Here’s a round-up of some (important) polls, all from Rasmussen Reports. (more…)

The Obama victory Speech:

(more…)

I think that Mitt Romney can feel increasingly confident about his chances in Nevada. The race in South Carolina is a two-men race - Romney has withdrawn - which can develop into a three-men race if Thompson surges, but in Nevada, Romney has surged well ahead of his opponents, at least according to the polls. Not only that, he has also been endorsed by Nevada newspapers, yesterday or two days ago by one and today by yet another one. (more…)

Pollster tries to find out why its polls were way off base:

A good starting point would be for each New Hampshire pollster to release their demographic and cross tab data. This would allow sample composition to be compared and for voter preferences within demographic groups to be compared. Another valuable bit of information would be voter preference by day of interview. (more…)

The New York Times reports that the Republican candidates have a hard time energizing the base: “Republican voters across the country appear uninspired by their field of presidential candidates, with a vast majority saying they have not made a final decision about whom to support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.”

Worse still, “[n]one of the Republican candidates is viewed favorably by even half the Republican electorate, the poll found.”

Democrats, on the other hand, are generally quite pleased with their candidates and are “more settled in their decisions.” (more…)

More Polls! The Huckasurge is continuing while Barack Obama is closing in on Clinton Everywhere. (more…)

Some Americans — Republicans and, even more so, Independents — have become more optimistic in the past month. But not Democrats.

(more…)

Unity08, an attempt to influence the presidential nominating process on-line, has published a new set of results. A few of the slides caught my interest. First, the slide that ranks the presidential candidates (at the time):

Unity voters are nonplussed by the field, that’s for sure. Obama garnered a distinct preference, which leads me to believe that Unity’s participants are those who lean toward “outsiders”.

Yet the slide ranking the importance of various issues contradicts that notion:

Given this I see no reason for Obama to rank at the top of the previous list. The opposite, if anything.

I’ve seen a lot of interest in Unity on the web but I found it interesting that their survey drew about 20,000 participants. Not an insignificant number but hardly an-on-line revolution.

Another interesting slide is the participant demographic slide.

Older, wealthier, better educated, and more male than average. On the whole, it seems to me that Unity08 is not a particularly interesting movement in regard to the larger population or the election process as a whole.

I’m disappointed on all counts, personally. I’d hoped for more.

Cross-posted at Black Shards.

Update:  amended number of participants per Bob Roth of Unity08 marketing.  This number was missing from the survey results, unfortunately.

Good news for Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson (who has yet to officially announce his candidacy): the two of them lead the polls in Nevada. The results (Republicans):
Fred Thompson, 25 percent

Mitt Romney, 20 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 17 percent

John McCain, 8 percent

The results (Democrats):
Hillary Clinton, 39 percent

Barack Obama, 17 percent

John Edwards, 12 percent

Bill Richardson, 7 percent

Obviously a very, very easy lead for Hillary Clinton. If you look at this poll, it is difficult to imagine another Democratic winner in Nevada. Good to see that Mitt Romney is doing relatively well as well. I find it difficult to say much about Thompson’s position: on the one hand, he might take a very comfortable lead in the coming months (there is a base), but on the other hand, he has not been attacked yet, he did not defend his former votes / actions / words yet; he did not appear in any of the debates yet, etc. In other words: he might lose that support very quickly.

Less cautious: Thompson will most likely do very well. Not just in Nevada, but everywhere. Republicans seem to adore him (for some reason).

Something has to be said about Thompson: nobody was talking about him until quite recently. Suddenly, he has become the savior for many. It is all a bit strange.

This will not make Bush very happy: his approval ratings are, with 26%, at an all time low. No President, except for Nixon, ever had such low approval - and high disapproval ratings. Of those asked, 65% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. This 65% includes 1/3 of all Republican voters.

Nixon’s record is 23% - it will be interesting to see whether Bush will break Nixon’s record.

Before Bush supporters start defending him by saying that the war is to blame:

Bush scores record or near record lows on every major issue: from the economy (34 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove) to health care (28 percent approve, 61 percent disapprove) to immigration (23 percent approve, 63 percent disapprove).

And there is more bad news, not just for Bush but for all Republicans: “50 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of terrorism and homeland security.”

The GOP strongest asset these last couple of years was homeland securty and the GWOT. If the voters start disapproving of the way the GOP deals with these issues, the will have an incredibly hard time winning the elections in 08. This is the domain of the GOP. If the GOP loses its edge on this one, Republicans cannot possibly hope to win.

