Click here for the interview schedule in PDF format.
Click here for the memo in PDF format.
Click here for the presentation in PDF format.

The first time that happened, then-President Bush spent the initial part of his second term trying to reform Social Security, even though voters’ top priority for the government to address was Job Creation and Economic Growth, followed by the War in Iraq and then Terrorism and Homeland Security (January 2005 NBC News/WSJ Poll).

Fast forward to today and President Obama has followed in his predecessor’s footsteps, devoting most of his second term agenda thus far to issues like gun control and immigration, largely ignoring the fact that the economy and jobs continues to be Americans’ top priority for their elected officials:

And, Americans have taken notice.  The recent New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted in April shows the President’s approval rating specifically on “handling the economy” is strongly inverted (41% approve-52% disapprove), and his approval rating on that attribute has been underwater throughout the year.

Now, here we sit, approximately 200 days into Obama’s second term, and the President finds himself in a strangely similar position to where President Bush was at a similar point in his second term, and much different from where Presidents Reagan and Clinton found themselves at this point:

Around this time period in Bush’s second term, his approval rating went into a tailspin, helping deliver both houses of Congress to the Democrats in the next mid-term election.  Will President Obama’s approval rating fall in a similar fashion, helping Republicans gain seats in the House and take the Senate in 2014?

It’s probably still too soon to tell.  After all, given the President’s sustained support among younger voters and non-white voters, he does have a higher “floor” than his predecessor.  But, it IS clear that Obama’s lack of focus on Americans’ top priority (jobs and the economy) doesn’t bode well for him and Democrats looking to win back the House and maintain control of the Senate in 2014.

I first met Stephen M. Kinney (those who knew him well will understand just how much he hated to see his name in print as just Steve) when I went to work for him in May of 1999.  He had just become a partner at Public Opinion Strategies.  By July of that year, I had been transplanted away from the DC area, and far away from all my family and friends in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and I was living in California where Steve was almost the only person I knew.  From the day I met him until the last time I had a chance to sit at his home and visit with him a few weeks ago, Steve was like a second father to me.  He was always my strongest advocate in the business world.  He always offered me honest yet very prudent advice.  He prayed for me when I was going through hard times.  He did a scripture reading as part of my wedding ceremony.  We ran together on “the Strand” in Hermosa Beach in the mornings.  My mother even frequently baked him butterscotch pies when she came to visit.

In business, Steve served as a mentor and a living example of the hard work and dedication it takes to succeed in the world of politics.  He was living proof that relationships and loyalty really matter.  He was personal friends with, or at least had an established relationship with, everyone who played a key role in Republican politics in California.  He never forgot a face.  At one time, his relationships ran so deep and he was so entrenched that it was nearly impossible for other Republican polling firms to obtain significant partisan business in the State.  However, clients did not just blindly return to Steve because of his relationships with them.  The business world is much tougher than that.  Steve’s clients returned to him time after time because his methodology was solid, his numbers were always accurate, and they knew he was going to tell them the truth, even if it hurt.  “Sugarcoating” things was not in his nature.

Cancer may have finally taken Steve’s earthly body, but the prospect of death never defeated his passionate spirit.  Even in his final days, he was still following the example of Christ and thinking of others more than himself.  His primary concern was not his own physical pain or suffering.  It was the emotional pain and suffering of those he was about to leave behind, his wife Cindy chief among them.  If he were here reading this, he would want everyone to know that his suffering has ended, and he would ask everyone to pray for Cindy as she walks the road ahead without him.  This is the powerful example Stephen M. Kinney set for me, and this is the way I will always remember him.  Goodbye old friend.

Steve loved his wife Cindy, politics, golf, travel, running, cooking, and great California wines, and will always be remembered as a kind and loving person by his friends.  His faith was also very important to him.

Steve joined Public Opinion Strategies in April 1999 and for the last fourteen years has run the firm’s California office.  He worked in western politics for nearly 40 years, including as an RNC Regional Political Director, a consultant, and a pollster with Portland-based Moore Information.

Steve’s clients were a who’s who of California politics, including Governor George Deukmejian, Governor Pete Wilson, State Treasurer Matt Fong, and many others.  Steve worked extensively with state candidates, legislative candidates, and statewide/local initiative campaigns.  Steve had conducted research in more than half of California’s assembly and senate districts.  He also did extensive work in the field of corporate and public affairs.

