Obama getting trounced in Mississippi

We have our most shocking poll results of the week for you today: President Obama can write Mississippi off his target list.

When we last took a look at his re-election effort in Mississippi back in March, Obama was actually trailing a few of his potential opponents by single-digit margins.  That is no longer the case.  All but one of the six Republicans tested against him in the latest survey beat Obama by larger spreads than John McCain’s 13-point win three years ago.

Mitt Romney, as nearly everywhere, tops the president by the largest amount, 18 points (54-36), up 12 points from a six-point lead in March.  Rick Perry and Herman Cain each lead by 17 (55-38 and 54-37, respectively); neither was tested eight months ago.  Newt Gingrich leads by 16 (54-38), up 10 points from March.  Ron Paul is up 15 (52-37), and Michele Bachmann by 12 (52-40); neither was polled last time.

Obama’s approval rating has declined 11 points from 42-54 in March to 36-59 now.  Of the states we've measured him in this year, only four see the president worse (Nebraska, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming)—all much whiter states.  Only 16% of white Mississippi voters approve of Obama’s performance, with 80% disapproving.  That figure has actually not changed from March.  What makes this state unique is that its large share of black voters have soured a little on the president, from 93-5 to 80-14.

Unlike in other states, black voters in Mississippi who disapprove are not rallying behind the president when it comes time to vote.  Still roughly 80% of them vote for him, but that is down from over 90% in the previous poll and 98% in 2008.  Cain gets the largest share of the black vote, at 15%, but the others still pull 12-14%.

The Republicans lead by 23 to 44 points with independents, and take 12-13% of the Democratic vote.  One caveat is that this poll was taken among likely voters in Tuesday's election. They did soundly defeat Initiative 26, but the projected electorate in our poll was slightly whiter and more Republican than in 2008 and significantly more than in March.  Much of the movement can be attributed to turnout and party identification shifts.  Obama very well may have a little more weakness with African Americans here next year than in 2008, and turnout may be a little whiter and more Republican.

Regardless, this is not a state any Democrat of any race can expect to win at the presidential level anytime soon.

Full results here

Comments

[Gerald]

MS is the poorest state in the nation and these clowns fall over themselves to support candidates who would cut federal aid to MS. I'd love to meet some of these folks with annual incomes of less than $30K, no health insurance and net worth of less than ten grand as they explain why it is vital that we cut the estate tax, the marginal rate, and the corporate income tax, even while imposing a 9% sales tax on poor people.

Honestly, if these people want to be exploited, why fight it? Let them be plucked clean like a spring chicken. As long as the guy exploiting and impoverishing them wears a US flag pin on his lapel and likes women, they don't seem to mind.

[Noah]

@Gerald
Poor voting against their self interest is certainly a mystery to a lot of Democrats. I think Democrats need to understand that there are a lot of reason why poor in the country would even vote republicans. Some are living in the rural area and cherish their right to bear arms more than anything. Some are just do not benefit from the welfare program provided by the federal government. Ever heard of how many people don't even know that they get a tax cut the Democrats proposed because people don't pay close attention to them and the white house and the Obama administration are poor at messaging unlike the Republicans. I think the derogatory language many Democrats including you express to the poor in this country will not advance the progressive causes. We need to listen and understand by educating and better communicating with our supposedly Republican voting enemies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/stop-patronising-poor-americans

[George]

"As long as the guy exploiting and impoverishing them wears a US flag pin on his lapel and likes women, they don't seem to mind."

No! As long as the white guy exploiting and impoverishing them wears a US flag pin on his lapel and likes only white women, they don't seem to mind. They also dont seem to mind as long as the black black guy exploiting and impoverishing them wears a US flag pin on his lapel and likes only black women, they dont seem to mind. Remember a March 2011 PPP poll where 46% of GOP pimary voters opposed interracial dating or marriage? PPP never released the results of what the white dem voters thought. To make the long story short, I think Herman Cain would have been ok as long as he runs against a black man and is married to a black woman. How the sex scandals involving white women play out will be a matter of great deal of interest!

[George]

"I think the derogatory language many Democrats including you express to the poor in this country will not advance the progressive causes. We need to listen and understand by educating and better communicating with our supposedly Republican voting enemies."

No! The country is changing. Read Glen Bolger's piece on Crystal Ball. The poor whites are smaller and smaller proportion of the voting population..they should no longer be part of the Dem coalition...call me arrogant, but that is the reality. I did not shed a tear when the miners died in the blast in WV. They voted for the GOP...and actions should have consequences.

[Gerald]

I wasn't derogating the poor. Most poor people do not fall over themselves to support Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. I am talking about a subgroup of poor, working class, and middle class people in the Midwest and South who appear to vote consistently in a manner that is directly contrary to their economic interest. You show respect for such people by speaking with them, to them, and about them as if they are responsible adults, not special education students. They don't need pseudo-psychotherapy and they don't need a condescending listening session. Treat them as adults and tell them that they are being played for fools.

Incidentally, the problem is not that votes are cast on social issues. It is perfectly justifiable in some cases to cast a vote on that basis. For example, abortion is a perfectly legitimate social issue on which to cast a vote, even for a candidate who might otherwise work against your financial interests.

The problem is not that voters have made an informed, conscious decision to elevate the salience of a particular social issue over one or more economic issues. The problem is that there are so many low-information voters who, being unable to parse through issues like the estate tax, deficit reduction, and credit default swaps, simply default to the easily-understood social issues, often trivial social issues that have absolutely no bearing on their lives. Low information voters who don't default to social issues are also far more susceptible to believe whatever ridiculous spin is put out on the economy. That is why you have plenty of people in MS who are convinced that the economic meltdown of 2008 was caused by a 1977 federal law that proposed modest efforts to expand home ownership. Government was the problem and the solution is to unshackle the future AIGs and Lehmans from their regulatory chains.
All it took was one spinmeister to dream that up and a built-in audience of low-information voters was ready to lap it up.

[jeff]

Noah: I don't think its so much that the white house and the democrats are poor at messaging. I don't think people understand that the media doesn't spread the message that the white house tends to send. Rather they spend more time misinforming and focusing on the republicans.

[Dustin Ingalls]

"Remember a March 2011 PPP poll where 46% of GOP pimary voters opposed interracial dating or marriage? PPP never released the results of what the white dem voters thought."

Yes we did. http://publicpolicypolling.typepad.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_GAMSNC_0421.pdf

[Jay]

Why don't you turn this around and ask why are so many rich white people in the suburbs around the big northern cities are voting for Democrats? It's certainly not in their interest to do so, especially with Obama in the White House. The point I am making is that not all voters vote in their financial self interest. Many other factors come into play and one should not assume that voters are completely blind to what they are doing.

[Daniel]

Gerald, they don't want your self-pity, they want to make it in life by themselves. What's the problem with that?