President Obama's polarization is commanding much of the conversation this week in domestic politics. The Pew Research Center sparked the issue after issuing a report noting Obama's 61-point partisan gap, the difference between the muscular approval of Democrats and the puny approval of Republicans. In Pew's polling, that's 10 points more partisan than George W. Bush at the same period in his presidency.

The Bush and Obama contrast overstates the point however. Obama is not significantly more partisan than Bush. But Obama is as partisan as Bush and that fact strikes many as new and notable.

Perhaps it shouldn't. I wrote here about three weeks ago that, "the public's approval of Barack Obama breaks along stark partisan lines, mimicking George W. Bush at the same point in his presidency." It was indeed clear within weeks of Obama's presidency that he would not escape the gravity that grounded Clinton and Bush. Obama was, as I wrote here in February, a president roughly as popular as his recent predecessors and less popular than many infant presidencies from an earlier era.

The polarized view of Obama is only newsworthy because transcending partisanship was the theme of his campaign. Obama set a standard for himself that many veteran Democrats, like his secretary of state, were skeptical of last year.

This leaves us with a president who pledged to bridge what he thus far has not. But some perspective is also required.

Obama is not splitting Democrats and Republicans significantly more than Bush. Pew's comparable Bush numbers come from its mid-April 2001 poll, which notably had 36 percent of Democrats approving of W.

We know from Gallup polling, carried out far more often than Pew, that Bush's best standing with Democrats before the September 11 attacks was 37 percent. In other words, the 36-point Pew statistic was at Bush's early peak with the opposing party.

Here is a better, though still imperfect, metric to gauge the political opposition's distaste for Bush and Obama. Gallup averages its data weekly. There have been 11 weekly averages of Obama's approval between January 19 and April 5. When I averaged those together, Obama had a GOP approval of 31 percent. Gallup polled less frequently in Bush's early years. Therefore, I averaged Democrats approval of Bush in Gallup's seven polls from February 1 to April 8, 2001. Bush had a 32.43 average Democratic approval. In short: 1.43 percentage points separate the opposing party's view of Bush and Obama--that's squat in statistics.

If one follows this methodology to calculate Democrats' approval of Obama and Republicans' approval of Bush, there is an even smaller difference (89.5 Democratic approval for Obama compared to 88.9 Republican approval for Bush).

That means, the more accurate partisan gap score is: Obama at 58.5 and Bush at 56.43.  That is a difference without distinction.

That Obama has proven unable to turn America back to less partisan eras certainly resonates with Obama's skeptics. Party divisions are far deeper than rhetoric or personality. They regard issues, lifestyle, demographics and worldview. These divisions have deepened in recent decades due to gerrymandering of Congressional districts, that conservative southerners migrated from the blue to red party and many northeastern moderate Republicans went from red to blue, that partisans are increasingly reading ever-more partisan news and the remarkable pattern in recent decades of Americans more often socializing with likeminded Americans.

Obama's mandate will depend on the middle more than the right flank. But as long as the public and press remember that he once pledged to woo that right flank, his public appeal will always seem not quite what he promised. And as Obama's advisors know, political success is always a game of expectations.

UPDATE: With 99% of precincts reporting: Quigley (D) 69%, Pulido (R) 24%, Reichel (G) 7%.

Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley (D) was declared the winner tonight of the special election to replace Rahm Emanuel as representative of Illinois's 5th Congressional District. With two-thirds of precincts reporting by 9 p.m. ET, 70 percent had chosen Quigley, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Quigley's place in Congress was all but confirmed when he won the Democratic primary last month. President Obama won the district in November with 73 percent of the vote.

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine released a statement shortly after the Associated Press had called the race for Quigley:

"I'm honored to congratulate Mike Quigley on his election to the United States House of Representatives where he will be another ally of President Obama's in the effort to rebuild our economy and bring change to Washington. Mike's record of service as Cook County Commissioner and his dedication to fiscal responsibility and government reform have more than prepared him to take on the challenges we face today. Mike will be a tireless advocate for the people of Illinois' fifth congressional district, and I look forward to working alongside him to help secure legislation that supports President Obama's vision for our country."

(more...)

Don't expect President Obama to leave the world stage with a significant bounce.

Public opinion tracking and past presidential trips overseas leave little indication the president will return from his first extended trip abroad with more political capital at home.

Despite heavy U.S. media coverage of the president's overseas trip, there has been no significant shift in tracking polls by either Gallup or Rasmussen over the past week. Gallup's latest tracking from Saturday to Monday has Obama at a 61 percent approval rating, where he has generally remained since he left for Europe last week. Rasmussen's latest daily tracking poll also shows Obama roughly static over the past week, holding at 58 percent approval on Tuesday.