Born and raised in New Mexico, Steve served in the U.S. Air Force from 1962 to 1966.

We love Steve and will miss him immensely.

A service will be held on Tuesday, June 4 at 1:00 pm at:
St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church
301 Avenue D
Redondo Beach, California 90277

Donations in Steve’s name may be made to:

Sterling College
125 W. Cooper
Sterling, KS 67579

St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church
301 Avenue D
Redondo Beach, California 90277

Glen Bolger was quoted in The Fix about how Republicans should move forward in response to these investigations.

USA Today quoted Bill McInturff in an article about where the Affordable Care Act stands three years after it was signed into law.

As other recent polls have shown, concern about improving education cuts across party lines with 76% of Republicans, 78% of Independents and 89% of Democrats naming education either a top or a high priority.

And, it does not look like Americans are willing to give the country’s leaders an easy final exam in this policy area.  According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center earlier this month, two-thirds (66%) of Americans agree that the education system needs to be completely rebuilt (21%) or needs major changes (45%).  For comparison, just two issues rank ahead of education in terms of issue areas that need major reform: immigration policy (75% rebuilt/major changes) and the tax system (72%).

Again, these broad views about the state of America’s schools are shared by voters across the political spectrum, with 65% of Republicans, 67% of Independents and 67% of Democrats saying the education system should be rebuilt or needs major changes.

Though there are no CliffsNotes to help Congress and the president ace this test, they should take note of developments at the state level.  Public Opinion Strategies’ analysis of the 2013 State of the State speeches reveals that one-in-four (25%) proposals from America’s governors related to education issues, more than any other policy area.  It is clear that leaders at the state level are honing in on the importance of this issue and developing new and creative ideas to address Americans’ concern about the quality of public education.  Next month, I’ll take a closer look at voter reaction to some of the governors’ education proposals.

This positive sentiment was not unwarranted – the president was coming off a laundry list of notable achievements including the killing of Osama bin Laden, the intervention in Libya, ending US military engagement in Iraq, successful targeted attacks against al-Qaeda, and promoting the spread of democracy during the Arab Spring.

However, at the dawn of his second term, this sentiment is transforming with the emergence of a new set of challenges and threats extending outside our borders.  In December 2012, according to a NBC/WSJ poll, Obama’s job approval on foreign policy issues was a strong net positive, 52% approve- 40% disapprove.  Yet, after months of diplomatic challenges ranging from nuclear tests in North Korea, chemical weapons in Syria and reignited debate over the Benghazi attacks, Americans are now split over the President’s ability to navigate these issues (46% approve – 43% disapprove).  As noted in the chart below, this is his lowest level of approval on foreign policy issues tested since coming into office in 2009.

The shift has come mainly from Independent voters.  In December, Independents gave the president good marks on his foreign policy agenda, 48% approve-42% disapprove.  However, in the most recent polling these numbers have shifted dramatically, 37% approve-53% disapprove.  Looking at key contributors to his re-election efforts, we also see a drop in his foreign policy approval numbers among Democrats (83% approve in December to 78% in April 2013), self-identified liberals (82% in December to 69% in April 2013), and women (57% in December to 45% in April 2013).

As the foreign disputes become more pronounced, Americans want to see the President is firmly in charge of the situation.  The data indicates the opposite – confidence in the Administration’s ability declines as tensions and issues become more heightened.

To better understand some of the underlying reasons behind Obama’s recent drop in foreign policy approval, let’s look at some of the shifting opinions in key conflict zones.

NORTH KOREA

In the past, Kim Jong Il used North Korean provocation for aid and oil from allied nations.  However, the motives and intentions of his successor, Kim Jong Un, in North Korea’s latest act of aggression are largely unknown – making his heightened rhetoric against the U.S. more worrisome.  Consider some of his actions in 2013 alone: he threatened nuclear attack on the U.S. through a nationally distributed propaganda video, re-declared a state of war with South Korea, began construction again at the Yongbyon nuclear site to enrich uranium, barred South Korean workers from entering the shared industrial complex with the north, repositioned missiles to the coast and conducted a third nuclear test amid near universal condemnation.

