valign="top">14</td>
      <td valign="top">15</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br><br>

The next series of contests was scheduled for April 24th, five States in the Northeast, including Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania, Santorum’s home State. While the contest was over, the open question was how long Santorum would hang in the race, making it awkward for Romney to really turn to the general election.
<br><br>
The only State in the group in which Santorum had any chance was his home State of Pennsylvania. If he failed to win in Pennsylvania, he would have no basis for continuing the race, except to make Romney’s life miserable, something that is not in Santorum’s long-term interest.
<br><br>
As of early March, Santorum was leading Romney in Pennsylvania by 14 – 18 points. By the end of March, the spread had dropped to 6 points. And, as of the first week of April, a survey that had Santorum up by 18 points in early March now had Romney leading by 5 points.
<br><br>
By April 10th, Romney had accumulated 660 delegates, while Santorum trailed badly with 281 delegates. Gingrich and Paul together had 186 delegates. 144 are needed to nominate. As of April 25th, Romney has 844 delegates. [WP tally]
<br><br>
Santorum, seeing the handwriting on the wall, announced on April 11th that he was suspending his campaign. (Suspending the campaign allows him to continue to raise funds through his campaign committee.)
<br><br>
Santorum made an interesting run. In mid-December 2011 Santorum, when matched in a national survey against Romney, Gingrich and Paul, came in at 3% against Romney’s 30%. [CBS]
<br><br>
In early March, Santorum led Romney 34% to 30%. By April 3rd he trailed Romney by 19 points, 44% to 25%. [CBS/NYT][ABC/WP]
<br><br>
Among the reasons why Santorum failed is that, while Republicans trusted Santorum more than Romney to handle social issues 29% to 27%, they trusted Romney over Santorum to handle the economy, 48% to 12%. [WP/ABC 4/12]
<br><br>
From the first day to the last, Santorum’s basic positions did not change.
<br><br>
Now, for reasons that are not clear, Santorum is playing a bit hard to get. He has yet to endorse Romney, even after Romney won all five primaries on
April 24th. The two men are scheduled to meet on May 4th. Perhaps he has decided to keep the world waiting breathlessly for his decision.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

It was inexplicable why Newt Gingrich was staying in the race so long. Then he announced he was staking the future of his campaign on the Delaware primary. It is not clear why, but following Romney’s win there, his folks are putting out the word that he is planning to suspend his campaign on May 1st. It is going to be interesting to see how he handles the substantial debt his campaign has incurred.
<br><br>
Ron Paul will stay in to the end because he can, and because he entered the race to make the case for his libertarian point of view, and he continues to be able to do that. He likely garners more attention this way than he would as an about-to- be-former Member of the House of Representatives.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

At one time or another five different candidates led the race nationally.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="50%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Up until 8/24/11 </td>
      <td valign="top">Mitt Romney </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">8/25-10/2/11 </td>
      <td valign="top">Rick Perry </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">10/5 – 10/19/11 </td>
      <td valign="top">Mitt Romney </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">10/21 – 11/10/11 </td>
      <td valign="top">Herman Cain </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">11/21/11 – 1/2/12 </td>
      <td valign="top">Newt Gingrich </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">1/5 – 1/22/12 </td>
      <td valign="top">Mitt Romney </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">1/24-2/1/12 </td>
      <td valign="top">New Gingrich </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">2/4 – 11/12 </td>
      <td valign="top">Mitt Romney </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">2/13-20/12 </td>
      <td valign="top">Rick Santorum </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">2/29 to present </td>
      <td valign="top">Mitt Romney </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2" align="right">[Real Clear Politics] </td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>


<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>The Vice Presidential Pick</h2>

And so begins the “search” for a Vice Presidential nominee to be recommended to the Republican convention delegates by the Presidential nominee. As the vetting process has changed and expanded over the years it has become one of the most intrusive experiences that a person might endure.
<br><br>
These changes are often a function of some issue that came up in a previous election which had not been considered during vetting and then became a distraction during the general election .
<br><br>
The endless speculation by media commentators as to whom Romney might pick is in full bloom. Is it Senator Portman (Ohio) or Senator Rubio (Florida- Hispanic) or Governor Christie (New Jersey)?
<br><br>
Meanwhile the CNN/ORC poll asked Republicans to name their top pick. Here is the list. Leading the queue is Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, named by 26%. She is followed by Rick Santorum at 21%; Marco Rubio and Chris Christie at14% each; Paul Ryan at 8%; Bobby Jindal at 5%; Bob McDonnell at1%; and Rob Portman at <1%.

<br><br>
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>The Money</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/04/the_money.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.275</id>
   
   <published>2012-04-28T13:56:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-04-28T15:07:24Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The following is an attempt to summarize campaign fundraising and expenditures for selected Presidential campaigns, national Party organizations, and the larger Super PACs. The data does not include State political parties, 501c (4)s, or 527s. Some of the Super PACs...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="April 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 109" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[The following is an attempt to summarize campaign fundraising and expenditures for selected Presidential campaigns, national Party organizations, and the larger Super PACs. The data does <em>not</em> include State political parties, 501c (4)s, or 527s. Some of the Super PACs will also spend money on other Federal or State races.
<br><br>
Information in this issue of the Watch is based on information from the Center for Responsive Politics, which, frankly, is an easier source of gross fundraising and spending information than Federal Election Commission reports.
<br><br>
All of which is to say that the picture painted is pretty accurate, but not perfect.
<br><br>
The Obama campaign has raised $191 million through the end of March. This is roughly $46 million less than the $237 million the campaign raised through the 1st quarter of 2008. In the first quarter of 2008 the campaign raised $133 million. This year it raised $52.2 million.
<br><br>
The campaign has spent $89.9 million and has a net $103.8 million on-hand on April 1st.
<br><br>
While they are running behind in their fundraising, the demand timing of the money is different than it was in 2008. There is no primary campaign. All of the campaign’s expenditures are directed to the general election.
<br><br>
In the 2007-08 cycle (through 11/24/08) the Obama campaign raised $778 million and spent $760 million. To reach that amount, the campaign has to raise $586.3 million between now and the 2012 election. This amounts to just under $84 million per month.
<br><br>
None of the above includes the amount that has been raised for the Democratic National Committee, most of the resources of which will be dedicated to the President’s re-election. Recently, the campaign informed the House and Senate leadership that they should not expect to receive any help from the DNC during this cycle. To date, the DNC has raised $175.7 million and has $38.4 million on hand.
<br><br>
The Romney campaign raised $86.6 million through the end of March, and has spent $76.6 million leaving a net $10.1 as April 1st. The Romney campaign spent $11.5 more than the other three Republican candidates in the field at the end of March.
<br><br>
Now the money chase begins in earnest. The Romney campaign has connected up with the Republican National Committee in a joint fundraising effort. Overall, in 2008 the Obama campaign spent just over twice as much during the whole cycle than did John McCain. That will not happen this time around.

<h2>Fundraising / Spending / Available Cash 2011 - 12 Cycle (in millions of dollars)</h2>


<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Raised</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Spent</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>4/1 Net Cash</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="4" align="center" valign="top"><strong>Republican Candidates </strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Romney </td>
      <td valign="top">86.4 </td>
      <td valign="top">76.6 </td>
      <td valign="top">10.1 </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Santorum </td>
      <td valign="top">20.6 </td>
      <td valign="top">18.8 </td>
      <td valign="top">-0.18 </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Gingrich </td>
      <td valign="top">22.4 </td>
      <td valign="top">21.2 </td>
      <td valign="top">-3.1 </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Paul </td>
      <td valign="top">36.8 </td>
      <td valign="top">25.0 </td>
      <td valign="top">7.8 </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="4" align="center" valign="top"><strong>President Obama </strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Obama</td>
      <td valign="top">191.7</td>
      <td valign="top">89.9</td>
      <td valign="top">103.8</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="4" align="center" valign="top">National Political Parties </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Republican Nat Comm </td>
      <td valign="top">141.4</td>
      <td valign="top">95.3</td>
      <td valign="top">36.8</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Democratic Nat Comm</td>
      <td valign="top">175.7</td>
      <td valign="top">144.9</td>
      <td valign="top">38.4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="4" align="center" valign="top"><strong>Super PACs </strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="4" align="center" valign="top">There are 434 Super PACs. In aggregate, they have raised $203 million and spent $91million.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="4" align="center" valign="top"><strong>Republican </strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Restore our Future (Romney) 	</td>
      <td valign="top">52.0 </td>
      <td valign="top">42.0 </td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Winning our Future (Gingrich) 	</td>
      <td valign="top">23.9 </td>
      <td valign="top">16.7 </td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Endorse Liberty (Paul) 	</td>
      <td valign="top">3.7 </td>
      <td valign="top">4.0 </td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Red, White &amp; Blue (Santorum) 	</td>
      <td valign="top">8.3 </td>
      <td valign="top">7.5 </td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">American Crossroads </td>
      <td valign="top">28.1 </td>
      <td valign="top">1.0 </td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Freedom Works for America</td>
      <td valign="top">3.7 </td>
      <td valign="top">1.4 </td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Club for Growth </td>
      <td valign="top">5.9 </td>
      <td valign="top">1.6</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="4" align="center" valign="top"><strong>Democratic</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Priorities USA Action (Obama) 	</td>
      <td valign="top">9.0</td>
      <td valign="top">1.7</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">American Bridge 21 Century</td>
      <td valign="top">8.8</td>
      <td valign="top">--</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

While Super PACs will continue to raise and spend money, the real financiers of large parts of the non-Party, non-candidate campaign activity will be non-profit organizations, which do not have to reveal their donors to the public.
<br><br>
There is some evidence that the public will never know the identify of those who donate to groups not affiliated with the candidates or political Parties during the 2012 campaign.
<br><br>
To the extent that this activity involves advertising in various forms of media, there are organizations which regularly monitor this kind of activity and their findings will be disclosed periodically. For example, the April 26th edition of the Washington Post carries a story about this form of advertising/spending. One of the examples used is the Crossroads organization, which includes Crossroads GPS, a 501c(4), and American Crossroads, a Super PAC.
<br><br>
Crossroads GPS, the 501c(4), has spent an estimated $12.6 million on anti- Obama advertising. American Crossroads, the Super PAC, has only spent about $300,000.
<br><br>
Undoubtedly, there will be periodic disclosures of this media spending for the duration of the campaign.
<br><br>
However, should a non-profit decide to play in the campaign by hiring hundreds of grassroots organizers in targeted areas and avoiding so-called “express advocacy” language, those expenditures will never be disclosed.
<br><br>
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>2012 Presidential General Election</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/04/2012_presidential_general_elec_1.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.276</id>
   