Presidents have historically returned from big trips abroad with about the same political capital as when they left, based on a RealClearPolitics review of Gallup polling before and after a dozen major presidential trips since the end of World War II. At best, some presidents bounce about 5 points in the public's view, as with Richard Nixon and George W. Bush's first overseas meetings.

Generally however, from Harry Truman at the Potsdam Conference to John F. Kennedy and later Ronald Reagan's historic speeches in Berlin, to Nixon's trip to China and Bill Clinton's trip to Europe amid scandal at home, Americans' views of presidents are largely unfazed by news of their commander-in-chief overseas.

We know that Truman's approval remained in the 80s from the summer to autumn of 1945, vaulted by the conclusion of World War II. Kennedy came into his historic West Berlin speech on June 26, 1963, with a 61 percent approval rating, where it precisely stood a month later.  Slightly less than half of Americans approved of Lyndon Johnson before he went to Vietnam in late December 1967; Americans felt the same after Johnson returned.

Like Obama, Nixon took an extended trip to Europe early in his presidency. Nixon's approval looks to have risen from 60 to 65 percent, improving his image across party lines.  Nixon's later trip to China in 1972 showed no statistically significant gain.

Jimmy Carter certainly saw no bounce from images, later regretted, of him toasting the Shah in Iran at the close of 1977. Reagan saw no bounce from his 1985 meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva. His famous Berlin Wall speech two years later may have briefly improved his image a few points to 53 percent, only for it to fizzle a week later below the 50-point mark--where Reagan began the trip.

More recently, Clinton achieved no bounce after his five-day trip from Russia to Northern Ireland in early September 1998, when still more than six in ten Americans approved of him despite scandal at home.

By mid 2006, as George W. Bush's popularity had sunk to 38 percent, Bush went abroad for two European summits that summer. Neither trip impacted his popularity. Bush's first trip abroad to Mexico, in February 2001, did likely achieve a mild 5-point bounce.

A president's inability to advance his standing at home is only one metric of his success abroad, and hardly the best one. World trips, after all, aim to improve the world's opinion of the United States (outside diplomatic substance, of course). And Americans believe Obama accomplished that aim. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that nearly eight in ten Americans believe his tour abroad has improved the world's view of the United States.

But for Obama, who returns home from Baghdad to legislative battles in Congress, his political capital will likely be no more powerful than when he left for London last week.

President Obama's 66% approval rating set a new high for him in the CBS/New York Times poll (April 1-5, 998 A, MoE +/- 3%), up from 64% in March and 63% in February.

Having just finished his European tour, 67% believe world leaders respect Obama. CBS/NYT last asked this question of a president in July 2006, when just 30% thought leaders of other countries respected President Bush.

More people (39%) now think the country is headed in the right direction than at any time in the last four years. Just 7% felt this way in October.

In Congress, 57% think Democrats are "more concerned about people like you," and 22% believe Republicans are. Similarly, 56% hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while Republicans hold a 31% favorable rating.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), already running ads for a primary that's more than a year away, appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today and shed some light on what his main argument will be against Club for Growth president Pat Toomey: electability.

"If Mr. Toomey is the nominee, you can be sure he'll lose," Specter said. "He's to the right of Rick Santorum. Santorum lost by 18 points, spent $31 million and was a two-term incumbent. And if Toomey is the nominee, there will be 60 Democrats. … If there's a Democrat in my place, they'll be able to do anything they want."

In 2006, Santorum outspent now-Sen. Bob Casey (D) by millions of dollars and still lost by 18 points. Democrats have also picked up five House seats from Pennsylvania since the 2006 election, and President Obama won what was supposed to be a battleground state by 11 points.

Asked whether he is paying for crossing party lines on bills such as the economic stimulus package, Specter said: "I know I am. Mr. Toomey was going to run for governor. When I voted for the stimulus, he saw an opening and has come into the Senate race.

"Had a very tough race with him last time, but it's a different year. It's a different year for him because of his background -- a Wall Street trader; was in the House of Representatives for six years, fought against deregulation… When you take a look at his record, he's been contributive to the problem. And now he wants a promotion; he wants a bonus like those AIG guys.”

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) appeared on "Morning Joe" shortly after Specter and noted the importance of the seat. "Hopefully he and Mr. Toomey don't cut each other up because we're going to need to hold on to Pennsylvania," said Cornyn.