Perhaps for these reasons, 83% of Americans view North Korea as a critical threat, according to polling conducted by Gallup in February prior to the third nuclear test.  However, what has become more alarming is the urgency of the perceived threat.  According to a CNN/ORC poll conducted in April, 41% of Americans feel as though North Korea presents an “immediate threat,” and as seen on the chart below, that is at the highest level tested by more than 13-points.

Although only 28% of Americans believe North Korea would attack the U.S. in the next 6 months (Gallup, April 2013), additional polling by Pew Research Center stated that a plurality of Americans, 47%, believe North Korea’s leadership is willing to follow through on its threat to use nuclear weapons.   41% of Americans felt the threats lack merit.   Moreover, in the same poll, when asked if North Korea had the capability of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the U.S., 47% believed that they were indeed capable – perhaps a contributing factor in Americans’ new sense of urgency in addressing the North Korean hostility.

North Korean aggression has been developing for decades.  However there is now diminishing optimism that the situation can be successfully resolved using only economic and diplomatic efforts.  For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, do NOT feel the situation can be resolved through diplomacy.  Only 46% believe diplomatic measures can be successful.

While military involvement is always a last resort, a clear justification for military engagement by the U.S. against North Korea arises if they attack South Korea.  According to the CNN/ORC poll, six-in-ten Americans, 61%, support military action if South Korea is attacked – a sentiment that reaches strong majorities across all political parties.  Interestingly, even among South Koreans, where threats from North Korea are commonplace, there is concern about the most recent nuclear test.  An Asian Institute for Policy Studies poll of 1,000 South Koreans conducted in February following the nuclear test found 63% felt insecure (although only 22% of South Koreans support military action).

After deploying missile defense systems to Guam ahead of schedule, performing a military exercise using two stealth bombers, and expediting the delivery of ballistic-missile interceptors on the U.S. west coast, there have been clear indicators that the U.S. is actively addressing these threats.  But from a diplomatic perspective, the Administration must answer: are the recent North Korean actions a hollow threat designed to be used as a bargaining chip or is a naïve, unproven young leader attempting to misguidedly flex his militaristic muscle?

SYRIA

The two-year conflict in Syria is not a top of mind issue for most Americans.  According to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll from April, 60% of Americans admit they do not follow the news about the ongoing violence in Syria too closely.  Only a mere 10% of Americans indicate they follow news coverage “very closely.”

However, after Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recently announced with “varying degrees of confidence” that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against its own people, and that the level of U.S. involvement would need to be re-evaluated.  If Assad did in fact use chemical weapons, this action would violate President Obama’s stated warning that any use of chemical weapons would elicit a military response from the U.S.

Despite this “red line” warning from Obama, any attempt to send arms or military supplies to anti-government groups in Syria would be met with significant opposition from many in the U.S. and its Western Allies.  According to a Pew Research Center Poll from March, 64% of Americans oppose sending arms into the country, while only 25% support such an action.   Our European allies share equal opposition to the U.S. or their own countries sending in arms as Britain (57% oppose), Turkey (65%), France (69%), and Germany (82%) all express opposition.  Of Arab nations bordering Syria, only Jordan (65% support) expresses support for arms being funneled to anti-government groups.

Mainly, however, the U.S. appears to view the situation in Syria as an internal conflict, as 62% of Americans say the U.S. does not have a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria (CBS News/New York Times Poll).  Moving forward, the Obama administration will need to evaluate the commitment of the “red line” warning to Assad against the backdrop of significant opposition to further U.S. involvement.

We are undoubtedly faced with substantial questions in these conflict areas.  In North Korea, how far is a leader like Kim Jong Un willing to go if continued provocations do not elicit a response to his satisfaction?  In Syria, what measures are on the table if Syria continues use of chemical weapons on its own people?  These areas of unrest are rife with uncertainty and require the Administration to navigate these tumultuous diplomatic waters with the nuanced precision of a neurosurgeon.   The unpredictable nature and motivation of leaders in these areas creates a difficult course for President Obama.  He will need to lean on the foreign policy accomplishments of his first term to face this new set of challenges and reassure the general public that his Administration has a steady hand and firm control of rapidly evolving, highly sensitive problems that affect the US and global stability.

After the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, Gallup asked the following question: “How worried are you that you or someone in your family will become a victim of a terrorist attack similar to the bombing in Oklahoma City?” 