   <published>2012-04-28T13:55:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-04-28T15:46:12Z</updated>
   
   <summary>As you can see in the charts below, early polling on the general election contest does not show a contest in which the ultimate winner is obvious at the present time. In surveys that were completed after Romney was the...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="April 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 109" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="529" label="april 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="525" label="presidential election" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[As you can see in the charts below, early polling on the general election contest does not show a contest in which the ultimate winner is obvious at the present time. In surveys that were completed after Romney was the obvious nominee (Santorum suspended his campaign), there is a range of results showing Obama up by as much as 8 points and others that show the race to be dead even.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Survey</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Last Date</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Obama</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Romney</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Fox </td>
      <td valign="top">4/24 </td>
      <td valign="top">46</td>
      <td valign="top">46</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Nat/Journal </td>
      <td valign="top">4/22 </td>
      <td valign="top"><u>47</u></td>
      <td valign="top">39</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC/WSJ </td>
      <td valign="top">4/17 </td>
      <td valign="top"><u>49</u></td>
      <td valign="top">43</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT </td>
      <td valign="top">4/17 </td>
      <td valign="top">46 </td>
      <td valign="top">46</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">PEW </td>
      <td valign="top">4/15 </td>
      <td valign="top"><u>49</u></td>
      <td valign="top">45</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ABC/WP </td>
      <td valign="top">4/8 </td>
      <td valign="top"><u>51</u></td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CNN/ORC </td>
      <td valign="top">3/25 </td>
      <td valign="top"><u>54</u></td>
      <td valign="top">43</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT </td>
      <td valign="top">3/11 </td>
      <td valign="top"><u>47</u></td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ABC/WP </td>
      <td valign="top">3/10 </td>
      <td valign="top">47</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>49</u></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC/WSJ </td>
      <td valign="top">3/3</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>50</u></td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">PEW </td>
      <td valign="top">2/12 </td>
      <td valign="top"><u>52</u></td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT </td>
      <td valign="top">2/12 </td>
      <td valign="top"><u>48</u></td>
      <td valign="top">42</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC/WSJ </td>
      <td valign="top">12/11 </td>
      <td valign="top"><u>47</u></td>
      <td valign="top">45</td>
    </tr>
  
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Here are the results of a PEW Research Center survey conducted April 4-15, broken down into categories. [Note: Following a series of Republican primary contests on April 3rd, the media began treating Romney as the Republican nominee.]


<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Obama</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Romney</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Total</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>49</u></td>
      <td valign="top">45</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Men</td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>50</u></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Women</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>53</u></td>
      <td valign="top">40</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">18-29</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>61</u></td>
      <td valign="top">33</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">30-44</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>49</u></td>
      <td valign="top">45</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">45-64</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>47</u></td>
      <td valign="top">46</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">65+</td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>50</u></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">White</td>
      <td valign="top">39</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>54</u></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Black</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>95</u></td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Hispanic</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>67</u></td>
      <td valign="top">27</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Independent</td>
      <td valign="top">42</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>48</u></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Certain</td>
      <td valign="top">29</td>
      <td valign="top">37</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Swing</td>
      <td valign="top">33</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">12</td>
      <td valign="top">Lean Obama 3% <br>
       Chance Romney 10%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Pure</td>
      <td valign="top">10</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">11</td>
      <td valign="top">Lean Romney (5%)<br>
       Chance Obama (6%) </td>
    </tr>
  
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

No surprise, Romney's positive intensity score among Republicans has grown since he became the obvious Republican nominee, while his Democratic score has fallen. Obama’s scores have been relatively consistent in recent months.

<br><br>

Here are their current scores as reported by Gallup.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="50%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Republicans</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Democrats</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Obama</td>
      <td valign="top">-47</td>
      <td valign="top">+36</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Romney</td>
      <td valign="top">+21</td>
      <td valign="top">-30</td>
      </tr>
  
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>The Electoral College</h2>

Here are cuts at the electoral college that WW will regularly reprint as we head toward the Presidential election. 270 Electoral votes are needed to win.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Cook</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Rothenberg</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>AP*</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>4/24</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>4/6</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>4/14</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Solid/Likely Dem </td>
      <td valign="top">182</td>
      <td valign="top">186</td>
      <td valign="top">186</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Lean Dem </td>
      <td valign="top">45</td>
      <td valign="top">51</td>
      <td valign="top">56</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Total </td>
      <td valign="top">227</td>
      <td valign="top">237</td>
      <td valign="top">242</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Toss Up</td>
      <td valign="top">101</td>
      <td valign="top">95</td>
      <td valign="top">104</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Lean GOP </td>
      <td valign="top">19</td>
      <td valign="top">15</td>
      <td valign="top">32</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Solid/Likely GOP </td>
      <td valign="top">191</td>
      <td valign="top">191</td>
      <td valign="top">156</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Total</td>
      <td valign="top">210</td>
      <td valign="top">206</td>
      <td valign="top">188</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="4" align="right" valign="top">(* AP total is off by 4 electoral votes) </td>
      </tr>
  
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
Most commentators include the following in the list of” Toss Up” States: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, New Hampshire. Two additional States which are often added to this list are North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>Intrade Prediction Market</h2>

As of close of business on March 20 , here are the bids for shares in Obama’s re-election prospects. (The higher the bid the more likely the buyer believes the prospects of victory.)

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>1/12</strong></td>
    <td><strong>2/16</strong></td>
    <td><strong>3/20</strong></td>
    <td><strong>59.9</strong></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Barack Obama </td>
    <td>50.6</td>
    <td>60.3</td>
    <td>59.9</td>
    <td>60.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Mitt Romney</td>
    <td>--</td>
    <td>--</td>
    <td>--</td>
    <td>38.2</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The support of younger people was important to the election of President Obama in 2008. In 2008, 18-29 year olds were 18% of those who voted and Obama won the group by 66% to 32%. Conversely, those 65 years of age and older constituted 16% of the electorate, and Obama lost them 45% to 53% for McCain.
<br><br>
Currently, 60% of 18-29 year olds are registered to vote. Among those who are registered, 56% say they will definitely vote, and Obama leads by 64% to 35%. Conversely, 92% of those 65 and older are registered; 77% say they are certain to vote; and they currently support Romney over Obama by 52% to 40%. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

President Obama took 67% of the Hispanic vote in the 2008 election. Since then the Hispanic population has continued to grow in an increased number of States. In a recent Fox News survey of Latino voters, Obama leads Romney by 69% to 14%. Romney is rated unfavorably by this community by about 2 to 1.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

There is much conversation about the role that women will play in the 2012 Presidential election. At the moment, the support of Obama over Romney by women is a very important part of Obama’s lead in those polls which have him ahead in the race.
<br><br>
Women have been “dominant” in the groups that have supported Democratic nominees over the years. The following is a chart of their role in the Democratic vote, courtesy of “Inside Politics with Bill Schneider,” published by Third Way.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>Women</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Men</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Women Different (%)</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2008</td>
    <td>57%</td>
    <td>50%</td>
    <td>+6</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2004</td>
    <td>52%</td>
    <td>44%</td>
    <td>+7</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2000</td>
    <td>53%</td>
    <td>45%</td>
    <td>+8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1996</td>
    <td>54%</td>
    <td>45%</td>
    <td>+9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1992</td>
    <td>46%</td>
    <td>41%</td>
    <td>+5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1988</td>
    <td>48%</td>
    <td>44%</td>
    <td>+4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1984</td>
    <td>45%</td>
    <td>36%</td>
    <td>+9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1980</td>
    <td>44%</td>
    <td>36%</td>
    <td>+8</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Asked what issues will be extremely/very important to them as they consider who to vote for in the Presidential election, potential voters rank healthcare (80%) and unemployment (79%) at the top of their list. Closely following those issues are the budget deficit and national debt (77%) and gas prices (73%). Further down the list we find government policies concerning birth control at 44%. Not surprisingly, women are significantly more interested than in men in policies relating to birth control. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

In the mid-April NBC/WSJ survey the following series of questions was asked relating to the #1 issue going into this election – the economy. The question asked was whether the actions listed did or would help or hurt economic conditions.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>Helped</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Hurt</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Effect of Obama&rsquo;s policies </td>
    <td>36%</td>
    <td>3%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>If Obama is re-elected<br/></td>
    <td>31%</td>
    <td>30%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>If Romney elected </td>
    <td>32%</td>
    <td>24%</td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Gallup classifies 41% of registered voters as “very religious,” 27% as “moderately religious,” and 32% as “nonreligious.” The more religious a person is, the more likely they are to support Romney over Obama.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>Romney</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Obama</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Very religious </td>
    <td>54%</td>
    <td>37%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Moderately Religious </td>
    <td>40%</td>
    <td>54%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nonreligious </td>
    <td>30%</td>
    <td>61%</td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

With the economy being the #1 issue going into the general election season, a recent Gallup survey has Americans expressing the view that they have more confidence in Obama “to do or recommend the right thing for the economy” by 50% to 42% over Romney.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The number of people who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party Movement in April is 25%. In the last year it has been as high as 28%. The number saying they do not support the movement is currently at 64%. Of Republicans who are also Tea Party supporters, 56% say that the term “Republican” better describes them, while 37% say “Tea Party supporter” better describes.
<br><br>
As of April, only 16% of adults and registered voters describe themselves as supporters of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. This number has fallen from its high of 29% in November 2011. [NBC/WSJ 4/12]

<br><br>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>The Congress</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/04/the_congress_11.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.277</id>
   
   <published>2012-04-28T13:54:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-04-28T16:09:59Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Approval of the job being done by Congress reached 17% in mid-April , up from 12% in March. This is the highest rating that Gallup has found since July 2011, when 18% approved. The Congress seems to be unable to...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="April 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 109" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="529" label="april 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="388" label="the congress" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[Approval of the job being done by Congress reached 17% in mid-April , up from 12% in March. This is the highest rating that Gallup has found since July 2011, when 18% approved.
<br><br>
The Congress seems to be unable to get anything of significance done. The level of polarization within the two bodies has reached a level that makes them all but irrelevant in solving the country’s problems.
<br><br>
The National Journal regularly rates the voting records of members of Congress. (2/25/12)
<br><br>
“...no Senate Democrat compiled a voting record to the right of any Senate Republican, and no Republican came down on the left of any Senate Democrat.”
<br><br>
In the last 30 years this has happened only once before – 1999.
<br><br>
Only six Republican House Members compiled records that were slightly to the left of the most conservative Democrat.
<br><br>
The following is a chart of the number of House Members and the number of Senators whose voting records fall between the most conservative and most liberal members of their respective bodies.
<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="50%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td align="center"><strong>Most liberal Republican </strong></td>
    <td width="33%" align="center">&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center"><strong>Most conservative Democrat </strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center"><strong>House</strong></td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center">1982 -- 344 members </td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center">1994 -- 252 members </td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center">2002 -- 137 members </td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center">2011 -- 15 members </td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center"><strong>Senate </strong></td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center">1982 -- 58 members </td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center">1994 -- 34 members </td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center">2002 -- 7 members </td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td align="center">2011 -- 0 members </td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">


