It seemed like nothing could bring back a ban on semi-automatic weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. But now Barack Obama has a unique opportunity to radically alter the status-quo of the United States on the issue of firearms. It was not, to paraphrase his predecessor, a war he “chose”.

The massacre that unfolded last week in Newtown, Connecticut, is decidedly different from all the shootings that America has endured over the past few years. Three out of four victims were children, shot multiple times. Obama showed inimitable emotion when he addressed the situation, first on a message from the White House and then during a memorial service on Sunday night.

Given this background, Americans are starting to get the feeling that gun control matters, and while firearms legislation was practically absent from examination in this year’s presidential campaign, Americans are expressing a willingness to see some action.

In an Angus Reid Public Opinion survey conducted this week, Americans—by a 9-to-1 margin—continue to overwhelmingly voice support for the individual right to keep and bear arms. However, when compared to a poll conducted in the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting, the negative feelings of Americans have intensified. Dissatisfaction with existing federal firearms regulations increased by five points to 48 per cent. The call for stricter firearms laws jumped by seven points to 56 per cent.

The big problem, and this is where the impetus of President Obama can make an enormous difference, is semi-automatic weapons. While Americans see no problem with a citizen carrying handguns, the availability of the .223-calibre semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle—the weapon fired at least 90 times inside Sandy Hook Elementary School—brings noticeable unease. Three-in-four Americans (76%) looked at a picture of this weapon in the survey, and concluded that only the police and other authorized persons should have access to it. Even two thirds of gun owners (65%) feel there’s no place for such a weapon in an American home.

Obama has no more campaigns to look forward to, or put another way, no voters to scare away by taking action. The biggest piece of legislation introduced in his first term—health care reform—ended up being too little for Democrats, and too intrusive for Republicans. Now, without a majority in the House of Representatives, attempts at changing federal firearms legislation will be difficult. But, in stark contrast with what the electorate felt when health care reform was first discussed, Americans have clearly defined the boundaries that they would like to see.

The debate has to be carried out without a mention of the Second Amendment. If the attempts to discuss any possible changes are regarded as an infringement on constitutional rights, significant action will be out of reach. Still, even gun owners agree that some of the weapons that are now legal in the country, such as the ones used in the recent Colorado and Connecticut shootings, are not meant to be in the hands of a regular citizen.

In the end, Gore received 543,895 more votes than Bush, but was unable to turn this lead into a victory in the Electoral College. Six states that were carried by Bush were decided by less than 4.0% per cent of the vote: Florida, New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, Nevada and Gore’s home state of Tennessee.

With exactly two weeks to go before Americans cast their ballots in 2012, a similar scenario could materialize, this time benefitting the Democrat and hindering the Republican. The latest Angus Reid Public Opinion national poll shows a tie between incumbent Democrat Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Romney’s national surge, particularly after the first presidential debate, did not lead to gains in certain states he needs to win in order to have a chance to become the 45th President. It doesn’t matter if Romney wins Texas with 55 per cent, 65 per cent or 75 per cent of the vote: he’ll still get 38 electoral votes.

This week, Angus Reid Public Opinion published five state surveys that take a closer look at the race. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan appear to be in Obama’s column, but the two most important swing states tell a different story. Obama and Romney are tied in Ohio, and the Republican is now five points ahead of the Democrat in Florida.

The Florida lead provides Romney supporters with some hope. With the Sunshine State, the GOP nominee would need to add just three states to his tally of 235 electoral votes from areas that have traditionally voted for his party: Virginia, Ohio and just one of the remaining swing states (New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa or Colorado). Without Ohio’s electoral votes, Romney’s climb is significantly tougher: he would need to win the five remaining swing states to replace Obama in January 2013.

If he were to lose in Florida, Obama could simply win Ohio and one more state—other than New Hampshire—to keep his job, even if he receives fewer votes than Romney at the national level. The wackiest scenario would see Obama winning Ohio and New Hampshire, but losing the other swing states to Romney. This would mean that the two nominees would be tied with 269 electoral votes, short of the 270 needed to become president.