Four days after that terrible attack, around four-in-ten (42%) adults were worried that they or a family member could become a victim of a terrorist attack.  Intensity was soft; a mere fourteen percent responded they were very worried about becoming a victim.  As far as I can ascertain, April 1995 was the first time this question was asked.   

Just after the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics in late July of 1996, Gallup/CNN/USA went into the field and asked nearly the same question, of course replacing “Oklahoma City” with “Atlanta.”  The results almost mirrored attitudes from a year before.  Thirty eight percent (38%) were worried about becoming a victim, with only eleven percent very worried.  This data are surprising, as one would expect fear of becoming a victim of terrorism to spike after an attack.

Indeed, numbers did show dramatic change after the September 11^th terrorist attacks. From April 1995 through May 2001 (seven data points), on average one third of adults were worried about becoming a victim of a terrorist attack and one-in-ten were very worried.  But when Gallup asked the question on the evening of September 11, 2001, results showed almost sixty percent (58%) were worried about becoming victims, with nearly one quarter (23%) very worried.  Not surprisingly, given the timing of the survey, these results were the highest since the question has been asked.

The fear of being a victim faded over the decade and attitudes have been consistent since. Results from Gallup/CNN/USA Today over the last ten years show that approximately forty percent of adults are worried about becoming a victim of terrorism and about ten percent of adults are very worried. These numbers show a return to pre-September 11^th levels.

So, what impact did the events in Boston on have on attitudes? Apparently, very little. Americans show an unchanged level of anxiety about the potential impact of a terrorist attack on their own lives, with 40% worried and 13% very worried. 

Americans’ fears of being a victim of a terrorist attack have remained largely unchanged over the past eighteen years. And despite recent tragedies, a majority of Americans do not live in fear.

This post highlights data from two surveys:  1) Public Opinion Strategies/Ciruli Associates – Vernon K. Krieble Foundation March 2013 National Survey; and, 2) ABC News/Washington Post April 2013 National Survey.

First, our poll clearly shows that American voters see border control and a guest worker program as being intrinsically linked in a positive way.  In fact, seventy-one percent (71%) of voters said they agreed with the following statement: “The best way to get control of our border is to have a system for handling guest workers.  Without a guest worker program, we are just inviting more illegal border crossings.”  In essence, voters are saying that they believe America cannot effectively secure its border if border control is not accompanied by a functioning guest worker program.  Republicans (67%), Independents (63%), and Democrats (78%) are all in agreement with this strong statement tying the two issues together.

Therefore, it is not surprising that roughly seven out of ten voters (69%) nationally said they favor “a guest worker program that would give work permits to people who are already in the U.S. illegally who pass a security background check and have a job.”  Further, more than a third of the voters we interviewed (35%) said they would “strongly” favor this type of a guest worker program.  Self-identified Democratic voters were the strongest supporters (82% favor), but more than two-thirds (70%) of Independent voters and a solid majority (54%) of Republican voters also counted themselves as supporters.

When asked a little bit differently on the recent ABC News/Washington Post Survey, 60% of the respondents said they would support “more visas for highly skilled workers from other countries,” and fifty-six percent (56%) said they would support “a guest worker program for low-skilled workers from other countries.”  It is important to note that the poll conducted by ABC News/Washington Post made no mention of security background checks or the immigrants already having a job, and the numbers were still quite strong.

Looking in greater detail at a specific guest worker program, the Public Opinion Strategies/Ciruli Associates poll tested a six-part guest worker program.  The two most popular aspects of six-part guest worker program are the two which could be most easily associated with helping secure our borders.   First, guest workers would need to “pass a security background check and have a job” (90% favor) and, second, “workers would receive a work permit smart card that includes a photograph of the worker, employment information, and biometric data such as fingerprints” (85% favor).

The table below shows all six components of the guest worker program as tested:

Overall, when packaged as one six-part proposal, roughly eight in ten voters (79%) support the establishment of this guest worker program.  Support is significantly high across party with (74%) of Republicans, (88%) of Democrats, and sixty-eight percent (68%) of Independents in the support column.

The guest worker program, despite not being discussed nearly as much as some of the other more popular catchphrases, is indeed an item that Americans see as a crucial element in any meaningful and lasting immigration reform plan.

BusinessWire discussed the results of a national health care survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.