<h2>The Senate</h2>

<ul>
  <li> Democrats 51</li>
  <li> Republicans 47</li>
  <li> Independents 2 (caucus Dem)</li>
</ul>

Former Governor Angus King’s entry into the Maine Senate race as an Independent makes it likely that the Republicans will lose the seat being vacated by Olympia Snowe. King was a popular governor, and early polling suggests he will be the eventual winner. While he has stated that he will not announce which caucus he will join unless and until he is elected, the working assumption is that he will caucus with the Democrats. In the chart below this race is treated as Leaning Democratic.
<br><br>
While the seat will not switch Parties if he loses, incumbent Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (UT) easily avoided the fate of incumbent Republican Senator Robert Bennett, who lost his seat by failing to pick up sufficient delegate votes at the Republican State convention, recently concluded. Hatch reportedly received 59.4% of the vote, .6% percentage points short of the 60% needed to avoid a primary. There will be a two-person primary on June 26. In early polling Hatch leads by a substantial margin.
<br><br>
A number of smart people believe that control of the Senate will ultimately come down to the races in Nevada, Ohio and Maine. If the Democrats win two of the three they will retain control.
<br><br>
Here is how the 33 Senate elections, made up of 23 Democratic incumbents (including 2 Independents) and 10 Republican incumbents, look to me at this time. (D=Dem incumbent in office, R=GOP incumbent in office, I=Ind. incumbent in office). Underlining reflects retirement.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table style="width: 100%;" border="1"
 cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;">Safe
Democratic (8)</td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;"> Leaning
Democratic (8)</td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;"> Toss-Up
(8)</td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;"> Leaning
Republican (4)</td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;">Safe
Republican (5)</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>California</td>
      <td><span
 style="text-decoration: underline;">Connecticut</span>
      </td>
      <td>Florida</td>
      <td><u>Arizona</u></td>
      <td>Mississippi</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Delaware</td>
      <td>Hawaii</td>
      <td>Massachusetts</td>
      <td>Indiana</td>
      <td>Tennessee</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Maryland </td>
      <td>Maine<br></td>
      <td>Missouri</td>
      <td>Nebraska</td>
      <td style="text-decoration: underline;">Texas</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Minnesota</td>
      <td>Michigan</td>
      <td>Montana</td>
      <td><span style="text-decoration: underline;">No. Dakota</span><br>
      </td>
      <td>Utah</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>New Jersey</td>
      <td>Ohio<br></td>
      <td>Nevada</td>
      <td><br>
      </td>
      <td>Wyoming</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>New York</td>
      <td>Pennsylvania</td>
      <td><span style="text-decoration: underline;">New Mexico</span></td>
      <td><br>
      </td>
      <td><br>
      </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rhode Island</td>
      <td>Washington </td>
      <td><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Virginia</span></td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Vermont<br>
      </td>
      <td>West Virginia </td>
       <td style="text-decoration: underline;">Wisconsin</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>&nbsp;</td>
      <td>&nbsp;</td>
      <td style="text-decoration: underline;">&nbsp;</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><br>
      </td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td style="text-decoration: underline;">&nbsp;</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<table style="width: 100%;" border="1"
 cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 25%;">&nbsp;</td>
      <td
 style="width: 25%; font-weight: bold;"> Democrats</td>
      <td
 style="width: 25%; font-weight: bold;">
Republicans</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Seats not up in 2012</td>
      <td> 30</td>
      <td>37</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Safe in 2012</td>
      <td>8</td>
      <td>5</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Leaning in 2012</td>
      <td>6</td>
      <td>4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Total</td>
      <td> 44</td>
      <td>46</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Toss-ups</td>
      <td>8&nbsp;(2R/6D)</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
</div>	


<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>The House of Representatives</h2>

While Democrats seem to be doing well in fundraising and many of the candidates they have recruited seem strong, a net gain of 5 – 15 seats by the Democrats seems likely. However, the return of the House to Democratic control is beyond the pale.
<br><br>
The question of whether general angst might result in a number of Members, who otherwise seem safe, losing their seats remains open. General public angst is not diminishing.
<br><br>
In general, potential voters prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress to a Republican-controlled Congress by 46% to 44%. The following are the preferences reflected in the NBC/WSJ survey going back to April 2009.
<br><br>

<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Dem Control </strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>GOP Control</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">4/2012 </td>
      <td valign="top">46%</td>
      <td valign="top">44%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">1/2012</td>
      <td valign="top">47%</td>
      <td valign="top">41%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">6/2011</td>
      <td valign="top">44%</td>
      <td valign="top">44%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">10/2010</td>
      <td valign="top">46%</td>
      <td valign="top">44%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="3" align="center" valign="top">(Democrats lost control of the House in the 2010 election) </td>
      </tr>
 <tr>
      <td valign="top">1/2012</td>
      <td valign="top">41%</td>
      <td valign="top">44%</td>
    </tr>
 <tr>
   <td valign="top">4/2009</td>
   <td valign="top">48%</td>
   <td valign="top">39%</td>
 </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
WW has regularly reprinted the “House Dashboard” published by the Cook Political Report. The data from January 20, 2011 is from the Dashboard. However, the Dashboard is not being published at this time because of the uncertainties caused by re-districting. Therefore, the chart below (other than 1/20/11) reflects the Cook’s current Competitive House Race Chart through April 19, 2012. [As always, thanks to "The Cook Political Report."]


<br><br>
<strong>The U.S. House of Representatives</strong>
<br><br>
<ul>
  <li> Republicans 242</li>
  <li> Democrats 191</li>
  <li> Vacancies 2</li>
</ul>

<div align="center">
<table style="text-align: left; width: 100%;"
 border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 144px;" align="left"
 valign="top"><br>
      </td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 98px;" valign="top">1/20/11</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"><strong>3/15/12</strong></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"><strong>4/19/12</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">TOTAL Dem</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">193</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Solid Dem</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">150</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Likely Dem</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">27</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">18</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">17</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Lean
Dem</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">12</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">13</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">14</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top"></td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Toss-up</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">10</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">21</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">22</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">D</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">4</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">8</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">8</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">R</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">6</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">13</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">14</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top"></td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Lean
GOP</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">15</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">20</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">19</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Likely
GOP</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">38</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">28</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">27</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Solid
GOP</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">183</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">TOTAL
GOP</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">242</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
</div>	
<br><br>
“The Rothenberg Political Report” has posted a report that deals with the entire House. It reports the following:
<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>1/12</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>2/12</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>3/12</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>4/6/12</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Safe Democrat </td>
      <td valign="top">166</td>
      <td valign="top">164 </td>
      <td valign="top">164 </td>
      <td valign="top">162</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Competitive </td>
      <td valign="top">78</td>
      <td valign="top">78</td>
      <td valign="top">79</td>
      <td valign="top">80</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Safe Republican </td>
      <td valign="top">191</td>
      <td valign="top">193</td>
      <td valign="top">192</td>
      <td valign="top">193</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br><br>
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Restaurant: Mintwood Place</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/04/restaurant_mintwood_place.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.278</id>
   
   <published>2012-04-28T13:53:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-04-28T16:13:55Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Washington, DC: Amy and Peter took Debbie and me to Mintwood. We will go again.</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="April 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 109" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Restaurant Reviews" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington D.C." scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="529" label="april 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="534" label="Mintwood Place" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="18" label="restaurant" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[<div class="restaurant-box">
<h1>Mintwood Place</h1>
1813 Columbia Road NW<br>
Washington, DC 20009<br>
202-234-6732<br>
(Not available through Open Table)</div>
Amy and Peter took Debbie and me to Mintwood. We will go again.
<br><br>
As you enter the restaurant there are two primary sections. To the left is the bar area, which has a long traditional bar and a series of tall bar tables. To the right, separated from the bar area by a partial wall, is the dining room. Overall, the restaurant seats roughly 130 people. The dining area is a combination of various sized tables and banquette seating on the far wall.
<br><br>
The kitchen is straight ahead as you enter and is open, in case you want to spend a bit of time watching food preparation.
<br><br>
The serving personnel were particularly well informed about the various dishes being offered on the then-current menu.
<br><br>
If there is any downside to this restaurant it is that it is quite loud. There is a bit of a din.
The French bread that was offered up was particularly good.
<br><br>
I was also taken by the speed in which the plates were removed after a particular dish was completed.
<br><br>
Amy started with Clams, ramp and spinach soup, followed by a main course of Skate wing, Provencal, socca and caponata.
<br><br>
Debbie began with Burrata, asparagus and Spring garlic, and chose as her main course Wood-grilled soft shell crab, spring Vidalia, quinoa, which is available either an appetizer or a main course.
Peter started with Crab imperial flammekueche, and then for his entrée the Whole boneless dorade, braised fennel, olive picholine olives.
<br><br>
I opened with an Iceberg salad with blue cheese dressing, and then had an excellent Cast-iron chicken.
<br><br>
For dessert, we all shared Rhubarb & strawberry crumble a la mode.
<br><br>
The men’s room has fun, rather old-style, fixtures. The urinal is a white ceramic floor to mid-height model, separated from the rest of the room by a partial wall that goes to shoulder height. The washbasin is a white ceramic trough that is attached to the wall at waist height, and has two silver faucets with a round-necked water tube from which water comes forth. The commode is also white ceramic of similar style to the urinal and washbasin located in the corner. The wastebasket is a wooden cask next to the washbasin, under a corner- connected shelf on two legs.
<br><br>
The walls are white ceramic tiles up to about shoulder height, and the rest of the walls and ceiling are painted in a light, dull yellow-like color. The floor is white ceramic interlaced strips with tiny black intersections.
<br><br>
The opaque glass-centered door is edged with dark wood, as is the door frame.
<br><br>
Valet parking is available at the corner just before the restaurant, when you turn on to Columbia Road.
<br><br>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>State of the Nation</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/03/state_of_the_nation_26.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.265</id>
   
   <published>2012-03-24T13:00:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-03-24T12:17:00Z</updated>
   
