Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Today must be the day for PPP polls -  here is one on the GOP race for 2012 President.

• Mike Hucakbee – 18%
• Mitt Romney – 18%
• Newt Gingrich – 15%
• Sarah Palin – 14%
• Ron Paul – 8%
• Tim Pawlenty – 4%
• Mitch Daniels – 3%
• John Thune – 2%

But, it is a bad poll for Mitt Romney and a good one for Mike Huckabee (if Huck runs).

New Jersey may or may not end up being important to the Republican nomination process but either way this continues the trend in our recent 2012 polling…more good news for Huckabee, more bad news for Romney. If there’s anywhere that Romney should really be strong it’s the northeast but he’s polling ten points behind the 28% he got there in 2008. Huckabee’s peformance meanwhile shows strength for him outside his home base in the South and it’s ten points better than the 8% he got there last time around.

In addition to its geography New Jersey also ought to be a good state for Romney because it has one of the more moderate Republican electorates in the country. In most states we’ve been polling more than 70% of GOP primary voters describe themselves as conservatives but it’s only 60% in New Jersey. But Romney can’t take advantage of that because he’s in fourth place with conservatives at 14% behind Huckabee’s 21%, Gingrich’s 17%, and Palin’s 16%. Romney is indeed way up with moderates at 24% with no one else doing any better than 13%. But that’s only enough to balance out his poor performance with conservatives relative to Huckabee. Romney’s really in trouble for next year if he can’t do a lot to improve his standing with the right wing of the party over the course of 2011.

The full poll is here (Pdf)

The latest North Carolina PPP poll is out and President Obama is making a comeback.

Barack Obama’s popularity rise has come to North Carolina. For the first time since December of 2009 PPP finds more voters in the state approving than disapproving of him, at a 49/47 spread.

Increased optimism about the economy in the state is helping Obama’s revival. Last March a majority of voters in the state at 51% felt their personal economic situation had gotten worse since Obama took office compared to only 10% who thought it had improved. Now the portion feeling things have gotten worse for them is down to 47% and the one thinking things have gotten better is up to 16% with 37% expressing the sentiment that there’s been no change for them since the President was inaugurated.

In addition to voters reflecting more positively now on what has happened with the economy over the last two years, they’re also more optimistic about where things are going to be a year from now.

Obama’s popularity gain has been fueled by moderate voters.

A year ago his approval rating with moderates was 59%. Now it’s up to 69%. This improvement in his standing, along with the lukewarm reaction of voters in the state to the leading 2012 Republican Presidential contenders, has him in position to repeat his surprise North Carolina victory from 2008. He leads the four most likely GOP contenders at this point by margins ranging anywhere from 3 to 9 points in this month’s poll.

Without winning North Carolina, the Republican nominee for President will have a very tough time defeating the incumbent President as this map and analysis shows. 21 months from the general election is a long time in Presidential politics and the margin of victory for Obama is small and certainly not unrecoverable for the GOP.

Here are the polling results:

• Obama – 47% Vs. Romney – 44%
• Obama – 49% Vs. Huckabee – 45%
• Obama – 50% Vs. Gingrich – 44%
• Obama – 50% Vs. Palin – 41%

The full poll is here (Pdf)

Way to go California – tax us twice.

In more than four dozen cities and counties across California, the question of how much being involved in a car accident will cost motorists depends on more than just the extent of the damages or whether anyone was injured. It also depends on where they live.

Out-of-towners get billed for the cost of sending firefighters to the scene; for locals, that service is covered as part of the local taxes they pay.

The fee is levied on out-of-town motorists regardless of who is at fault — even if an out-of-towner is involved in an accident in which a local driver is at fault.

The trend is being fueled by private collection firms that offer to handle the billing and collection for a percentage of the emergency response fees, and is promoted as a means for cash-strapped local governments to recover some of the costs for services they have traditionally provided as a basic element of public safety.

Critics call it a “crash tax” — and Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, is out to put a stop to it.

Strickland has introduced legislation, SB 49, that would prohibit local agencies from “charging a fee to any person, regardless of residence, for the expense of an emergency response,” unless drunken driving, gross negligence or intentionally illegal conduct is involved.

“It’s nothing more than a double tax,” Strickland said, noting that local agencies are always eager to have out-of-towners visit or shop in their jurisdictions so that they can collect sales taxes and hotel bed taxes.

This legislation needs to pass and pass as an emergency measure so it takes effect when the Governor signs the bill.

Why?

I’ll be driving through California on vacation and some truck or car hits me and causes an accident. They, however, live/work in the area and they go after me financially for the Fire Department response to the accident.

Nice. I get to pay taxes like everyone else to pay into the state, my county, my city. Yet, when I travel outside my cocoon and someone else causes an accident I get stuck with the bill.

No way.

Here is the text of the bill:

BILL NUMBER: SB 49 INTRODUCED BILL

TEXT INTRODUCED BY Senator Strickland

DECEMBER 15, 2010

An act to add Section 53159.5 to the Government Code, relating to local government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 49, as introduced, Strickland. Local government: emergency response: fees.