Of course, these polls are also good news for Republicans, at least in so far that they know now that they can distance themselves from Bush as much as the want. They can criticize Bush’s policies on an whole array of issues, not just on Iraq; but also on the economy, health care, immigration and, yes, terrorism. No reason to hold back.

Yes, I am trying to look at this situation as “the glass half full.”

As far as the Demcrats are concerned: the approval ratings of Congress are horific as well. Something needs to be done about that - however, I consider the approval ratings for the President to be more important (politically) than those of Congress. At least at this point in time.

Bad news for the Democrat-controlled Congress:

Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

Roger L. Simon remarks:

This should give a little pause to those Democratic Party triumphalists who think their crowd is going to waltz into the White House in ‘08. But that’s the least of it. The more important question is why our government is run by such dimwitted mediocrities on both sides of the aisle. I have written before that Silvestre Reyes is the poster child of our Congress - a man who, as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee [sic], couldn’t tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. And he’s still in office! Think about that, those of you who run businesses large and small. As CEO of Pajamas Media, if one of our editors were that uniformed at this point in history I would have no choice but to show him or her the door (not that any of our editors are even remotely that ignorant).

The comparison between government and business has been made many times before and I used to give government the benefit of the doubt. And I am still convinced that there are many things government does better than the private sector, things that it must do. But if government is run by the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Reyes and Hastert, then Heaven help us.

This is one of the major problems of every Democracy, I think: at a certain moment, the most talented people prefer to have successful business careers and ignore politics (or lobby with politicians to make themselves even more successful). Leaders of a nation should be the most talented of the talented, the best of the best. In America - but not just in America, also in the Netherlands - the best of the best are CEOs. Now, if, then, the merely best would become Congressmen, there would not be a very big problem. However, the sad reality of the situation is that ‘the best’ prefer business over politics as well.

A USA Today poll has found that Hillary Clinton has established a comfortable lead over Barack Obama. If former Vice President Al Gore is included in the poll, Clinton leads Obama 33%-21%. If Gore is excluded she leads with 39%-26%.

Furthermore, “if the Democratic contest came down to Clinton or Obama, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents chose Clinton, 53%-42%.”

The results for the GOP (candidates):

Giuliani leads the field at 28%, down 4 points from two weeks earlier. Thompson is second at 19%, up 8 points. McCain is at 18%, 1 point lower. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is fourth at 7%, down 5 points.

Interestingly enough, “if the GOP contest came down to Giuliani or Thompson, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents chose Giuliani, 53%-41%.”

At the moment Thompson formally announces his candidacy, he is expected to rise in the polls, at least for a short amount of time.

I expected Romney to have risen in the polls - he did well in the last Republican debate. He defends his positions well, and he is - of course - the #1 Republican fundraiser.

One thing everybody should remember: this is a nationwide poll. Nationwide polls are less important than state polls. It is all about individual states right now, and in the most important states, Romney does great - he leads both in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Regarding the Democratic nomination, I think that Hillary Clinton will win, possible even quite easily. The GOP race is, in that regard, far more exciting. As far as I am concerned, three people can win it: Romney, Giuliani and Thompson.

Bad news for Republicans: “By 52% to 31%, Americans say they want Democrats to win the presidency next year.”

Americans give the Republican Party their most negative assessment in the two-decade history of the Journal/NBC survey, and by 49% to 36% they say the Democratic Party more closely shares their values and positions on the issues.

The Democratic candidates do better than their Republican counterparts as well:

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who has strengthened her lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, leads Mr. Giuliani by 48% to 43% in a potential general-election matchup after trailing by a similar margin three months ago. Despite Mr. Thompson’s rise among Republican contenders, he trails the second-place Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, by 50% to 31% in a hypothetical November 2008 contest.

Lets take a closer look at the results per party:
- among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the pack, this time with 29%. Fred Thompson is in second place with 20%. Romney and McCain both draw the support of 14% of those polled (Romney continues to rise in the polls).
- among Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s lead has grown: she now leads Barack Obama by 39% to 25%. In third place we find John Edwards (with 15%).

Why do Democratic voters support Clinton?

Fully 71% of Democrats rate the former first lady highly for being “knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency,” while 30% rate the first-term Sen. Obama highly on that dimension.

“Her competence campaign is working,” Mr. Newhouse said.