   <summary>63% say the country is on the wrong track. 29% say it is on the right track. A month ago, 59% said the country was on the wrong track and 35% said it was on the right track. [CBS/NYT 3/13/12]...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="March 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 108" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="523" label="march 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="81" label="state of the nation" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[63% say the country is on the wrong track. 29% say it is on the right track. A month ago, 59% said the country was on the wrong track and 35% said it was on the right track. [CBS/NYT 3/13/12] A year earlier, 64% said the country was on the wrong track and 30% found it to be on the right track, just about the same as it is today. [CBS 3/21/11]
<br><br>
This month, 26% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States. A year ago, the satisfaction level was 18%. The high point in the intervening year was in May 2011, when it hit 26% before steadily dropping to 11% in August and September. Satisfaction was at 15% in President Obama’s first month in office. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

49% of Americans are optimistic about the next 12 months, while an almost identical number of 48% are pessimistic about that time period. This is an improvement from the 44% who expressed optimism last December and the 52% who were pessimistic. [WP/ABC 3/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an unemployment rate of 8.3% in the month of February. That is no change from January. Looking back at the rate for this period of time over the last several years you find the following: February 2011 – 9.0%; February 2010 – 9.8%; February 2009 – 8.3%; February 2008 – 4.9%.
<br><br>
Gallup reported an 8.8% unemployment rate for mid- March. This is up from 8.6% in January, and 8.5% in December 2011, but down from 9.1% in February. It also reported a drop to 18.6 % in the number of people unemployed or who are working part-time, but want full-time employment.
<br><br>
[Note: This still undercounts the real unemployment rate because neither test includes those who have stopped looking for work.]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

* Economic confidence in the U.S. dropped in the week ending March 18th. The -21 score was down from -18 a week earlier ,when it scored more positively than any time in the last 4+ years.
<br><br>
* 40% believe the U.S. economy is growing, up from 3% in late 2008.
46% say the economy is in a recession/depression, down from 69% in 2008.
<br><br>
* Job creation fell slightly in February, but it is still a full two points better than it was in February 2011.
<br><br>
* 28% of small businesses plan to increase capital spending in the next 12 months, while 23% plan to decrease spending.
<br><br>
* 73% of American investors say that “a politically divided Federal government” hurts the investment climate in the United States.
<br><br>
* The percentage of Americans getting their health insurance from an employer continues to drop. The 44.5% who had this benefit in 2011is down from 49.2% in 2008. [Gallup]
<br><br>
* In the 12 months ending January 31, sales at full-service restaurants were up 8.7% over the previous 12 month period. [NYT 3/17/12-Cenus Bureau]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

49% say the recent rise in gas prices has had “quite a bit of impact” on them and their families. [NBC/WSJ 3/12]
<br><br>
51% believe gas prices will go up and then down, while 46% believe they will go higher and stay higher. 89% are at least somewhat concerned about the recent rise in prices.
<br><br>
63% say recent increases in the cost of gasoline has caused financial hardship for themselves and others in their household. 36% say it has caused a serious problem. Of this latter group who are most feeling the impact, about half of them have household incomes of less than $50,000/year. [WP/ABC 3/12]
<br><br>
Based on an early March Gallup survey, the “tipping point” -- when the average family would have to make significant changes in spending because of gasoline prices -- is $5.25-$5.30.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Democrats are seen as caring more about issues that are especially important to women than Republicans by 58% to 30%. [WP/ABC 3/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

By 61% to 35% Americans believe that health insurance companies should be required to “cover the full cost of birth control for women.” However, of those who think the insurance companies should be required to cover the cost of birth control (61%), the willingness to require insurance companies to pay even if the insured organization is affiliated with a religious institution is only 49% to 46%. [WP/ABC 3/12]
<br><br>
53% favor the Federal government requiring employers to offer “free birth control coverage” as part of their health insurance benefit plans. 33% oppose this requirement. The supportive group includes 58% of women and 49% of men. However, if the language is changed to require employers to provide “free contraceptive services, including the morning after pill,” 43% favor this requirement, while 43% oppose it.
<br><br>
When asked whether the Federal government should require health insurance plans for employees of Catholic or other religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals to provide birth control coverage and require health insurance companies to pay for it, the proposition is opposed 45% to 38%. Furthermore, if the language of the question is changed to “contraceptive services and the morning after pill,” opposition grows to 49% to 34%. [NBC/WSJ 3/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Overall, 51% disapprove of the Federal government bailouts of a number of players in the auto industry. This includes 73% of Republicans, 50% of Independents, and 31% of Democrats. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

While the nominal corporate tax rate is 35%, companies actually paid at a rate of 12% in 2011. [Time 2/20/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

While there is increased criticism of government expenditures, Americans are increasingly dependent on various forms of Federal/state/local government subsidies. Various entitlements provided, on average, $7,448 per person in the United States in 2010. These include more than 50 government programs ranging from Social Security to food stamps.
<br><br>
In 1979, the lowest 5th/least affluent households in America received 54% of those benefits. In 2007, that had dropped to 36%.
<br><br>
1% of Americans relied on government benefits in 1929. In 2011, the number was 18%. [NYT 2/12/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Between 1985 and 2012, the weekly income for a high school graduate has grown from $333 to $638 per week. For those who have graduated from college the increase is from $506 to $1,150. [NJ 3/3/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Tuition, room and board averaged $15,123 for in- state students at four year public institutions in 2009. Those who attended private non-profit colleges and universities paid an average of $35,636 per hear. Eight years from now, a four- year education at a private school will cost an average of $250,000. [The Georgetown Dish 2/20/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report for 2011-12 ranks the United States 26th in the world on how well its education system meets the needs of a competitive economy. #1 is Switzerland and Canada is #7. [WP 2/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

53% of Americans believe that China is the leading economic power in the world, with the U.S. chosen as #1 by 33%. However, 54% see the U.S. as the number one military power in the world. [Gallup]


<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>


More than half of all births to American women under the age of 30 happen outside of traditional marriage. 51% of births to women with no college education occur outside of marriage. The rate for women with a college degree is 8%. [NYT 2/18/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The most religious Americans have higher overall well being than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Of the 10 States that have the lowest percentage of residents without health insurance, ranging from Massachusetts 4.9% to Maine 12.9%, 9 of the 10 were won by Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election. Of the 10 States with the highest percentage of residents without health insurance, ranging from Louisiana 20.4% to Texas 27.6% , 7 of 10 were won by John McCain in 2008.
<br><br>
Even global warming has taken on a partisan tint. When asked whether the current warmer temperatures are normal year-to-year variations or due to global warming, 43% of Democrats select global warming, but only 19% of Republicans make that choice. [Gallup 3/12]

<br><br>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>President Obama</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/03/president_obama_14.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.266</id>
   
   <published>2012-03-24T12:59:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-03-25T16:32:45Z</updated>
   
   <summary>With 7-1/2 months to go before the general election, the public’s grade for the job President Obama has done so far is lower than that of four previous Presidents, and above three, at this point in their first term. The...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="March 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 108" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="523" label="march 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="261" label="president obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[With 7-1/2 months to go before the general election, the public’s grade for the job President Obama has done so far is lower than that of four previous Presidents, and above three, at this point in their first term.
<br><br>
The President’s current job approval rating in Gallup is 46% approval and 47% disapproval. The following is the list of 8.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>Approve</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Disapprove</strong></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Eisenhower </td>
    <td>72</td>
    <td>18</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nixon</td>
    <td>56</td>
    <td>32</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Reagan</td>
    <td>54</td>
    <td>39</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Clinton</td>
    <td>52</td>
    <td>39</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Obama</td>
    <td>46</td>
    <td>47 (3/12-18)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Carter</td>
    <td>43</td>
    <td>45</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G Bush (I)</td>
    <td>41</td>
    <td>47</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>	
<br><br>

The following are several additional cuts at the President's job approval rating over the last seven months. There is a consistency among these major media surveys.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>NBC/WSJ</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>NYT/CBS</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>WP/ABC</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>CNN/ORC</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">March 2012</td>
      <td valign="top">50/45%</td>
      <td valign="top">41/47%</td>
      <td valign="top">46/50%</td>
      <td valign="top">---</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">February 2012</td>
      <td valign="top">---</td>
      <td valign="top">50/43%</td>
      <td valign="top">50/46%</td>
      <td valign="top">50/48%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">January 2012</td>
      <td valign="top">48/46%</td>
      <td valign="top">45/47% (CBS)</td>
      <td valign="top">48/48%</td>
      <td valign="top">47/51%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">December 2011</td>
      <td valign="top">46/48%</td>
      <td valign="top">44/46% (CBS)</td>
      <td valign="top">49/47%</td>
      <td valign="top">49/48%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">November 2011</td>
      <td valign="top">44/51%</td>
      <td valign="top">---</td>
      <td valign="top">44/53%</td>
      <td valign="top">44/54%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">October 2011</td>
      <td valign="top">44/51%</td>
      <td valign="top">46/46%</td>
      <td valign="top">42/54%</td>
      <td valign="top">54/52%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">August 2011</td>
      <td valign="top">44/51%</td>
      <td valign="top">48/47%</td>
      <td valign="top">42/54%</td>
      <td valign="top">45/52%</td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

There is currently a strong correlation between Americans’ economic confidence, as described above, and President Obama’s general job approval. If economic confidence continues to grow so will the President’s job approval rating. (Note: This correlation does not always play out.) [Gallup]
<br><br>
And here is how Obama is rated on a number of other issues.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Approve</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Disapprove</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">The Economy </td>
      <td valign="top">38%</td>
      <td valign="top">59%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Federal Budget Deficit</td>
      <td valign="top">32%</td>
      <td valign="top">63%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Gas Prices</td>
      <td valign="top">26%</td>
      <td valign="top">65%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Energy Policy</td>
      <td valign="top">38%</td>
      <td valign="top">48%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Situation in Afghanistan</td>
      <td valign="top">46%</td>
      <td valign="top">47%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Possibility of Iran Getting Nuclear Weapons</td>
      <td valign="top">36%</td>
      <td valign="top">52%</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="3" valign="top" align="right">[WP/ABC 3/12]</td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Currently, 49% of us have positive feelings toward the President, and 37% have negative feelings. This measurement is roughly the same as it was a year ago, 50% to 36%, and two years ago, 50% to 38%. [NBC/WSJ 3/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>


There are at least three issues, in addition to jobs and the economy, which plague the President’s re-election efforts: gasoline prices, birth control, and the new healthcare law.
<br><br>
55% say the government has at least quite a bit of control over gas prices. [NBC/WSJ 3/12]. 54% believe the President can do a lot about the price of gasoline. [CBS/NYT 3/12] It is worth noting that Frank Newport of Gallup and Susan Page of USA Today say that, so far, gas prices are not hurting Obama’s job approval rating.
<br><br>
In the most recent WP/ABC survey [3/12], while 50% believe that the President can do something about gas prices, as noted above, 65% disapprove of the job he is doing to reduce prices.
<br><br>
All adults, by 48%-45% ( men: 49% to 44%, women: 47% to 46%), are more supportive of religious leaders than they are of the Obama Administration relative to requirements that even religious organizations provide contraception coverage for their employees. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

