A mother who lost her 6-year-old son in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School made an emotional plea for national gun-control legislation in an address from the White House.

Francine Wheeler made her appeal in lieu of the president’s weekly address. Her appearance is the only time President Obama has handed the address to anyone other than Vice President Joe Biden since the two first took office. Wheeler was joined by her husband David.

“I have hear people say that the tidal wave of anguish our country felt on 12/14 has receded, but not for us,” Wheeler said. “To us it feels as if it happened just yesterday, and in the four months since we lost our loved ones, thousands of other Americans have died at the end of a gun.”

The address, taped Friday, comes as several Sandy Hook families have mounted an aggressive effort to get a gun-control bill passed by Congress. Wheeler and her husband wrote the remarks after they were approached, the White House said.

“We have to convince the Senate to come together and pass common sense gun responsibility reforms that will make our communities safer and prevent more tragedies like the one we never thought would happen to us,” Wheeler said.

Jessica Hill / AP file

Francine Wheeler, mother of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim Benjamin Wheeler, cries as she listens to Vice President Joe Biden speak during a gun violence conference in Danbury, Conn., Thursday, Feb. 21, 2013.

Family members of the Newtown victims were present on Capitol Hill Thursday when Senators voted 68-31 to move forward with the process of debating a gun bill that several Republican lawmakers had threatened to filibuster. Several Republican senators have said that the presence of Newtown families helped contribute to the unexpectedly overwhelming vote to move forward with the bill.

Among the more than a dozen relatives in the gallery was Jillian Soto, whose sister was killed at Sandy Hook.

“The tears that we had weren’t tears of joy, but tears of remembering this is happening,” Soto told NBC News shortly after the vote. “We’re here because of what happened to us.”

During her remarks, Wheeler and her husband wore green pins to commemorate the 20 schoolchildren, including their son, and six adults who died in the December shooting. The Wheelers’ older son Nate, a 4th grader at Sandy Hook, survived the shooting.

“Sometimes I close my eyes and all I can remember is that awful day waiting at the Sandy Hook volunteer firehouse for the boy who would never come home – the same firehouse that was home to Ben’s Tiger Scout Den 6,” said Wheeler, choking back tears. “But other times I feel Ben’s presence filling me with courage for what I have to do for him and all the others taken from us so violently and too soon.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related:

• Newtown passion moves Senate vote on guns
• Newtown Victim's mom to give Obama's weekly address
• Newtown families lobby for gun control

With a bipartisan group of senators expected to unveil immigration-reform legislation in the next few days, a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans – including eight-in-10 Latinos – support giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

A slight majority of Republican respondents oppose this path, possibly foreshadowing the resistance which any comprehensive immigration reform bill might receive, especially in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

But when Republicans hear that a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants includes paying fines and back taxes, almost three-quarters of them support the idea.

What’s more, a majority of the public – for the first time in the poll – agrees with the statement that immigration strengthens the nation, reflecting a shift in attitude on this issue. 

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research Associates, says that this change in sentiment on immigration “speaks to something potent,” particularly given the economic struggles of the past five years.

"These more positive attitudes provide more leeway for lawmakers to build support for change on this issue," McInturff adds.

View the poll results here

On other matters, the poll shows a majority of the public favors stricter gun laws, President Barack Obama’s approval rating falling below 50 percent for the first time since Oct. 2012, and fewer than two-in-10 Americans saying the automatic budget cuts known as “the sequester” have significantly affected them.

Immigration – a strength or weakness?
A majority (54 percent) agrees with the statement that immigration adds to the nation’s character and strengthens it by bringing diversity and talent to the country.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Tens of thousands of immigration reform supporters march in the "Rally for Citizenship" on the West Lawn of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2013.

In a 2010 NBC/WSJ survey, fewer than half of respondents agreed with that statement, and in 2005, a plurality said that immigration weakened the nation.

Additionally, the Democratic Party holds a 7-point advantage over the Republican Party on the question of which party does a better job in dealing with immigration.

Among an oversample of Latino respondents, the Democratic edge increases to 26 points.

Regarding the current legislative debate over immigration, 64 percent of respondents say they favor allowing undocumented immigrants to have the opportunity to become legal American citizens.

That includes 82 percent of Latinos, 80 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of political independents supporting a path to citizenship.

But 51 percent of Republicans oppose it, versus 47 percent who back it.

Yet when told that the pathway to citizenship would require paying fines and back taxes, as well as passing a security-background check, support grows – with 76 percent of total respondents, and 73 percent of Republicans backing the path.

That pathway to citizenship is the heart of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that the so-called “Gang of Eight” senators – including Democrats Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and Republicans John McCain and Marco Rubio – are drafting and plan to introduce in the next few days.

The proposal also calls for strengthening the U.S.-Mexico border, tying that security to establishing the path to citizenship and expanding legal immigration.