Existing law authorizes public agencies, as defined, to hold liable any person who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, or the combination of an alcoholic beverage and any drug, whose negligent operation of a motor vehicle, a boat or vessel, or a civil aircraft caused by that influence proximately causes any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response, and any person whose intentionally wrongful conduct proximately causes an incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response, for the expense of that emergency response.

This bill would prohibit a city, including a charter city, county, district, municipal corporation, or public authority from charging a fee to any person, regardless of residency, for the expense of an emergency response, as specified, except where a fee is otherwise authorized.

The bill would also express a legislative finding and declaration that the availability and use of emergency response resources throughout the state is an issue of statewide concern and not a municipal affair and that, therefore, all cities, including charter cities, would be subject to the provisions of the bill.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 53159.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:

53159.5. (a) A city, including a charter city, county, district, municipal corporation, or public authority shall not, except as otherwise authorized by law, charge a fee to any person, regardless of residency, for the expense of an emergency response.

(b) For purposes of this section, emergency response includes, but is not limited to, fire, police, or medical response.

SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that the availability and use of emergency response resources throughout the state is an issue of statewide concern and not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this act shall apply to all cities, including charter cities.

Watch the legislative status and the history of the bill here.

More triangulation by the left-wing President who moves to the right.

Pursuing a path of deficit reduction and government reform, President Obama will tonight in his State of the Union address call for a ban on earmarks and he will propose an overall budget freeze, ABC News has learned.

The proposals come as the president prepares to tackle the deficit and debt and as he faces a House of Representatives in Republican hands, many of whose members include those affiliated with the Tea Party who may be willing to embrace both moves.

The president will propose some new spending in certain areas that address the speech’s theme of “How We Win the Future”: innovation, education and infrastructure. But those increases will be proposed as part of an overall budget freeze, which given the annual rate of growth is often seen in Washington, DC, budgeting as a cut.

The FY 2011 budget was $3.8 trillion. Last year President Obama proposed a three-year hard freeze on non-security discretionary spending, to save $250 billion over the next decade; this would be much broader.

A little too little and a little too late, especially for the 62 Democratic Representatives that lost their seats in the House last November. President Obama has never vetoed any spending bill, nor has he vetoed any earmark containing spending bill. And, the President will propose additonal spending tonight.

I guess Obama is finally acknowledging the Tea Party but this proposal is WEAK TEA.

The but is that it depends upon what President Obama does in the next few months. The headline from CNN is incorrect, since Rudy does not doubt Palin can beat Obama – it just depends. For example, if the stock market were to crash and there are massive layoffs, I could see the public blaming the President.

Is this scenario likely? 

Probably not.

With the President surging in the polls and with the GOP better positioned in the Congress, there will be no sense of urgency for American voters to throw out the incumbent President. Sarah Palin is very young for a Presidential candidate and there is no urgency for her to run and then lose in the general election.

It is probably better to say at this point that it may be doubtful for ANY Republican nominee to beat Obama, including Sarah Palin.

I have always maintained that Sarah Palin could beat Mitt Romney in a GOP Presidential primary race, but why bother if your chances of beating Obama are diminished because of the incumbency factor and racial politics.

Better for Sarah to keep her powder dry for a run in 2016 or later. She has plenty of time.

A New Hampshire President 2012 primary election poll from yesterday.

• Romney – 33.51%
• Huckabee – 13.83%
• Palin – 12.77%
• Gingrich – 8.62%
• Pawlenty – 5.21%
• Daniels – 1.60%
• Santorum – 1.28%
• Barbour – 0.96%
• Thune – 0.21%
• Other/Undecided – 22.02%

Another poll from Strategic National which is not a well known national pollster, so take it with a skeptical spin. No surprise here since evryone expects Mitt Romney to win the New Hampshire primary election and other Republican candidates will more than likely make only perfunctory/obligatory trips to the state to campaign.

Strategic National surveyed a random sample of typical New Hampshire Republican primary voters.  The statewide, automated poll had a total of 940 respondents, 52% female and 48% male.  It was conducted on January 19, 2010, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

A new GOP Presidential Iowa Caucus poll is out this morning.

• Huckabee – 27.56%
• Romney – 18.54%
• Undecided – 17.56%
• Palin -  12.44%
• Gingrich-  12.20%
• Pawlenty -  4.39%
• Bachmann – 3.66%
• Thune – 1.95%
• Santorum -  0.98%
• Other/Undecided – 0.49%
• Barbour -  0.24%

This poll looks a little sketchy and since Mike Huckabee will not be declaring a candidacy until later in the year (if he does at all), I wouild say it is pretty much worthless.

Strategic National surveyed a random sample of typical Iowa caucus goers.  The statewide, automated poll had a total of 410 respondents, 52% female and 48% male.  It was conducted on January 18, 2010, and has a margin of error of +/- 4.8%.