In the event of a tie in the Electoral College, the president would be elected by the incoming House of Representatives, with a “one state, one vote” system. The Republicans would probably hold a majority of the seats in more than 27 states, practically ensuring that a tie in the Electoral College would mean a Romney presidency.

Twitter user @LiamStacey9 shocked many by suggesting that Muamba had died, and laughing about it. He then proceeded to deal with three different replies to his original insensitive tweet by making more derogatory, racist and offensive comments. Unbeknownst to @LiamStacey9, his tweets were about to land him in jail.

In the hours that followed, @LiamStacey9 tried unsuccessfully to claim that it was all a joke and that his computer had been hacked. He later took the extreme measure of deleting his account. It did not matter. Liam Stacey, a Swansea University student, was found to have incited racial hatred and would ultimately be sentenced to nearly two months in jail.

Stacey was charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which is related to the improper use of the public electronic communications network. In essence, the Act states that a person is guilty of an offence in Britain if he/she sends a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; and if he/she sends a message that he/she knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another.

The @LiamStacey9 case has led to an extensive discussion on how to properly regulate social media. The Communications Act came into force well before Facebook and Twitter became common, but they are still regarded as “public electronic communications”—much like any television channel, radio station or newspaper. In an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll conducted in April, more than 80 per cent of respondents endorsed the two components of the Communications Act that were used to charge Stacey. In addition, almost half agreed with the punishment that the Twitter user was handed.

Stacey’s sentence has not deterred everyone. Just last Sunday, a Twitter user named @Lapwnage asked for the deportation of two English soccer players who missed their penalty kicks against Italy at the European Championships. @Lapwnage went through the same process as @LiamStacey9, engaging in a more offensive way with people who replied to his tweets, attempting to justify his actions, and lastly, deleting his account. London’s Metropolitan Police Service has launched an investigation on the matter.

While people who have campaigned against racism in Britain and in sport have welcomed the quick action taken to deal with racist Twitter users, there are two issues that have not been addressed fully.

The first one is an exploration of why this is happening in Britain. While just one-in-four Britons think multiculturalism has been a success, more than half concede that, if they were to use racist language in their workplace, they would probably be fired.

The second issue is the clout of anonymity that social media can bring. Dozens of offending tweets make their way to the micro-blogging site every day. The most brazen users may not rely on their real name or picture, and end up getting away with language that, in any other facet of life, would not be tolerated.

Last Sunday, the West Midlands Police tweeted when contacted by concerned users who were desperately trying to call attention to @Lapwnage’s offensive barrage: “Every online interaction leaves a trace which specialist investigators can identify.” Perhaps. But anonymity forces the police to waste valuable resources trying to figure out who is, effectively, breaking the law. “Anonymous” or “Troll” would not be able to walk into a store and come out with a cell-phone plan unless they provided a real name. Other “public electronic communications” should be treated the same way—especially the “social” ones.

The latest Angus Reid Public Opinion poll shows that the Conservative Party remains in first place with the support of 37 per cent of decided voters—a slightly smaller share of the vote than what it garnered in the last election—followed by the NDP with 33 per cent.

The Liberal Party, still about a year away from having a new full-time leader, has dropped to 18 per cent, below their lowest-ever total in the 2011 election. Atlantic Canada provides some hope for the Grits, but few seats. In Ontario, the province where the Liberals used to receive most of the votes in the days of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, only 23 per cent of decided voters are ready to cast a ballot for a Grit candidate.

The Liberal problems are definitely not exclusive to Ontario. Their share of the vote is just 13 per cent in both Alberta (where the party has not won a seat since 2004) and British Columbia (where only two Liberal MPs, both in Vancouver, remain). In Quebec, where the Liberals enjoyed years of success as the de-facto federalist alternative, the party is currently supported by just one-in-ten voters.

In stark contrast, the NDP under Mulcair has made substantial gains, and can count on the support of two-in-five decided voters in both Quebec and British Columbia. Mulcair’s recent overtures related to the oil sands have not helped in the Prairies, where the NDP has actually dropped since a survey conducted in March, before he supplanted Nycole Turmel. But in British Columbia, where the word “Liberal” is already causing problems for incumbent provincial politicians, the NDP is solidifying its position as the centre-left alternative at the federal level.

