I typically receive four morning emails with political news and analysis.   There’s usually something smart or helpful in each.   Today’s First Read email from the smart people (which doesn’t mean they are always right, but they are usually interesting) in NBC’s Political shop (led by the now famous Chuck Todd — I knew him back when) included the following line on the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings:

Watching the Senate Republicans’ opening statements yesterday (save for Lindsey Graham’s), it seemed clear that — at least politically — they realize there’s a bigger penalty being FOR Sotomayor than being AGAINST her. This is a non-election year, and any Republican seen defending her at this point might find themselves under siege from conservatives on talk radio or on TV. Of course, Democrats wonder if the Senate Republicans will go too far in their questioning (see Sessions vs. Sotomayor today), and whether that could cause pain at the ballot box next year. One Democrat even thinks the phrase, “and even voted against Justice Sotomayor” could be an effective TV or radio ad tagline. We’ll see. Bottom line: We’re watching Senate Republicans having to play base politics over Sotomayor in the same way Democrats felt pressure to do the same with Roberts and Alito.

While I might quibble with some of the language (such as “having to play base politics”), theire analysis is essentially correct.  They even show the appropriate amount of skepticism about the Democrat believing that “and even voted against Justice Sotomayor” could be effective in an ad.   That is a Democrat spending too much time inside the Beltway, and not enough time realizing that the Supreme Court Justice with the highest unaided name ID is Clarence Thomas, with 14% able to name him off the top of their head.  Only 46% of 2008 general election voters could name a Supreme Court Justice (I could name seven!).   Indeed, I would urge consultants on the Dem side to plan on spending massive budget amounts on this issue!

Republicans would pay a much higher price among conservatives for voting for Sonia Sotomayor than they will among swing voters by voting against her.  This is NOT a plea to vote against her — just a simple analysis.  Having tested her image on some primary surveys, her negatives among GOP primary voters approach 50%, while her favorables don’t top 20%.

Regular readers of the blog know that I focus on the need for the GOP to do much better with swing voters — I often urge candidates to focus on Independents.  However, on this issue, swing voters aren’t likely to remember this issue after the hoopla dies down, much less in the voting booth.

The Sotomayor vote for Republican Senators is the equivalent of the pro-stimulus package vote that forced Arlen Specter from the GOP.  Having done polling for the Senator for more than one dozen years (including his tight 2004 primary election), I can vouchsafe that he never was fully trusted by the GOP base.  However, they generally put up with him.  However, the economic stimulus package yes vote ended whatever goodwill was left.   Specter was left in an untenable position with the base and was left with no choice but to switch parties in order to have a chance to win election to a Pennsylvania record sixth term (his five terms already is a record — you may not agree with Senator Specter, but he is a very able politician in a purple state that is much more blue than red).

Most GOP Senators have not strained their relations with their base like Specter had already done prior to the stimulus vote.  However, given Sotomayor’s numbers with primary voting Republicans, the potential for harm by voting for her is greater than any political damage a thoughtful, well-reasoned, non-personal no vote will muster.

Besides, given then-Senator Barack Obama’s votes against Justices Roberts and Alito, and the non-controversy that has stirred in the press, it would be very hypocritical of the media and the Democrats to make a fuss over Republicans voting no based on concerns over Sotomayor’s liberal bias.  The Democrats have made ideology a yardstick for measuring Supreme Court nominees, and the GOP base knows it.

This article was co-authored by Bill McInturff and Alex Bratty.

If you’ve been following the ins-and-outs of the health care debate and reading some of the recent articles regarding public attitudes towards the proposal for a public plan you might be a little confused about what it is people really want. And rightly so, for there are many numbers floating around out there and some fail to capture the complexity of the issue.

In our recent NBC/WSJ poll* we asked a series of questions on the issue of health care, specifically designed to cover the various angles of the debate.