Potential Pennsylvania Senate challenger Pat Toomey, president of Club for Growth and a former Republican congressman, responded today to Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-Pa.) TV ad and request for Toomey to disclose any contributors to his conservative group that had received TARP funds.

FactCheck.org analyzed Specter's ad last week and noted that it "misfires a few times." As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported, Specter was forced to change the wording of the ad -- it accused Toomey of selling credit default swaps, though such swaps had not yet been invented when Toomey worked on Wall Street during the 1980s.

Specter also sent a letter requesting the Club for Growth "disclose any contributors that had received federal funds under the controversial financial bailout legislation enacted in October," the Post-Gazette reported. A Toomey press release responds to the request, claiming "Specter has taken more money from AIG, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan Chase and other financial services companies than any other Pennsylvania member of congress in the last twenty years (Center for Responsive Politics)."

Toomey spokesman Mark Harris responds in a press release:

"Arlen Specter's bad poll numbers must be causing him hallucinations. Everything he attacks Pat Toomey with is either proven false by neutral analysts, or is something Specter himself has done. There isn't enough mud left in Pennsylvania for Specter to cover up the fact that he voted to spend billions of tax dollars to bail out Wall Street. He has pocketed millions from Wall Street firms, while Pat Toomey strongly opposes these bailouts."

NY Gov: If the election were today, New York Gov. David Paterson would get crushed in a Democratic primary with Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo, according to a Quinnipiac poll released today (April 1-5, 1528 RV, MoE +/- 2.5%).

Cuomo's lead over Paterson has grown from 32 points in February to 43 points in the latest survey. Paterson's approval rating has tanked, dropping to a dismal 28% -- Cuomo's has now hit 75%. In potential general election matchups, Rudy Giuliani (R) defeats Paterson by 21 points (they were tied in February), while Cuomo beats Giuliani by 17 points.

Dem Primary
Cuomo 61 (+6 vs. last poll, Feb. 17)
Paterson 18 (-5)
Und 17 (-3)

General Election
Giuliani 53 (+10 vs. last poll, Feb. 17)
Paterson 32 (-11)
Und 9 (-1)

Cuomo 53 (+2 vs. last poll, Feb. 17)
Giuliani 36 (-1)
Und 9 (nc)

NY Sen: In a potential 2010 Senate primary, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D) continues to lead appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), though her 10-point lead in February has shrunk to just 4 points. In a potential general election matchup with Rep. Peter King (R), Gillibrand's lead slips to 12 points.

After being in the Senate for just a few months, almost two-thirds of voters still haven't heard enough about Gillibrand to form an opinion of her. The same goes for King and McCarthy. A side note: Gillibrand announced this morning that her Senate campaign raised a healthy $2.3 million in the first quarter.

Dem Primary
McCarthy 33 (-1 vs. last poll, Feb. 17)
Gillibrand 29 (+5)
Und 33 (-6)

General Election
Gillibrand 40 (-2 vs. last poll Feb. 17)
King 28 (+2)
Und 28 (nc)

A new Mason Dixon poll conducted for the SayfieReview shows that Gov. Charlie Crist (R) would be a formidable candidate if he were to seek Florida's open U.S. Senate seat in 2010.

Half of Florida voters said they would consider voting for the first-term incumbent, should he seek the seat, with another 17 percent saying he would definitely have their vote. But 26 percent said they definitely would not vote for Crist, while 7 percent were undecided. Notably, 12 percent of Democrats said they would definitely vote for Crist, though the poll did not provide any matchups with potential candidates.

If Crist decides to run to replace Mel Martinez in the U.S. Senate, the poll finds Florida voters evenly split on who they'd like to see replace Crist as governor. The poll tested Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum and Democrat Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink as candidates.

General Election Matchup
McCollum 36
Sink 35
Undecided 29

McCollum had slightly stronger support among fellow Republicans than Sink showed among Democrats, though she does have a modest lead among independent voters, 40-34 percent.

Crist has not yet indicated whether he'll seek re-election or run for Senate. Rep. Connie Mack (R), thought to have been a likely Senate candidate before speculation grew about Crist, took himself out of the race just yesterday. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) is among the Democrats already running for Senate; he announced raising $1.5 million in the first quarter.

The poll tested 625 Florida registered voters between March 30 and April 1, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Blago indicted. Just another day in Illinois politics, if you ask me.

The much bigger news in town is that the Bears have traded away the store to land Pro Bowl quarterback Jay Cutler in a deal with Denver.

The much anticipated Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is out and it's unanimous: "“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.”

According to the ruling, gay marriage will become legal in Iowa starting in 3 weeks, on April 24.