All told, the federal Liberals are losing one-in-five of their voters to the NDP. Quebecers have welcomed the prospect of a native son as the national opposition leader, as exemplified by Mulcair’s approval rating of 70 per cent. In British Columbia and Ontario, Mulcair is practically tied with Stephen Harper, while the Prime Minister remains dominant in the traditional areas of Tory support: Alberta and the Prairies.

The prospect of an NDP surge in Ontario and British Columbia, coupled with strong numbers in Quebec, could ultimately spell doom for the Liberal Party. Unless there is a sense of clarity on the Liberal succession plans, their numbers could drop even further and make a re-birth for Canada’s “natural governing party” all the more difficult.

Angus Reid Public Opinion has been tracking the views of Americans on this issue for the past three and a half years, and the shifts show that Obama’s “evolution” may be shared by many U.S. citizens. In August 2009, only one third of Americans supported same-sex marriage, and 36 per cent rejected any legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples. This year, support for same-sex marriage is above the 40 per cent mark, and the proportion of Americans who would not recognize gay and lesbian couples at all has dropped below 30 per cent.

In an election year, Obama’s pronouncement has been deemed controversial. Still, the two groups that need to cast ballots in November to ensure a second term for the incumbent president will not be affected. The views of Democrats and Independents on this issue are practically identical, with 50 per cent and 49 per cent of respondents respectively voicing support for allowing same-sex couples to legally marry. Only 22 per cent of Democrats and Independents believe that there should be no legal recognition for same-sex couples.

Republicans are decidedly more strident in their views. While only one-in-four (25%) support same-sex marriage, a slightly higher proportion (28%) is more content with the concept of civil unions that stop short of being marriages.

The key indicator is that two-in-five GOP supporters (39%) would not allow same-sex couples to have any legal recognition. This level of rejection is particularly high, especially when contrasted with the views of other like-minded voters in Britain and Canada. Only 22 per cent of Conservative Party voters in Britain—and 21 per cent of Conservative Party voters in Canada—would prefer it if same-sex couples were not legally recognized.

GOP supporters will definitely be riled up by Obama’s evolution. Seven-in-ten Republicans say they would vote to define marriage as “between a man and a woman” in a referendum, an opportunity the residents of North Carolina had just this week. Also, practically half of Republicans (46%) think homosexuality is “something people choose to be”—a view shared by just 29 per cent of Democrats and Independents. In addition, 40 per cent of Republicans think it is “definitely” or “probably” possible to convert gays and lesbians into heterosexuals through prayer.

On the political front, the pronouncement will solidify support for Obama from the LGBT community, which had already enjoyed a victory in the repeal of the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for the military (which was supported by 59% of Americans in September 2010). Many of these voters were probably already thinking of supporting Obama. If anything, the situation will be tougher for prospective Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who may now be forced to choose a more conservative running mate to appeal to the base

Earlier this year, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted a survey to gauge how Australians, Britons and Canadians felt about the monarchy, the royal family, and the future. There were some major differences in the policy aspects. In Australia, the pro-republic sentiment has subsided dramatically since the 1999 referendum, and has been replaced by indifference. In Canada, 37 per cent of respondents would like to have an elected head of state, while 33 per cent call for the continuation of the monarchy. Britain continues to have a negligible proportion of respondents (just 13%) who support the notion of a republic.

While the numbers show that these three Commonwealth nations hold differing views, there are certain areas where the level of agreement is astounding. One year has passed since the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, and these two members of the Royal Family are riding a wave of popularity that has seen them surpass Queen Elizabeth II in favourability ratings in Australia, Britain and Canada, getting a positive review from more than seven-in-ten respondents. The fact that the couple is connecting well with the younger generation of “subjects” has given many royal watchers good reason to believe that the monarchy will persevere. William and Kate enjoy approval ratings that most politicians would only dream of.

While the proportion of Australians, Britons and Canadians who like William and Kate has increased over the past year, the rating of the actual monarch-in-waiting has remained immobile. Prince Charles, first in line to ascend the throne, is seen favourably by 45 per cent of Britons, 34 per cent of Canadians, and 33 per cent of Australians. In political terms, he is ranked slightly higher than David Cameron in Britain, and lower than Stephen Harper in Canada and Julia Gillard in Australia.