By 47% to 44%, Americans would favor a potential Republican President doing what is necessary to repeal the healthcare law passed with the leadership of President Obama. [Gallup]

<br><br>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>2012 Republican Presidential Nomination</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/03/2012_republican_presidential_n_1.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.267</id>
   
   <published>2012-03-24T12:58:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-03-24T14:04:05Z</updated>
   
   <summary>22 people have been tempted or have joined the race. 18 people have announced they are not running, quit the race, or have written it off. 4 people are still running: Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul 2...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="March 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 108" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="523" label="march 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="159" label="republican nomination" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[22 people have been tempted or have joined the race.
<br><br>
18 people have announced they are not running, quit the race, or have written it off.
<br><br>
4 people are still running: Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul
<br><br>
2 remains the number of real players at the moment.
<br><br>
The Goal: 1,142 Committed Republican Convention Delegates by the time of the Republican National Convention, August 27-30, 2012

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

There is a strong argument for the proposition that the Republican nominating process is, in fact, all but over. It is hard to see how any of the other three active candidates can overcome the delegate lead built up by Mitt Romney.
<br><br>
To the extent there is a race, it is a two person race, Romney and Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are simply not in it, even though they are continuing their campaigns. 51% of Republicans say that all four should stay in the race until one person actually clinches the nomination.
<br><br>
Romney has finished in first place 20 times and second 8 times. He is the only candidate who has participated in every primary and caucus. Santorum has finished first 10 times and second 11 times.
<br><br>
Romney has racked up 563 of the 1144 delegate votes required for nomination. Santorum is won 263 delegate votes. Even if one adds all the Gingrich and Paul votes to the Santorum total, Santorum still trails by 115 delegates. (Gallup polling suggests that Gingrich supporters – not necessarily delegates – split about 40/40 between Romney and Santorum.)
<br><br>
Paul expresses no illusions about whether he might be the nominee. Rather, he is using this forum, as he has in the past, to express his point of view about the Federal government and how it should be changed.
<br><br>
On the other hand, Gingrich continues to restate the proposition that he could actually win the nomination. As will become evident in the various elements of the Score Board below, he is one of the few people who continue to harbor this illusion.
<br><br>
It is hard to understand why Gingrich continues to press forward . With the primary/caucus season roughly half over, he is running a poor third in the delegate count. If he is aiming for a prime speaking role at the convention (which few people outside the convention hall will see) he could certainly negotiate that as a condition of his withdrawal.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

As might be expected, Republican voters trust Romney the most to handle the economy (35% to 18%) and Santorum to handle social issues (31% to 22%). These same voters marginally select Santorum as best reflecting the core values of the Party, 27% to 25%. However, by 52% to 15%, they think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. [WP/ABC 3/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The campaigns of the two front runners could not be more different.
<br><br>
Romney and the Super PAC supporting him have spent so many times more money than Santorum and the Super PAC supporting him that it is almost beyond calculation. The moral of the story is that media and inexpensive ways of communicating are so ubiquitous that, if a candidate has an interesting story or point of view, she can get out her message.
<br><br>
Romney has an established national headquarters in Boston and well-structured offices in each State in which he competes. Santorum’s campaign has clearly not invested in real estate, but does have a P.O. Box in Verona, PA.
<br><br>
Romney has delegate slates everywhere. Santorum did not have a slate at all in Virginia (a State where his point of view could be quite attractive), and did not field full slates in Ohio or Illinois. Organizing delegate slates (with the possible exception of Virginia) is not an expensive endeavor. It can, for the most part, be done with organized volunteers.
<br><br>
Romney has had to structure a public point of view and message that he and his advisors deemed necessary for him to be appealing to more conservative Republican primary voters and caucus participants. Santorum knows exactly who he is and what he believes, and has decided to be that person, for better or worse.
<br><br>
Santorum is totally comfortable with the hurley burley of the campaign trail and the interaction with potential voters. That is not Romney’s natural turf.
<br><br>
The delegate math suggests that Romney can achieve the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination by the conclusion of the Utah primary, the last step on the primary journey. There are any number of individuals or groups that thrive on the delegate math and they seem to be generally in tune with each other.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>Exit Polls</h2>

Exit polls are just that, polls taken of voters as they are leaving their polling places. A consortium of media companies underwrites the cost of exit polls in national elections. The media companies do not reveal the results of the exit polls before voting has ended. They do talk about the composition of the electorate. The first tabulation is shared with the sponsors at 5 p.m., and the results do move around in a limited way, but are not broadcast. Here is how the 5 p.m. exit poll results in Alabama and Mississippi compare with the final results.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="100%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td colspan="2" valign="top"><strong>Alabama</strong></td>
      <td colspan="2" valign="top"><strong>Mississippi</strong></td>
      <td colspan="2" valign="top"><strong>Illinois</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Poll</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Actual</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Poll</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Actual</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Poll</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Actual</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Santorum</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>36</u></td>
      <td valign="top"><u>34.5</u></td>
      <td valign="top">29</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>32.8</u></td>
      <td valign="top">45</td>
      <td valign="top">46.7</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Romney</td>
      <td valign="top">28</td>
      <td valign="top">29.0</td>
      <td valign="top"><u>37</u></td>
      <td valign="top">30.6</td>
      <td valign="top">35</td>
      <td valign="top">35</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Gingrich</td>
      <td valign="top">27</td>
      <td valign="top">29.3</td>
      <td valign="top">29</td>
      <td valign="top">31.2</td>
      <td valign="top">12</td>
      <td valign="top">8</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Paul</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">8</td>
      <td valign="top">9.3</td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>Score Board: Caucuses and Primaries (Place Finished)</h2>

<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Romney</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Santorum</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Paul</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Gingrich</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Iowa </td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NH</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">5</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">SC</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Fla</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NV</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CO</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">MN</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">MO</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">--</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ME</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">MI</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">AZ</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">WY</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">WA</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">AK</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">GA</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ID</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">MASS</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ND</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">OH</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">OK</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">TENN</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">VT</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">VA</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">x</td>
      <td valign="top">x</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Guam</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">0</td>
      <td valign="top">0</td>
      <td valign="top">0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">VI</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">0</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">0</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Am Sam</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">KS</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ALA</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">HI</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">MISS</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">PR</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ILL</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>

<h2>Wins and Places</h2>

<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>1st place</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>2nd place</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>3rd place</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>4th place</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Zero</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Romney</td>
      <td valign="top">20</td>
      <td valign="top">8</td>
      <td valign="top">4</td>
      <td valign="top">--</td>
      <td valign="top">--</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Santorum</td>
      <td valign="top">10</td>
      <td valign="top">11</td>
      <td valign="top">7</td>
      <td valign="top">1</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Gingrich</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      <td valign="top">5</td>
      <td valign="top">7</td>
      <td valign="top">15</td>
      <td valign="top">3</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Paul</td>
      <td valign="top">0</td>
      <td valign="top">7</td>
      <td valign="top">11</td>
      <td valign="top">12</td>
      <td valign="top">2</td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>


<br><br>

<h2>Delegate Totals</h2>

<div align="center">
<table width="100%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Romney</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Santorum</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Gingrich</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Paul</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Not Comit</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Wash Post</td>
      <td valign="top">563</td>
      <td valign="top">263</td>
      <td valign="top">135</td>
      <td valign="top">50</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ABC</td>
      <td valign="top">563</td>
      <td valign="top">263</td>
      <td valign="top">135</td>
      <td valign="top">50</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC</td>
      <td valign="top">485</td>
      <td valign="top">193</td>
      <td valign="top">137</td>
      <td valign="top">34</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">AP</td>
      <td valign="top">563</td>
      <td valign="top">263</td>
      <td valign="top">135</td>
      <td valign="top">50</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Green Papers (hard)</td>
      <td valign="top">449</td>
      <td valign="top">182</td>
      <td valign="top">133</td>
      <td valign="top">26</td>
      <td valign="top">263</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Green Papers (soft)</td>
      <td valign="top">568</td>
      <td valign="top">251</td>
      <td valign="top">156</td>
      <td valign="top">78</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Real Clear Politics</td>
      <td valign="top">560</td>
      <td valign="top">246</td>
      <td valign="top">141</td>
      <td valign="top">66</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>GOP Nomination - National Polling</h2>

<div align="center">
<table width="100%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td colspan="10"><p align="center"><strong>2012 Republican Presidential Candidates </strong></p></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Survey </td>
    <td><p>Last date<br/>
      of survey </p></td>
    <td>Romney </td>
    <td>Gingrich </td>
    <td>Paul </td>
    <td>Santorum </td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gallup </td>
    <td>3/22</td>
    <td><u>40</u></td>
    <td>14</td>
    <td>8</td>
    <td>26</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>CBS/NYT </td>
    <td>3/11</td>
    <td>30</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>8</td>
    <td><u>34</u></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gallup</td>
    <td>3/11</td>
    <td><u>34</u></td>
    <td>15</td>
    <td>12</td>
    <td>25</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ABC/WP</td>
    <td>3/10</td>
    <td><u>33</u></td>
    <td>14</td>
    <td>12</td>
    <td>29</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NBC/WSJ</td>
    <td>3/3</td>
    <td><u>38</u></td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>32</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Politico</td>
    <td>2/22</td>
    <td>34</td>
    <td>13</td>
    <td>7</td>
    <td><u>36</u></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gallup</td>
    <td>2/15</td>
    <td>31</td>
    <td>14</td>
    <td>10</td>
    <td><u>32</u></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>CNN/OpRes</td>
    <td>2/13</td>
    <td>32</td>
    <td>15</td>
    <td>16</td>
    <td><u>34</u></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>CBS/NYT</td>
    <td>2/13</td>
    <td>27</td>
    <td>10</td>
    <td>12</td>
    <td><u>30</u></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pew Res.</td>
    <td>2/13</td>
    <td>28</td>
    <td>17</td>
    <td>12</td>
    <td><u>30</u></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gallup</td>
    <td>2/8</td>
    <td><u>36</u></td>
    <td>20</td>
    <td>10</td>
    <td>20</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ABC/WP </td>
    <td>2/4</td>
    <td>38</td>
    <td>24</td>
    <td>14</td>
    <td>18</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>NBC/WSJ </td>
    <td>1/24</td>
    <td>28</td>
    <td><u>37</u></td>
    <td>12</td>
    <td>18</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>ABC/WP</td>
    <td>1/15</td>
    <td><u>36</u></td>
    <td>16</td>
    <td>16</td>
    <td>13</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>Intrade Prediction Market</h2>