A majority of all respondents (51 percent) believe undocumented immigrants should be eligible for citizenship five years after application. Just 12 percent say the eligibility should occur after 10 years, and only 18 percent believe citizenship should be immediate.

On border security, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) think the U.S.-Mexico border is “mostly” or “totally” not secure, compared with a smaller percentage of Latino respondents (49 percent) who believe that.

55 percent favor stricter gun laws
In addition to immigration, Congress is grappling with the issue of gun control, with the Senate expected to vote on Thursday whether to begin debate on a Democratic-backed measure requiring background checks for most gun sales.

According to the poll, 55 percent favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms.

That’s down 6 points from the Feb. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll – conducted after Obama’s State of the Union address that contained a call to action on gun control – but it’s essentially unchanged from the Jan. 2013 poll.

Yet there’s a wide political divide to these numbers: 82 percent of Democrats favor stricter gun laws, while just 27 percent of Republicans do.

Obama’s approval rating drops to 47 percent
Despite majorities backing the broad outlines of his legislative priorities on immigration and guns, President Obama confronts a pessimistic public and declining poll numbers.

Only 31 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction – a decline of 10 points since Dec. 2012.

His overall job-approval rating stands at 47 percent, which is down 3 points since February and which represents the first time he’s been below 50 percent since just before the 2012 election.

In addition, 47 percent approve of the president’s economic handling (up three points from February), and 46 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy (down six from Dec. 2012).

Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research says that the public’s sour attitude, particularly on the economy, has “dragged down” Obama’s numbers.

Sequester’s limited impact (so far)
Lastly, the NBC/WSJ poll finds that only a combined 16 percent of Americans say the automatic across-the-board budget cuts that went into effect earlier in the year have impacted them either “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”

By comparison, a whopping 75 percent say the cuts to military and non-military programs have affected them “just some” or “not much.”

But a plurality of respondents – 47 percent – believe the cuts will mostly harm the economy, versus 30 percent who say they won’t have an impact.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents) from April 5-8, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Two critical senators with “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association proposed a deal Wednesday that would expand background checks on firearms sales, which are currently required on purchases from federally licensed dealers. The compromise proposal put forward by Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey would mandate them for sales at gun shows and on the Internet as well, yet make an allowance for transfers between family members.

More than 167 million checks were made through the FBI's system between 1998 and early 2013, but the process remains obscure to many Americans. What are background checks, and why has it taken so long for lawmakers to piece together a deal on a measure polls say is overwhelmingly favored by American voters? Here’s a primer:

How do background checks work now?

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which allows the seller to check a buyer’s eligibility with a search that usually takes less than a minute. The system was fully launched in 1998. Before selling a gun, the gun store worker calls in to the FBI or other designated law enforcement agency to run a check against the system’s records. If the prospective buyer’s record doesn’t raise a red flag – possible triggers include a person having been adjudicated as mentally ill or being sought by law enforcement – the sale is cleared to go through.

What kinds of gun purchases don’t require background checks under current law?

That depends on where you live. In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, President Obama asked for a federal law that would require universal background checks, including at gun shows. Right now, only California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island require background checks at gun shows, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. But most states have looser restrictions. While local laws can vary widely, 33 states do not have a law addressing what is commonly referred to as the “gun show loophole.” Similarly, regulations on sales between private parties or transfers between family members can be very different from state to state, where they exist at all.

Is the background-check system foolproof?

Critics of the current background check system point to gaping holes in the ways states submit records to the NICS. While 44 states have individual laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, for example, far fewer states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill individuals to the national database. Just seven states account for 98 percent of the names prohibited for mental illness, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, meaning most states are in there barely, if at all. In one oft-cited example, Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho passed a background check before obtaining a gun and killing 32 people, despite having been declared mentally ill two years before. States are responsible for compiling mental health records from courts, hospitals, and other sources to submit to NICS, but they are not legally required to do so.

Does the public support broader background checks?

The vast majority of American voters do. Eighty-five percent of Americans said they support background checks at gun shows and for private sales in a Pew Research Center poll released earlier this year. Other polls have found even wider support for broadening checks, with 92 percent of respondents to a February survey by Quinnipiac University saying they favored them on every single gun sale. That number dropped to 91 percent among gun-owning households.

Given this level of support, why aren’t universal background checks already law?

That’s a harder question to answer, as the issue becomes bitterly political. Momentum on Capitol Hill toward a bill requiring comprehensive background checks has been slow to gain traction. Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee said that they would filibuster debate on new gun legislation, but that idea lost steam on Tuesday as other Republican lawmakers including Sen. John McCain said they would not support a filibuster. The NRA released a statement on Wednesday after the Manchin-Toomey compromise was announced saying that expanding background checks “will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools.” Other opponents of expanded background checks have argued that they would require a national registry of gun owners, something the White House has denied.