In Canada, the rating for Prince Charles ranges from a low of 24 per cent in Quebec to a high of 40 per cent in British Columbia. In comparison, William gets to 59 per cent in Quebec—a notoriously anti-monarchic province—and reaches 87 per cent in BC. There is no discernible gender gap when it comes to Charles. Men and women dislike him equally.

His wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, has even lower ratings. Despite recent efforts to revitalize her image in Britain, she is only liked by 31 per cent of Britons. Her rating plummets to 21 per cent in Canada and 16 per cent in Australia. Even the pro-monarchic British Columbians give her a paltry evaluation of 28 per cent.

Looking at the favourability tables, the results of the question on succession are not surprising. Very few Australians and Canadians, and just about three-in-ten Britons, would like to see Charles become King after Queen Elizabeth II. Roughly half, in all three countries, would prefer to see William as their monarch. In Canada, the proportion of respondents who would prefer to have an elected head of state drops by nine points if William is the true heir to the throne. To put it another way, the monarchy that some Canadians find unpalatable will become bearable under William, but not under Charles.

While the actual possibility of a change in the line of succession is remote, the fact that republicanist sentiment would subside under William cannot be taken lightly. Charles and Camilla have the potential of dragging down the level of support for the continuation of the monarchy in Canada, at a time when two opposition parties have openly discussed changing the country’s relationship with Britain. In contrast, William and Kate already get high ratings from three very different groups: those who love the monarchy, those who would like to abolish it, and those who do not care about the issue at all.

The NDP leadership race has been difficult to assess. Most of the party’s better-known faces have not been in the House to discuss their views on recent decisions by the governing Conservative Party. Interim leader Nycole Turmel, Pat Martin, and to a lesser extent, Libby Davies, have been the main focus of the cameras in recent weeks, as the Liberal Party heavyweights have taken a more prominent role in Question Period.

The incoming NDP leader will shoulder the new role in a difficult time, with discussions about the federal budget and labour unrest—particularly in Air Canada—taking centre stage. It will be a perfect opportunity to establish an agenda and give voters a glimpse of what the NDP will look like after Layton.

The main source of support—and seats—for the NDP in the May 2011 federal election was Quebec. In September, an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that the NDP was still the first choice for Quebecers at 40 per cent, with the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois fighting for second place. When voters in Quebec were given the option of Thomas Mulcair as leader, the NDP jumped to 52 per cent, sending all other parties in the province below the 20 per cent mark.

To put this in context, a Mulcair-led NDP would finish an election in Quebec nine percentage points higher than the Layton-led NDP in 2011. The last party to receive more than half of the vote in Quebec in a federal election was the Progressive Conservatives in 1984 and 1988—Brian Mulroney’s two majority mandates. Not even the Bloc under Lucien Bouchard was able to garner those numbers.

This month, the Tories hold a respectable eight-point lead over the NDP across Canada, despite weeks that afforded many opportunities for a more severe drop, including the repudiation of Bill C-30 and the early stages of the so-called “robocall” scandal. A factor that has undoubtedly hindered the NDP’s growth is the lack of a leader. The party has judiciously held on to its voters, but has been unable to grow and actually mount a challenge to the Tories.

Since January, the party that has gained the most at the federal level is the Bloc. Still, one third of Quebecers say they would be more likely to vote for the NDP in the next election if Mulcair is the leader. The effect of the other leadership candidates in this province is negligible at best.

If the NDP chooses a leader other than Mulcair, the gains enjoyed by the Bloc over the past three months may solidify. Mulcair is also best positioned to attract people who voted for the Liberals the last time around—with a Layton-led NDP—than any other of his current rivals.

In recent leadership conventions, there have always been voices of dissent which argue that purported outsiders can grow the party beyond their traditional areas of strength. In 2004, Belinda Stronach and Tony Clement would have seemingly made the then-new Conservative Party more attractive in Ontario. In the end, party members chose Stephen Harper. Since then, the Tories have only lost four out of 112 seats at stake in Alberta in four federal elections, and practically doubled their support outside the province from 71 seats in 2004 to 139 in 2011.