At Intrade you can buy and sell shares on the prospects of candidates for President (and other offices). In other words, you are investing on the percentage probability of that event occurring (election of that candidate). The following are the last prices paid on March 20th, February 15th and January 12th.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>3/22</strong></td>
    <td><strong>2/15</strong></td>
    <td><strong>1/12</strong></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Romney</td>
    <td>92.9</td>
    <td>71.1</td>
    <td>85.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gingrich</td>
    <td>.6</td>
    <td>4.0</td>
    <td>4.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Paul</td>
    <td>1.4</td>
    <td>--</td>
    <td>3.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Santorum</td>
    <td>2.3</td>
    <td>16.0</td>
    <td>1.6</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>	

<br><br>

If you are interested, go to <a href="http://www.intrade.com">www.Intrade.com</a>.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Here are the four tranches of the Republican primary ....
<br><br>
1st tranche – January 3 – 31, 2012 - Completed
<br><br>
2nd tranche – February 4 – March 3, 2012 - Completed
<br><br>
3rd tranche – March 6 – 24, 2012 – Completed all but Louisiana 
<br><br>
4th tranche – April 3 – June 26, 2012
<br><br>
<strong>March 6 – 24, 2012</strong><br>
March 24 – Louisiana (p)
<br><br>
<strong>April 3 – June 26, 2012</strong><br>
The 21 primaries and caucuses scheduled during this period are free to allocate their delegates proportionally or on the basis of winner take all.
<br><br>
April 3 – Maryland (p), Wisconsin (p), Connecticut (p), Delaware (p) April 24 – New York (p), Pennsylvania (p), Rhode Island (p)
<br><br>
April 28 – Indiana (p)
<br><br>
May 8 – North Carolina (p), West Virginia (p)
<br><br>
May 15 – Oregon (p), Arkansas (p)
<br><br>
May 22 – Kentucky (p)
<br><br>
May 29 – Texas (p), California (p), New Jersey (p)
<br><br>
June 5 – New Mexico (p), South Dakota (p) June 1-10 - Nebraska (c)
<br><br>
June 14-16 – Montana (c)
<br><br>
June 26 – Utah (p)
<br><br>
There are 1,099 delegates to be selected after April 1st.
<br><br>
[Note: For more information about the 2012 Republican Party delegate selection rules see <a href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2011/12/the_republican_nomination.shtml">Washington Watch, Issue 105 December 2011</a>. Keep in mind that the Republican National Convention can change these rules.]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>The Money</h2>

The following is an attempt to summarize campaign fundraising and expenditures for selected campaigns, political organizations, and Super PACs.
<br><br>
Information is based on Federal Election Commission reports and various other sources. All of which is to say that the picture painted is pretty accurate, but not perfect.
<br><br>
The data does not include any information about various 501(c)(4) organizations, which can spend roughly fifty percent of their assets on campaign related advertising. They are not required to disclose under campaign finance laws and there is no effective analysis of whether they are spending more than 50% on campaign-related communications.
<br><br>
The Obama campaign continues to operate at a level that draws into question whether it can raise and spend as much money in 2012 as it did in 2008. Given that it has raised about $163 million so far this cycle, it must raise $587 million over the seven month period, March – September 30, in order to reach the $750 million raised in 2008. This amounts to roughly $84 million dollars a month. (The September 30 date is selected because most campaign-related activity must be paid for in advance. If one assumes that the campaign will have one additional month to raise its funds then the necessary total per month is just over $73 million per month.)

<br><br>


<h2>Fundraising and Net Available Cash (in millions)</h2>

<div align="center">
<table width="100%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>Raised<br> 2011</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Raised in<br> (Jan/Feb)</strong></td>
    <td><strong>Total<br> Raised</strong></td>
    <td><strong>3/1/12 Net Cash<br> on hand</strong></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="5" align="center"><strong>Republican Candidates</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Romney</td>
    <td>56.1 </td>
    <td>17.8</td>
    <td>73.7</td>
    <td>7.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Santorum</td>
    <td>2.2</td>
    <td>13.3</td>
    <td>15.6</td>
    <td>1.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gingrich</td>
    <td>12.7</td>
    <td>8.1</td>
    <td>20.8</td>
    <td>-$7,000</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Paul</td>
    <td>26.1</td>
    <td>7.8</td>
    <td>34.1</td>
    <td>1.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="5" align="center"><strong>President Obama</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Obama</td>
    <td>139.5</td>
    <td>23.1</td>
    <td>162.6</td>
    <td>84.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="5" align="center"><strong>National Political Parties</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><p>Republican Nat. Comm </p></td>
    <td>88.1</td>
    <td>21.7</td>
    <td>109.8</td>
    <td>15.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><p>Democratic Nat. Comm</p></td>
    <td>108.3</td>
    <td>34.7</td>
    <td>143.0</td>
    <td>15.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="5" align="center"><strong>SuperPACs</strong><br> (*based on sources other than Federal Election Commission)</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="5" align="center"><strong>Republican</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Restore our Future (Romney)</td>
    <td>30.2</td>
    <td>13.0*</td>
    <td>43.2</td>
    <td>16.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Winning our Future (Gingrich)</td>
    <td>2.1</td>
    <td>16.8*</td>
    <td>18.8</td>
    <td>2.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Endorse Liberty (Paul)</td>
    <td>1.0</td>
    <td>2.7*</td>
    <td>3.7*</td>
    <td>.06</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Red, White &amp; Blue (Santorum)</td>
    <td>.7</td>
    <td>5.0*</td>
    <td>5.7</td>
    <td>.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>American Crossroads</td>
    <td>18.4</td>
    <td>8.5</td>
    <td>26.9</td>
    <td>20.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Freedom Works for America</td>
    <td>2.7</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>2.0*</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Club for Growth</td>
    <td>2.0</td>
    <td>--</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>2.8*</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="5" align="center"><strong>Democratic</strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Priorities USA Action (Obama)</td>
    <td>4.4</td>
    <td>2.1*</td>
    <td>6.5</td>
    <td>1.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>American Bridge 21 Century</td>
    <td>3.7</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>.8</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>	
<br><br>
There is no doubt that SuperPACs will play a huge role in the 2012 elections, both Presidential and congressional. Interestingly, 56% of conservative Republicans think that SuperPACs should be illegal. This view is held by 69% of Americans generally, 80% of Democrats, and 62% of moderate to conservative Democrats. [WP/ABC 3/12]
<br><br>
There is a new SuperPAC. The “Campaign for Primary Accountability” was created for the sole purpose of trying to achieve the loss in the primaries of various incumbents in both Parties. The PAC is apparently not interested in shifting power between Democrats and Republicans. Rather, it is interested in “shifting power between Congress and the people.” The group seems to plan to focus on long time incumbents.
<br><br>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>The Presidential General Election</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/03/the_presidential_general_elect_2.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.268</id>
   
   <published>2012-03-24T12:57:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-03-24T14:29:29Z</updated>
   
   <summary>[Note: As you begin reading this section keep in mind that the general election is 7.5 months away. When the Republican primaries are over and the identity of the Republican nominee is known, there will be a refocusing or reset...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="March 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 108" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="523" label="march 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="525" label="presidential election" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[[Note: As you begin reading this section keep in mind that the general election is 7.5 months away. When the Republican primaries are over and the identity of the Republican nominee is known, there will be a refocusing or reset of attention to the general election. Anything can, and likely will, happen.]
<br><br>
Interest in the November 2012 Presidential election is running behind where it was running in 2008 at this time. Currently, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being “very interested,” 73% score their interest at 8, 9 or 10. In 2008, that number was 85%. Strangely, the public’s level of interest has dropped since January. [NBC/WSJ 1/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The number of those who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party Movement has remained steady over the last year, with 28% expressing that view in January 2011 and January 2012. The number who describe themselves as not supporting the movement has dropped slightly, to 63%. [NBC/WSJ 3/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>2012 Presidential General Election</h2>

During the first couple of weeks of March Obama’s position against Romney and Santorum has been relatively static. The exception is the March NBC/WSJ survey, which was finished on March 3rd, which had Obama beating Romney by 6 points and Santorum by 14 points. A week later, Obama led Romney by 3 points in one major survey, and trailed Romney by 2 points in another major survey.

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Survey</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Last Date</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Obama</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Romney</strong></td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT </td>
      <td valign="top">3/11</td>
      <td valign="top">47</td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ABC/WP</td>
      <td valign="top">3/10</td>
      <td valign="top">47</td>
      <td valign="top">49</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC/WSJ</td>
      <td valign="top">3/3</td>
      <td valign="top">50</td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">PEW</td>
      <td valign="top">2/12</td>
      <td valign="top">52</td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT</td>
      <td valign="top">2/12</td>
      <td valign="top">48</td>
      <td valign="top">42</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC/WSJ</td>
      <td valign="top">12/11</td>
      <td valign="top">47</td>
      <td valign="top">45</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Obama</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Santorum</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT</td>
      <td valign="top">3/11</td>
      <td valign="top">48</td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ABC/WP</td>
      <td valign="top">3/10</td>
      <td valign="top">49</td>
      <td valign="top">46</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC/WSJ</td>
      <td valign="top">3/3</td>
      <td valign="top">53</td>
      <td valign="top">39</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">PEW</td>
      <td valign="top">2/12</td>
      <td valign="top">53</td>
      <td valign="top">43</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT</td>
      <td valign="top">2/12</td>
      <td valign="top">49</td>
      <td valign="top">41</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Obama</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Gingrich</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT</td>
      <td valign="top">3/11</td>
      <td valign="top">52</td>
      <td valign="top">38</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC/WSJ</td>
      <td valign="top">3/3</td>
      <td valign="top">54</td>
      <td valign="top">37</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT</td>
      <td valign="top">2/12</td>
      <td valign="top">54</td>
      <td valign="top">36</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC/WSJ</td>
      <td valign="top">12/11</td>
      <td valign="top">51</td>
      <td valign="top">40</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Obama</strong></td>
      <td valign="top"><strong>Paul</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT</td>
      <td valign="top">3/11</td>
      <td valign="top">52</td>
      <td valign="top">38</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">CBS/NYT</td>
      <td valign="top">2/12</td>
      <td valign="top">50</td>
      <td valign="top">39</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">ABC/WP</td>
      <td valign="top">12/18</td>
      <td valign="top">49</td>
      <td valign="top">44</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">NBC/WSJ</td>
      <td valign="top">12/11</td>
      <td valign="top">50</td>
      <td valign="top">37</td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
</div>