Hillary is doing a good job, or so it seems. Her goal is not to make to 70% of the American people like her (that is not going to happen anyway), her goal is to convince a majority of the American voters that - whether they personally like her and agree with her on everything or not - she is the most competent (Democratic) candidate.

If it is between her, Obama and Edwards, I agree with her: she is the most experienced one. She knows what politics are like at the presidential level. She knows how to make decisions that can (and do) change the world.

In the Republican camp it is safe to say that Thompson hurts McCain most. Romney will continue to rise in the polls, of that I am quite sure, Thompson - once he entered - will rise as well, Giuliani will lose some support, and suddenly we’ve got a three men race.

Ah, horse races, I know that they can be useless, but they are fun.

CNN’s Political Ticker reports that Mitt Romney continues to do well in the states that truly matter:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has jumped to the head of the pack of 2008 Republican presidential contenders in New Hampshire, according to a CNN/WMUR poll out Tuesday.

Romney shot past former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the latest poll, conducted Wednesday through Monday by the University of New Hampshire. Former Tennessee senator and “Law and Order” star Fred Thompson runs fourth after taking his first steps toward a campaign, the survey found.

The results:
- 28% of those polled support Mitt Romney
- John McCain and Rudy Giuliani draw the support of 20% each
- 11% support Fred Thompson (who has yet to officially announce his candidacy)

The poll was, obviously, conducted “after last week’s CNN-WMUR-New Hampshire Union Leader debate in Manchester.” As CNN points out, Romney “trailed McCain and Giuliani by 11 percentage points in the last CNN/WMUR poll, conducted in late March and early April.”

Although this is good news for Romney, he and his supporters have to realize that they do not ‘own’ NH: 57% “of Granite State Republicans said they had […] no idea who they will support.” However, among this group too, the numbers are in Romney’s favor:

Among the top three, 32 percent found Romney was the most likeable candidate. Giuliani came in second with 28 percent, while McCain was third at 12 percent.

Partially that is:

But 31 percent of those polled said Giuliani had the best chance of beating the eventual Democratic nominee, compared to 25 percent for Romney and 14 percent for McCain.

When asked who the strongest leader of the leading trio is, 26% answered Giuliani, another 26% McCain, and 25% answered Mitt Romney. In other words: too close to call.

As a commenter at the PT points out, this poll also provides good news for Ron Paul, who trippled his support: he went from 1% to 3%…

As I have stated before, I would endorse Mitt Romney if I were American. I think that Mitt Romney is a great manager, a great leader and someone who knows what he is talking about. Above all, I like his approach to problem solving: whereas Bush operates on the basis of positive affirmation, Romney constantly challenges his own views / policies. This is what is called the “Baine Way” (which admittedly sounds a bit corny). When talking about a specific issue, he brings in experts who disagree passionately with each other, lets them debate for a couple of hours, weighs in himself and draws conclusions. He is also well known for his ability to question his own views by attacking it intellectually from all sides.

Of course, Romney is more of a social conservative than I am, but his record in Massachusetts shows that he is a social conservative who chooses to defend instead of attack. In other words, laws that are in place now are unlikely to be reversed by Romney.

Romney does have one problem, a relatively minor one, in NH: he is considered to be less “believable” than Giuliani and McCain.

Bad news for Democrats:

Fueled by disappointment at the pace of change since Democrats assumed the majority on Capitol Hill, public approval of Congress has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in January, when Democrats assumed control of the House and the Senate.

And 63% of Americans say that the new Democratic Congress is governing in a “business as usual” manner, rather than working to bring the fundamental change that party leaders promised after November’s midterm election.

The Democrats appear to be more busy playing political games, and launching partisan attacks than actually doing what they are supposed to do: legislate.

It is a classic case “say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.”

36% of those polled, approve of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job (of House Speaker). “In contrast, 46% of Americans in the current poll said they approved of the way Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia handled the job after he led the GOP into the majority in 1994.”

Why the bad results you ask? It is simple: the liberal Democratic base isn’t happy.

A third of liberal Democrats, who constitute the party’s base, approve of the job Congress is doing; 58% disapprove, the poll found.

Martha Wilde, 81, a Democrat from Remer, Minn. worded it like this:

“They just haven’t seemed to have gathered things together the way they should,” said Martha Wilde, 81, a Democrat from Remer, Minn., who said she had been particularly disappointed in congressional Democrats’ lack of progress confronting the Bush administration over the war.

“I think they should force them more,” Wilde said.

Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman made clear that Pelosi cares a great deal what the base thinks (about her) by saying: “The American people are rightly frustrated with the ongoing war in Iraq, and Democrats will continue to work with Republicans to force the president to change direction in Iraq so our troops can come home and we can refocus our efforts on fighting terrorism.”

Let me rephrase that: “we will continue to do what we are doing: we will make a lot of noise but we won’t get anything done.”

Pelosi et al. made one major mistake: before the elections they made all kinds of promises what they would do once in power. Suddenly they, indeed, won and now they have to deliver. The progressive base does not want to hear excuses (namely that certain things cannot be done because a - it’s stupid; b- Bush can veto legislation he doesn’t like), they wants results.

If Pelosi would have been honest during the campaign, if she would have tried to appeal a bit less to the base, less rhetoric more reason and truth, she would not have the bad numbers she has today.

This is a follow-up post on yesterday’s post. Back in August 06, Ron published this post at his blog Liberal Values:

A survey published in Science finds that the United States ranks 33 out of 34 countries studied on acceptance of evolution. At least we beat Turkey.

The results:

Fascinating.

As Ron points out, this is probably due to the fact that America counts quite some fundamentalist Christians (who interprete the Bible as literally as possible). In most other ‘Christian’ countries - or at least most Western countries - there are virtually no fundamentalists left. Most Christians in Europe - for instance - do not interprete the Bible literally anymore.

In America, however, the literal interpreters form quite a significant part of the population.

According to a gallup poll, the majority of Republicans does not believe the theory of evolution to be true. Quite remarkable, one could say, is that “even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.”

Funny enough, “about a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution’s explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago.”

Some results:
Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?
Yes: 49%
No: 48%

Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years
Definitely true: 39%
Probably true: 27%
Probably false: 16%
Definitely false: 15%

Furthermore, 38% said that they believed that “beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,” against 43% of Americans who said to believe that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so].”

Furthermore, 30% of Republicans believe in evolution, against 68% who believe that God created mankind in his its present shape. Those numbers are 61% and 37% for Independents respectively; and 57% and 40% for Democrats.

I have to admit that I find the results of this poll to be utterly amazing. In Europe, especially in the Netherlands - I am quite sure - the far majority of people have accepted evolution as the explanation of how mankind came into existence. Of course, there are Christians like me who believe that God guided the process, but most Dutch Christians do - as far as I know - believe that mankind evolved.

This means, of course, that it does not hurt Republican candidates one bit when they say that they do not believe in evolution. It might hurt them with Independents, sure, but if they want to appeal to ‘the base’ it is probably best for them to say that they believe that God created mankind 10,000 years ago and that the theory of evolution is false.

Fascinating (and to me quite shocking).

ABC News reports:

The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren’t doing any better.

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that’s collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats’ overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now — with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.

Yet the Democrats’ losses have not produced much in the way of gains for Bush or his party. The president’s approval rating remains a weak 35 percent, unchanged from mid-April at two points from his career low in ABC News/Washington Post polls. The Republicans in Congress do about as badly, with just 36 percent approval…

he shift away from the Democrats in Congress has occurred on two levels. In terms of their overall approval rating, the damage is almost entirely among people who strongly oppose the war in Iraq. In this group 69 percent approved of the Democrats in April, but just 54 percent still approve now — a likely effect of the Democrats’ failure to push a withdrawal timetable through Congress.

Their decline in leadership ratings vs. Bush is more broadly based — that’s occurred among war opponents and supporters alike, apparently reflecting more an assessment of their performance than an expression of support or opposition.

In other words, the base is upset. The Democrats thought they could talk the talk but didn’t have to walk the walk; they thought they could talk about forcing Bush to do this or that, but they did not truly have to deliver; they could ‘explain’ their surrender to the base.

Guess what, the base is having none of it.

Oliver Willis summarizes:

So, the Democrats are losing footing because they’re following in the footsteps of the president (who has 35% in this poll, unchanged from before and just slightly higher than he measures in other polls) and not… wait for it… listening to the people.

Engram has an interesting post up at Back Talk about whether or not Iraqis believe that “life is better today than it was under Saddam Hussein.” Back Talk links to this poll and says yes, the majority of Iraqis believe that life has gotten better (slightly, but still). Head on over there and take a look at the graph.

Engram is making one mistake: if you want to know what the majority of Iraqis think, you have to combine the numbers. In this case, the absolute majority (almost 60%) believe that life in Iraq today is just as bad or worse as it was under Saddam. Engram blames opponents of the war for spinning information coming out of Iraq in such a way that everything looks bad, I accuse Engram of spinning information to make it look better than it is.