If Mulcair can take the NDP to Mulroney-like levels in Quebec, it would be hard to argue that his election would damage the party’s future. A dominant Harper in Alberta did not hurt the Conservatives. If anything, it ensured that the main opposition party would start with a core support that would not disintegrate.

Earlier this month, an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that a majority of Americans acknowledge that they have learned more about the GOP presidential hopefuls. This constant flow of information may have faintly helped the chances of Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, the only remaining contenders with a legitimate shot at heading the Republican ticket.

Still, the fight to select Barack Obama’s rival in November has been painful. More than half of Americans of all political stripes believe the long process to choose a nominee will hurt the Republican Party. In fact, most GOP supporters now think that it is time for Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul to step aside. Not only have they not secured enough delegates in the past contests to catch Romney—they are also the poorest performers in head-to-head match-ups against the Democratic incumbent.

Another issue that seems to be affecting the Republicans is the perceived notion that there is nobody who can effectively campaign against Obama. Three-in-five Independents—the group that usually wins American elections—think none of the four remaining Republican presidential hopefuls is a particularly attractive option. With economic confidence below the 20 per cent mark, and less than half of Americans approving of the incumbent head of state, the GOP hopefuls have not connected outside the base.

This dismal view of the remaining contenders has led many people to suggest that the Republican convention, to be held in Tampa, Florida, in late August, could be a brokered affair. Unless Romney can gather momentum, or Santorum can rack up many states in the next few weeks, we could head into the first GOP convention since 1976 where a candidate has not mathematically secured the nomination when the delegates take their seats.

Some commentators have suggested that a consensus candidate, perhaps somebody who didn’t even run in the primaries, can be anointed at the convention floor as the great hope to defeat Obama. Recent suggestions have included the ever-present former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and current Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

Republicans are not particularly warm to this idea, with half saying that such a scenario in 2012 would make them uncomfortable. Americans did not react well to any of these three presumed contenders, with about one-in-six saying that Palin or Bush would make better candidates than the four remaining GOP hopefuls, and just one-in-twenty looking at Daniels as presidential material. The most highly regarded “outsider” is former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, but with only 23 per cent of Americans and 24 per cent of Republicans seeing him as a better option than Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul, the 9/11 hero brings sympathy, but little backing, to the table.

Romney is often blamed for failing to close the deal. The primary system is also responsible for this problem. The Republican Party made a calculated risk when it decided to have more contests that would proportionally allocate candidates this year than in 2008. The switch has only succeeded in allowing second, third and fourth place finishers to add handfuls of delegates to their tally and keep campaigning. This situation has not enabled the winner of 14 of the first 24 contests to solidify his spot as a frontrunner and allow him more time to challenge Obama directly.

Americans have told us that they have learned more about the candidates from the Republican primary campaign. One, two or three more months of sound bites where Romney is described by fellow Republicans as a moderate, hypocrite, flip-flopper will not help the party in an election against a stellar and well-funded campaigner.

Britain’s Conservative Party made the “Big Society” concept the cornerstone of its election manifesto in 2010. The Tories eventually formed the government with the support of the Liberal Democrats, allowing Cameron to implement his vision.

Cameron officially presented the “Big Society” in July 2010. The policy called for communities across the United Kingdom to take over responsibility for specific services and duties, such as local transport and libraries. The national government would establish the “Big Society Bank” and rely on funds from dormant accounts to finance community groups and charities.

From the start, the main hindrance of the “Big Society” was its size. The policy came to embody practically everything, positive and negative. Volunteerism and servitude. A creative way to deal with labour shortages and a justification for cuts in services. A blueprint for a less intrusive government and a way for the State to shun its responsibility towards citizens.

Britons were not amused. In February 2011, just seven months after its grandiose launch, the proportion of respondents who endorsed the “Big Society” in an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll dropped to 37 per cent. The main goal of the policy—allowing people to help themselves instead of relying on officials—was validated by two-in-five respondents.

Since then, the situation has become direr. August saw five days of arson and looting in England, leading to more than 1,000 charges. When asked to look back on the riots a month later, Britons said the main contributing factors were behaviour and upbringing. Fewer people blamed race and ethnicity, or the government’s austerity measures.