<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>The Electoral College</h2>

Here are two cuts at the Electoral College that WW will regularly reprint as we head toward the Presidential election. 270 Electoral votes are needed to win.
<br><br>
The Cook Political Report scores the Democratic candidate vs. the Republican candidate. The Rothenberg Political Report scores the specific Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, versus each of the top two Republican potential nominees.
<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  
  <tr>
    <td colspan="4" align="center"><strong>The Cook Political Report – Democrat vs. Republican </strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>1/12</td>
    <td>2/12</td>
    <td>2/23</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Solid Dem </td>
    <td>186</td>
    <td>175</td>
    <td>175</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Likely Dem </td>
    <td>0</td>
    <td>7</td>
    <td>7</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Lean Dem </td>
    <td>35</td>
    <td>19</td>
    <td>35</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>221</td>
    <td>201</td>
    <td>217</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Toss Up</td>
    <td>98</td>
    <td>142</td>
    <td>126</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Solid GOP </td>
    <td>159</td>
    <td>143</td>
    <td>143</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Likely GOP </td>
    <td>37</td>
    <td>48</td>
    <td>48</td>
    </tr>
      <tr>
    <td>Lean GOP </td>
    <td>23</td>
    <td>4</td>
    <td>4</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>219</td>
    <td>195 </td>
    <td>195</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="4" align="center"><strong>The Rothenberg Political Report – Obama vs. Romney </strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Obama States</td>
    <td>186</td>
    <td>186</td>
    <td>186</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Lean Obama</td>
    <td>31</td>
    <td>51</td>
    <td>51</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>217</td>
    <td>237</td>
    <td>237</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Toss Up</td>
    <td>46</td>
    <td>64</td>
    <td>82</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Romney States</td>
    <td>191</td>
    <td>191</td>
    <td>191</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Lean Romney</td>
    <td>84</td>
    <td>46</td>
    <td>28</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td>275</td>
    <td>237</td>
    <td>219</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>Intrade Prediction Market</h2>

As of close of business on March 20 , here are the bids for shares in Obama’s re-election prospects. (The higher the bid the more likely the buyer believes the prospects of victory.)

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>1/12</strong></td>
    <td><strong>2/16</strong></td>
    <td><strong>3/20</strong></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Barack Obama </td>
    <td>50.6</td>
    <td>60.3</td>
    <td>59.9</td>
  </tr>
  </table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

On election day there is one question that will be on the mind of voters, the answer to which will predict the outcome of the election. “How are you doing?” [Stan Greenberg]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Latinos will likely represent 8.7% of the total voters. They represent more than 13% of the vote in the following states: Arizona (19.2%), Nevada (15.1%), Florida (15.9%), and Colorado (13.7%). 27% of Latinos feel the Republican Party is hostile to them, and an additional 45% believe Republicans don’t care much about them. [Univision 1/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

At this stage in the campaign Republicans/Leaning Independents are more enthusiastic about the coming general election than Democrats/Leaning Independents by 53% to 45%. By way of comparison, at this time in the 2008 and 2004 elections Democrats/Leaners were more enthusiastic than Republicans/ Leaning.
<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td><strong>Republicans / Leaners </strong></td>
    <td><strong>Democrats / Leaners </strong></td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2008</td>
    <td>44%</td>
    <td>79%</td>
    </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2004</td>
    <td>53%</td>
    <td>59%</td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

One of the unknowns heading into the 2012 general election is the impact of a number of State laws that have been passed that require particular forms of voter identification including photo IDs. Those opposing these laws argue that they have a disproportionate affect on the poor and the elderly. Those who support the statutes argue that they are designed to combat voter fraud, although there is little proof that voter fraud has been a significant problem.
<br><br>
There are a variety of Federal and State actions pending relating to these laws. Stay tuned.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

According to the Pew Center on the States, approximately 24,000,000 active voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are inaccurate. In a recent report the Pew Center noted the following:
<br><br>
* At least 52 million eligible citizens remain unregistered (24% of the eligible population)
<br><br>
* More than 1.8 million deceased folks are listed as active voters
<br><br>
* Roughly 2.7 million people have active registrations in more than one State
<br><br>
* About 12 million records have incorrect addresses as a function of the voter moving or an error in basic information collection.
<br><br>
[Pew Center report – Inaccurate, Costly and Inefficient]
<br><br>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>The Congress</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/03/the_congress_10.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.269</id>
   
   <published>2012-03-24T12:56:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-03-24T14:43:25Z</updated>
   
   <summary>In a resounding jump, the Congress’s job approval has moved from 10% in January to 12% in March. [Gallup] The work being done by the Democrats in Congress is disapproved by 60% of Americans, but the rating of the Republican...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="March 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 108" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="523" label="march 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="388" label="the congress" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[In a resounding jump, the Congress’s job approval has moved from 10% in January to 12% in March. [Gallup] The work being done by the Democrats in Congress is disapproved by 60% of Americans, but the rating of the Republican members is even worse at 71% disapproval. [WP/ABC 3/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>The Senate</h2>

The number of Senate races in the Toss-Up category has moved from 8 in January to 10 in March.
<br><br>
In Florida, the race has moved from Lean Democrat to Toss-Up. Republican Congressman Connie Mack is the leader of the pack in the Republican primary, and over the last few months he has moved up to within a few points of Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson, whom he would face in the general election.
<br><br>
Maine Republican incumbent Olympia Snowe’s announcement that she would not seek re-election moves a Safe Republican seat to a Toss-Up. There will likely be a three-way race, with former Governor Angus King running as an Independent. King is the odds-on favorite. King has not announced how he will caucus if elected. However, there is a working assumption that he will caucus with the Democrats.
<br><br>
Texas moves from Leaning Republican to Safe Republican, and Indiana moves from Safe Republican to Leaning Republican.
<br><br>
With the entry of former Nebraska Governor and former U.S. Senator Bob Kerry into the race as the putative Democratic candidate, a number of folks suggest that this is a race that should be moved from Leaning Republican at least to Toss- Up. WW thinks that Jennifer Duffy, Senior Editor of the Cook Political Report, has it right when she suggests that it remains to be seen how this race will develop. It has been a long time since Kerry lived in Nebraska, raised political money, or campaigned.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

<strong>The U.S. Senate</strong>
<br><br>
<ul>
  <li> Democrats 51</li>
  <li> Republicans 47</li>
  <li> Independents 2 (caucus Dem)</li>
</ul>

Here is how the 33 Senate elections, made up of 23 Democratic incumbents (including 2 Independents) and 10 Republican incumbents, look to me at this time. (D=Dem incumbent in office, R=GOP incumbent in office, I=Ind. Incumbent in office) Underlining reflects retirement.
<br><br>

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table style="width: 100%;" border="1"
 cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;">Safe
Democratic (8)</td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;"> Leaning
Democratic (6)</td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;"> Toss-Up
(10)</td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;"> Leaning
Republican (4)</td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 20%;">Safe
Republican (5)</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>California</td>
      <td><span
 style="text-decoration: underline;">Connecticut</span>
      </td>
      <td style="text-decoration: underline;">Hawaii</td>
      <td><u>Arizona</u></td>
      <td>Mississippi</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Delaware</td>
      <td>Michigan<span
 style="text-decoration: underline;"><br>
      </span></td>
      <td>Florida</td>
      <td>Indiana</td>
      <td>Tennessee</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Maryland </td>
      <td>Ohio<br></td>
      <td style="text-decoration: underline;">Maine</td>
      <td>Nebraska</td>
      <td style="text-decoration: underline;">Texas</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Minnesota</td>
      <td><span
 style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>Pennsylvania</td>
      <td>Massachusetts</td>
      <td><span style="text-decoration: underline;">No. Dakota</span><br>
      </td>
      <td>Utah</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>New Jersey</td>
      <td>Washington<br></td>
      <td>Missouri</td>
      <td><br>
      </td>
      <td>Wyoming</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>New York</td>
      <td>West Virginia </td>
      <td>Montana</td>
      <td><br>
      </td>
      <td><br>
      </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rhode Island</td>
      <td>&nbsp;</td>
      <td>Nevada</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Vermont<br>
      </td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
       <td style="text-decoration: underline;">New Mexico</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>&nbsp;</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td style="text-decoration: underline;">Virginia</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><br>
      </td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td style="text-decoration: underline;">Wisconsin</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<table style="width: 100%;" border="1"
 cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 25%;">&nbsp;</td>
      <td
 style="width: 25%; font-weight: bold;"> Democrats</td>
      <td
 style="width: 25%; font-weight: bold;">
Republicans</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Seats not up in 2012</td>
      <td> 30</td>
      <td>37</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Safe in 2012</td>
      <td>8</td>
      <td>5</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Leaning in 2012</td>
      <td>6</td>
      <td>4</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Total</td>
      <td> 44</td>
      <td>46</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Toss-ups</td>
      <td>10&nbsp;(3R/7D)</td>
      <td>&nbsp; </td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
</div>	

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">

<h2>The House of Representatives</h2>

While the Democrats have a lot going for them in the fall elections and prospects for a pickup of seats by the Democrats is good, a takeover of the House by the Democrats does not seem to be in the cards at the moment.
<br><br>
The big question is whether general angst might impact a series of House incumbents who might otherwise seem to be relatively safe.
<br><br>
In general, potential voters prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress to a Republican-controlled Congress, by 46% to 41%. When voters are asked whether their current Representative deserves reelection or a new person should be given a chance, they opt for the election of a new person by 48% to 40%. [NBC/WSJ 3/12]
<br><br>
WW has regularly reprinted the “House Dashboard” published by the Cook Political Report. The data from January 20, 2011 is from the Dashboard. However, the Dashboard is not being published at this time because of the uncertainties caused by re-districting. Therefore, the chart below (other than 1/20/11) reflects the Cook’s current Competitive House Race Chart through February 9, 2012 . [As always, thanks to “The Cook Political Report.” ]

<br><br>
<strong>The U.S. House of Representatives</strong>
<br><br>
<ul>
  <li> Republicans 242</li>
  <li> Democrats 191</li>
  <li> Vacancies 2</li>
</ul>