Sure, when asked the importance of having the choice of both a public plan and a private plan for their health insurance three-quarters (76%) of Americans say this is “extremely” or “quite important.” But, pause for a moment and ask yourself this question: Is this a surprising answer for a country that prides itself on wanting more choices? Of course not. Whether it’s health care or some other issue, in general, Americans favor choice every time.

The point is you have to dig a little deeper to find out what people worry about. As with many public policy issues, the rub comes when people feel it might personally impact them in an adverse way – yes, that familiar “Not-In-My-Backyard” or “NIMBY” effect.

First, consider the concern among Americans who already have private health insurance (59% of our survey respondents). Asked if a public plan administered by the federal government was created and available to all Americans, how likely they think it is their employer would drop their current health coverage, almost half (47%) of these privately insured adults said they thought it would be “very” or “somewhat” likely. (32% think it is “not too” or “not at all” likely.)

Next, consider the concern about how we’re going to pay for the trillion dollar health plan Obama is proposing. Not surprisingly, a majority can live with the options that don’t seem to directly affect them: Requiring everyone to have health insurance – those who can afford it buy their own, those who can’t get government assistance (62% acceptable); raising taxes on people who earn more than $250,000 per year (62% acceptable).

The margins get smaller at the thought of requiring all small businesses to offer coverage or pay a percentage of their payroll to the government (55% acceptable, 37% unacceptable); and things get shaky at the suggestion of reducing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to doctors (47% acceptable, 46% unacceptable). But, the rubber really hits the road when Americans see a potential direct impact. The idea of requiring people to pay taxes on their benefits is roundly rejected, whether those taxes are on a portion of only the most generous plans (59% unacceptable) or for everyone to pay on all private plans (70% unacceptable).

So you see, while Obama’s proposed plan has initial support (55%), once we get into the details and how it might personally impact people – especially the majority who currently have private health insurance – the picture changes dramatically. Americans become less certain about their options if it could mean potentially losing their existing coverage, or taxing their benefits.

*National survey of 1,008 adults conducted June 12-15, 2009
(Public Opinion Strategies partners with Peter D. Hart Research Associates to conduct the NBC/WSJ polls. Neither Peter D. Hart Research Associates nor NBC/WSJ are responsible for these conclusions.)

Winning the Independent vote isn’t the only reason Barack Obama won the presidential election last year, but it is certainly one of the key factors. Indeed, he carried this important sub-group by eight points (52% Obama, 44% McCain), and until recently Independents have been staunch supporters of the president.

However, our recent NBC/WSJ poll* shows Independents may be experiencing some buyers’ remorse on their 2008 vote decision. Among the 26% of respondents who consider themselves strictly independent or identify with some other party than Republicans or Democrats, the president’s key ratings have dropped considerably since April.

First, consider the standard measure of job approval. In April, Independents gave President Obama a two-to-one approval rating (60% approve, 31% disapprove). In June, this has become a split decision with 46% saying they approve and 44% saying they disapprove of the job Obama is doing.

Next, consider the president’s personal ratings – an area where Obama has received extraordinarily high marks from various sub-groups over the past few months. In April 63% of Independents had a positive opinion of the President while 23% had a negative opinion. By mid-June that rating had dropped to 49% positive, 35% negative.

This shift among Independents seems to be coming from a variety of sources:

• A sizeable proportion (42%) perceive the president as taking on too many issues and not focused enough on the most important ones;
• Just 33% say they feel “extremely” or “quite” confident Obama has the right set of goals and policies to improve the economy, (compared to 45% overall); and,
• Majorities say they oppose the President’s recent decisions to provide financial aid to GM (62%), to order the closure of Guantanamo Bay (61%), and eliminate procedures such as waterboarding to get information from terrorists (52%).

This data would suggest the more Independents learn about Obama and his policies the less they like what they see, thereby creating an obvious opportunity for Republicans. And, here’s the good news – Republicans are already focused on what Independents care about most. After job creation and economic growth (55%), this important voter bloc wants the deficit and government spending to be addressed (42%). Republicans need to keep holding the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress accountable for their spending, and offering alternative solutions for Americans.