Closed circuit cameras were instrumental in pushing many of the riot cases through the courts. In fact, Britons believe the main tools to deal with social unrest are cameras and stopping people from covering their faces (unless they do so for religious reasons). Older voters, traditionally one of the core Conservative constituencies, think the courts were actually too lenient with the rioters and would go as far as to restrict social media access to prevent further unrest.

When in opposition, the Conservative Party was very critical of the Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), which were implemented during Tony Blair’s first term as prime minister in 1999. The ASBOs are civil orders which impose restrictions—such as a ban from a specific area—on people who have been shown to have engaged in anti-social behaviour. Cameron characterized ASBOs as “reactive” and said they would not reduce crime.

Britons agree with their head of government on this matter. Only eight per cent of respondents believe the ASBOs have been successful in curbing anti-social behaviour in the UK. This sense of futility has remained stable since 2010. Also, just 13 per cent think the current government’s approach to the ASBOs—where communities work with the police and other agencies to stop bad behaviour from escalating—will function.

Cameron has redefined his policy and said it is about “not just doing no harm, but doing good.” While the coalition government has failed to fully please either of its components, the vast majority of Britons acknowledge that the solution to the “broken” society lies in nurturing. Still, the government continues to face the difficult task of convincing older voters that the solution to the “broken society” lies in the hands of the average citizen who wants to “do good.”

Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted a unique survey last week that focused on the people who will actually define Barack Obama’s rival: Republican Party supporters who are absolutely certain of taking part in the presidential primary or caucus in their state. While most recent polls have focused on small samples of Republican sympathizers, this is the first survey of the season that looks at the point of view of actual voters.

The first statistic that draws attention is the fact that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are rated favourably by more than half of Republican voters. The two supposed anti-Romney candidates, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann and Texas Governor Rick Perry, are in the middle of the pack. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. are still a mystery for many people—even among this group of absolutely certain voters—and Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a polarizing figure. His followers really like him, but 44 per cent of respondents hold an unfavorable view: the highest for any contender.

Romney has so far survived the brief surge of four rivals—first Bachmann, then Perry, later businessman Herman Cain and recently Gingrich—to remain on top of the list of prospective nominees. In this survey, 32 per cent of respondents say they will support Romney in their primary or caucus. Gingrich, who was seen as having a negligible effect in September and was barely included in a Saturday Night Live sketch, is now in second place, but finding it hard to connect with Republican women. And while Bachmann and Paul score better among Tea Party loyalists, they still trail the top two contenders by a wide margin.

Santorum would probably be faring better in a campaign with a different focus. Regardless of what happens in Iowa, Republican voters appear to have abandoned the so-called “purity test” for conservative values. When asked to select the top policy factors that will play a role in their selection of the party’s presidential nominee, Republicans place being pro-life, supporting an individual’s right to own firearms, and defining marriage as between a man and a woman at the bottom of the list. In 2012, primary voters and caucus goers are looking for a candidate who can manage the economy effectively, make government smaller, keep taxes low, and oppose Obama’s health care reform.

A question on personality factors also shows how Republicans are looking for leadership first, and values second. Two thirds of GOP voters want a nominee who understands the problems of Americans, is a strong and decisive leader, and is honest and trustworthy. Only one third mentioned “sharing your own family values” as a key factor.

The other important issue is electability. Even though Romney is favoured by a third of respondents for the nomination, he can count on the unquestionable support of 71 per cent of them in a head-to-head contest against Obama. Gingrich gets 66 per cent, but Paul—once again proving divisive—can only muster 46 per cent. In previous surveys, Paul has connected well with Independents, but his appeal among Republicans is too limited at this point.

By early February, following the first four contests, Americans will be closer to knowing who will face Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Then, the battle over votes in the Electoral College will begin. Due to a recent apportionment based on new census figures, the Democratic Party would “defend” fewer votes from states it has dominated in the three preceding elections.

Obama won six states by less than nine percentage points in 2008: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. If the Democrats lose all of those states and fail to make gains in the ones that McCain carried in 2008, a Republican will move into the White House in January 2013.