It is a nice try though.

The Politico:

Rudy Giuliani, whose positions on abortion and homosexuality mark him as the most socially liberal Republican presidential candidate in more than a generation, is so far winning the contest for the support of social conservatives, according to a new analysis of recent polls.

Widespread perceptions that Giuliani is the most electable Republican in this year’s field are driving his support among social conservatives, according to the analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

If the trend holds, this apparent willingness to support a candidate who fails what were once regarded as litmus-test issues would mark a landmark shift in the political behavior of a constituency that has been a pillar of the modern GOP. Already the shift is spurring sharp debate among prominent Christian conservative leaders, some of whom warn that Giuliani backers are abandoning core principles.

It is a fascinating development: suddenly, social conservatives seem to be willing to focus on other issues than the ‘favorite two.’ Suddenly, they’re backing a candidate who publicly says that he supports the right to choose for women. For years and years, this was considered to be a big no-no. Pro-choicers had no chance whatsoever of winning the Republican nomination… suddenly, all has changed.

Or not?

What will happen once Thompson formally announces his candidacy?

I fear for Rudy that a Thompson run will hurt his chances tremendously.

This CBS poll certainly won’t make George W. Bush very happy:
- How is the war going? Well, 23%; badly, 76%.
- Did the US do the right thing going to war with Iraq? Right thing, 35%; should have stayed out 61%.
- Is the country headed in the right direction? Yes, 24%; no, wrong direction, 72%.
- Approve or disapprove of the job Bush is doing? Approve, 30%; disapprove, 63%.

Republicans are still, mostly, rallying behind Bush / the war in Iraq and the surge, but the polls show that Americans think quite differently. They disapprove of the job Bush is doing in generaly and they disapprove of how he’s handling Iraq.

In other words, the moment is there for the anti-war crowd to push through legislation / bills. They can now put pressure on Bush, they can now demand of Bush to accept ‘benchmarks’ (or deadlines), etc. Sadly for before mentioned crowd, the Democrats just gave up… and it pisses liberals off. For some examples, read:
- this post at MyDD
- this post at Daily Kos
- this post at TPM Café

Especially the second one is a must read: quite some Daily Kos readers received an e-mail from the DCCC about the Iraq war spending bill. The DCCC tries to convince ‘the base’ that the bill is a victory for the Democrats. Sadly for the DCCC, the base is having none of it. Read both the post and some of the comments: I fear that the DCCC’s mailing list has become a little, umh, shorter.

It is crystal clear: the Democrats are afraid of Bush / the GOP. They fear that whatever they do, it will be used against them.

If I were American, I would most certainly not be a Democrat for several reasons: this cowardice is one of them (I respect you if you stand for what you believe, even if I disagree with you).

Interesting stats about Muslim Americans:

One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says.

The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country’s Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.

Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

“It is a hair-raising number,” said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation — a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with
Israel.

U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: “People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas.”

Other findings include:
* 5 percent of U.S. Muslims expressed favorable views of the terrorist group al-Qaida, though about a fourth did not express an opinion
* Six in 10 said they are concerned about a rise in Islamic extremism in the U.S., while three in four expressed similar worries about extremism around the world.

Also, directly from Pew:

And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

Mostly, compared to Muslims living in other Western countries, quite positive stats. On the other hand… that isn’t a compliment.

Marc Schulman: “While Pew considers the finding that two-thirds of an estimated 2.35 million Muslim Americans don’t see a conflict between devotion and modernity, I find it highly disturbing that about 800,000 of them do see a conflict.”

Michelle Malkin: “The AP gets the headline wrong.”

Believe it or not: the US Congress gets lower approval ratings than president George W. Bush: 29% of those polled approve of how the US Congress is functioning, while 33% of those asked believe that Bush is doing a stellar job.

Although it is normal for Congress to have quite low approval ratings, one cannot help but notice that the approval ratings of Congress have dropped quite significantly since, say, January this year. Remarkably enough, only 37% of Democratic voters approve of what the US Congress is doing: it seems that Republicans are more loyal than their Democratic counterparts. 73% of Republicans believe that Bush is doing great for instance.

Also noteworthy, and cause for concern it seems to me: only 24% of independents approve of the job Congress is doing (even Republicans are more positive, slightly, but still).

Time for the Democrats to focus more on issues that bring together the left and center?