<div align="center">
<table style="text-align: left; width: 100%;"
 border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 144px;" align="left"
 valign="top"><br>
      </td>
      <td
 style="font-weight: bold; width: 98px;" valign="top">1/20/11</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"><strong>12/8/11</strong></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"><strong>1/5/12</strong></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"><strong>2/9/12</strong></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"><strong>3/15/12</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">TOTAL Dem</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">193</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Solid Dem</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">150</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Likely Dem</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">27</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">18</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">16</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">20</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">18</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Lean
Dem</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">12</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">14</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">13</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">12</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">13</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top"></td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Toss-up</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">10</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">21</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">20</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">19</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">21</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">D</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">4</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">8</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">8</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">5</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">8</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">R</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">6</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">13</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">12</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">14</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">13</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top"></td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
      <td style="width: 93px;"></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Lean
GOP</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">15</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">21</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">19</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">20</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">20</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Likely
GOP</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">38</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">29</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">31</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">03</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">28</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">Solid
GOP</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">183</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td style="width: 144px;"
 valign="top">TOTAL
GOP</td>
      <td style="width: 98px;"
 valign="top">242</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
      <td style="width: 93px;">---</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
</div>	

<br><br>
The Rothenberg Political Report has posted a report that deals with the entire House. It reports the following:

<br><br>
<div align="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
      <td valign="top">1/12</td>
      <td valign="top">2/12</td>
      <td valign="top">3/12</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Safe Democrat </td>
      <td valign="top">166</td>
      <td valign="top">164 </td>
      <td valign="top">164 </td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Competitive </td>
      <td valign="top">78</td>
      <td valign="top">78</td>
      <td valign="top">79</td>
      </tr>
    <tr>
      <td valign="top">Safe Republican </td>
      <td valign="top">191</td>
      <td valign="top">193</td>
      <td valign="top">192</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
</div>	
<br><br>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Restaurant: Corky and Lenny&apos;s</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/03/restaurant_corky_and_lennys.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.270</id>
   
   <published>2012-03-24T12:55:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-03-24T14:49:10Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Woodmere, Ohio: Corky and Lenny’s is a traditional Jewish style delicatessen. There are 216 items on the menu.</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="March 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 108" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Ohio" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Restaurant Reviews" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="527" label="corky and lenny&apos;s" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="523" label="march 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="18" label="restaurant" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[<div class="restaurant-box">
<h1>Corky and Lenny's</h1>
27091 Chagrin Blvd<br>
Woodmere, Ohio 44122<br>
216-464-3838<br>
Fax 216-464-1822</div>Corky and Lenny’s is a traditional Jewish style delicatessen. There are 216 items on the menu, ranging from an offering called “Mish Mash” -- Matzo ball, Kreplach, Noodles, and Rice in a large bowl for $7.50 -- to the “Lee D’s Apollo – Out of This World” – Imported ham, Roast Turkey, Swiss Cheese, Coleslaw, Lettuce, Tomato, and Thousand Island Dressing on French Bread served with Coleslaw at $11.25.
<br><br>
I have visited Corky and Lenny’s a couple of times, most recently with Debbie and Libby for breakfast.
<br><br>
Debbie ordered the corned beef hash with poached egg. Libby went for an omelet with bacon on the side. I chose an egg-white omelet with mushrooms and onions. I also ordered turkey sausage on the side.
<br><br>
We had a relatively late breakfast and the size of the portions left little room or interest in having lunch that day. Each principal item on the menu is to one extent or another, oversized. This is not the place to dine if you are counting calories.
<br><br>
There is, of course, a fulsome deli counter where you can order meats, fishes, salads and other items to go. If, while eating, you decide to order something off the menu to take with you, your server will take the order and it will be waiting for you at the checkout counter at the front of the restaurant.
<br><br>
The restaurant is very large, with numerous booths and tables of varying sizes. There was a line of people waiting for a table when we arrived, the entire time we were there, and when we departed.
<br><br>
The restaurant feels rather old and so does the men’s room. It is fully serviceable and reasonably clean, but not special and a little musty. There is one urinal and two commodes that are separated by metal dividers. There is a white ceramic wash basin. There are large grey tiles across the floor and up the walls to waist height. Smaller tiles cover the rest of the walls up to the ceiling.
<br><br>
Parking is not a problem. There is a very large parking lot at the front of the strip mall in which the deli is located.
<br><br>
Corky and Lenny’s is opening a second location in the food court of the new casino, scheduled to open on May 14th, in downtown Cleveland.
<br><br>
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>State of the Nation</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2012/02/state_of_the_nation_25.shtml" />
   <id>tag:www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com,2012://1.258</id>
   
   <published>2012-02-17T17:00:00Z</published>
   <updated>2012-02-18T17:48:47Z</updated>
   
   <summary>59% say the country is on the wrong track, with 35% saying it is on the right track. This is a change from a month ago, when 66% said the country was on the wrong track and only 29% said...</summary>
   <author>
      <name></name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="February 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="No. 107" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Washington Watch" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="516" label="february 2012" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="81" label="state of the nation" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/">
      <![CDATA[59% say the country is on the wrong track, with 35% saying it is on the right track. This is a change from a month ago, when 66% said the country was on the wrong track and only 29% said it was on the right track. It is also the lowest “wrong track” number recorded in the last year. [CBS/NYT 2/12]
<br><br>
This change is mirrored in the most recent CNN/ORC survey, in which 60% said that things are going badly in the country, down from the 70% recorded two months earlier. 40% say things are going at least fairly well, up from the 30%, recorded two months earlier. [2/12]
<br><br>
In February, 22% of Americans said they were satisfied with the way things are going in the United States. That is up from the 11% satisfaction rate recorded in September. 37% of Democrats are satisfied, but only 10% of Republicans and 19% of Independents agree. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

All signs show that the economy is improving. When those signs will be recognized by the average American remains to be seen.

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

37% of Americans think the economy will get better over the next 12 months. This is the most positive number found by the NBC/WSJ since January 2011, when 40% had that view. Conversely, the number who are pessimistic about the future has also dropped to the year-ago level of 17%. [1/12]


<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an unemployment rate of 8.3% in the month of January. This represents a continuing drop on this most vivid of numbers.
<br><br>
Gallup came up with a slightly higher number of 8.6% for the same period, a slight increase from the previous month. It also reported an increase to 10.1% (from 9.8%) in the number of people who are working part-time, but want full- time employment. Thus, a total of 18.7% are considered to be unemployed.
<br><br>
Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Florida, and California had the highest underemployment rates in 2011, at least 21%. Two States, North and South Dakota, had underemployment rates of 12%, the lowest in the country.
<br><br>
[Note: this still undercounts the real unemployment rate because neither test includes those who have stopped looking for work. ]
<br><br>
* Confidence in the U.S. economy has gone up for five months through January. It is now a minus 27, up from a minus 52.
<br><br>
* 36% think the economy is getting better, up from a low of 18% in the summer of 2011. The high point in the last four years was in January 2011, when it hit 41%.
<br><br>
* 83% are dissatisfied with the state of the nation’s economy, and 69% are dissatisfied with the size and power of the Federal government.
<br><br>
* 49% see themselves as worse off today than they were a year ago.
<br><br>
* 49% say the U.S. economic system is unfair, but 62% say that the system is fair to them.
<br><br>
* 36% worry about losing their job in the next year. 51% worry about maintaining their standard of living, while 43% fear they will not be able to pay medical bills. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>


On February 15th, Gallup published the results of a survey of small business owners. The headline said, “Health Costs, Gov’t Regulations Curb Small Business Hiring.” And then there was a sub-headline that read, “Nearly half of small- business owners name those issues.” All of the above is accurate based on the report of the survey.
<br><br>
It is not until you get into the report that you discover that yes, 48% are worried about the potential cost of healthcare and 46% are worried about government regulations, but those issues rank 5th and 6th in the list of concerns expressed by small business owners.
<br><br>
76% Don’t need any additional employees at this time
<br><br>
71% Worried revenues or sales won’t justify adding employees 
<br><br>
66% Worry about the current status of the U.S. economy
<br><br>
53% Worry about cash flow or ability to make payroll
<br><br>
Then come concerns about healthcare and government regulations.


<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

66% of adults believe there are “strong or very strong” conflicts between rich and poor, an increase of nearly 20% in the last two years. Across the political spectrum this view is held by 55% of Republicans, 68% of Independent, and 73% of Democrats.
<br><br>
43% believe that rich people attained that status mainly because of “hard work, ambition or education.” 46% think that wealthy people became rich primarily because of “knowing the right people or being born into wealthy families.” [PEW]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

In various forms, the poor in America have been a topic of conversation in this election season. Notably, about 25% of Republicans and Republican-leaning registered voters have annual family incomes of less than $30,000. 57% of that population think that the government does too little for poor people. 21% think the government does about the right amount. [PEW 2/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

53% of Americans think the government taxes too much to help people who “could get by without help.”
<br><br>
41% think the “government is providing benefits for too many people who don’t actually need them.”
<br><br>
54% believe that “high unemployment has left more people in need of government assistance.”
<br><br>
38% do not believe that the safety net is sufficient for those who need help “just to get by.” [UT/NJ Connection Poll 2/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>


32,000,000 Americans live alone today, up from 27,200,000 in 2000 and 31,000,000 in 2010. 5,000,000 people between the ages of 18-34 and 15,000,000 of those aged 35-64 live alone. Following are the percentage of households with only one occupant in various countries:
<br><br>

47% of all households in Sweden<br>
27% of all households in the United States<br>
7% of all households in China <br>
3% of all households in India
<br><br>
[NYT 2/5/12]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

There are two things on which 80% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans appear to agree – giving tax breaks to U.S. corporations that bring manufacturing jobs back from overseas.
<br><br>
77% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans also agree that the U.S. should do more to pressure China to allow fairer trade with this country. But that is where agreement seems to end.
<br><br>
* 84% of Democrats, but only 46% of Republicans, think the Federal government should spend more to support development of alternative energy sources.
<br><br>
* A majority of Republicans -- 54% -- think the Federal government should spend more on education and job training for the long term unemployed. 93% of Democrats hold this view.
<br><br>
* And while 81% of Democrats would increase taxes on upper-income Americans, only 41% of Republicans hold this view. [Gallup]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>


The issue that most divides Democrats and Republicans is the importance of environmental protection. 27% of Republicans say it should be a top priority. Just over twice that number, 58%, of Democrats say it should be a top priority. [PEW]

<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Over the last 15 years, opposition to gay marriage has fallen substantially. Those who support and oppose are now even in number. 45% support these unions, while 46% oppose them. In 1996, 65% opposed, while only 27% supported gay marriage. [Pew 2011]


<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

Beginning during the second term of President George W. Bush, and continuing through the first three years of the Obama Administration, the public has been dissatisfied with the position of the United States in the world today. [Gallup 2/12]


<br><br>
<hr color="#dddddd" noshade="noshade" size="1">
<br>

64% are dissatisfied with the level of immigration into the country. Of those with that point of view, 6% would like to see immigration increased, while 42% want it decreased. [Gallup]

<br><br>
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>