Are background checks effective?

The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone, the most recent year for which data is available.

Jim Lo Scalzo / EPA file

Shoppers examine handguns on display for sale at The Nation's Gun Show held in the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, Virginia, USA, 28 July 2012.

Related:

• 'The monster want out:' Mentally ill killer amassed huge arsenal, police say
• Support soars for tougher gun laws, surveys show
• Gun instructor could get permit back after threatening to 'start killing people'

The daughter of Sandy Hook Elementary's slain principal wants to talk to all the senators who threatened to filibuster gun-control legislation, but only one has answered her calls and tweets.

Erica Lafferty's Twitter feed drew lots of attention when she called out the 14 politicians Tuesday, tweeting poignant messages and photos about her mother, Dawn Hochsprung, to their official accounts.

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy started retweeting her, and she got hundreds of replies, retweets and mentions from strangers around the country.

So far, only one of the senators -- Ted Cruz of Texas -- has reached out to Lafferty, 27.

"We agreed to disagree," Lafferty said Wednesday. "At least he called me back."

Cruz's office did not provide details about the "personal" chat.

"He is glad they had the chance to speak and it was a respectful conversation," said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.

Even as senators announced a possible deal on background checks, Lafferty said she still wants to hear from the other 13 on why they would threaten to block debate and voting on legislation sparked by the Newtown, Conn., massacre.

"What are they scared of? My mother wasn't scared in the halls at Sandy Hook," she said. Lafferty would like to see legislation passed that includes universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

Most of the Senate offices did not immediately respond to an email inquiry about Lafferty's efforts. A spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said he couldn't find a record of a call but was willing to "work it out" with her. An aide to Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas said they were working to arrange a meeting.

Lafferty, meanwhile, was taking her campaign from Twitter to the airwaves, appearing on several TV news shows.

"They're not going to shut me up," she said. "I'm loud. I'm opinionated. If people want to hate me because I'm trying to protect their children, let them hate me."

Related:

Senators announce gun deal, raising hope of passage

Biden: Filibuster threat on guns 'embarrassing' to the nation

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:10 PM EDT

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

CIA director nominee John Brennan during a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 31, 2013.

Amid new developments and revelations, President Barack Obama’s national security policies, past and future, are set to come under Senate scrutiny Thursday.

Most notably, Obama’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, will address what role the targeted killings of terrorists, either by using drone strikes or other means, have played and should play in national security policy.

Questions about targeted killings intensified Monday after a report by NBC News revealed a Justice Department memo which argued it was lawful for the president to target U.S. citizens who are leaders of al-Qaida or “an associated force.” Brennan will be appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee for his confirmation hearing.

On Wednesday, an Obama administration official said the president had directed the Justice Department to give the congressional intelligence committees access to classified memos justifying the targeted killings policy. Until now the administration had refused to do this.  

Addressing the past on Thursday will be Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as they testify before the Armed Services Committee about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

Senators on the panel -- especially Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- want to know how the U.S. military reacted to the attack, and what the Defense Department’s internal review revealed after the event.

The two hearings will feature contrasting political color: Republicans -- led by Graham, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire -- have been the ones who have made an issue of the Benghazi attack almost since it took place. They’ve implied that a full accounting of what happened was delayed until after the presidential election. Graham held up Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary until he could get a chance to question Panetta about Benghazi.

But Obama’s drone policy -- directed largely by Brennan in his role as Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser -- has drawn criticism both from progressives on the left and those on the right who are fearful of an excessive concentration of power in the presidency.

On Benghazi, much is already known. In its report on the attack, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said last December that Panetta’s Defense Department and Hillary Clinton’s State Department hadn't jointly studied the availability of U.S. military forces to defend or rescue the U.S. diplomats in Benghazi in the event of a crisis.

The Pentagon’s Africa Command didn’t have planes, helicopters, or other forces close to Benghazi on the day of the attack. “The Djibouti base was several thousand miles away. There was no Marine expeditionary unit, carrier group or a smaller group of U.S. ships closely located in the Mediterranean Sea that could have provided aerial or ground support or helped evacuate personnel from Benghazi,” the report said.

As for Brennan and drones, Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of a new report called “Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies,” said Obama’s choice of him as CIA director “now places him as the lead executive authority over all CIA drone strikes. The real question is whether John Brennan’s move from the White House to Langley to be director of the CIA is in fact an effort for the CIA to get out of the drone strikes business.”

Zenko noted that Panetta recently said that the Pentagon, not the CIA, should be conducting the drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects.

But Zenko cautioned against those who would head into the Brennan hearing with high hopes for new information. Having read transcripts of the past 10 CIA director confirmation hearings, he said, “It would be unprecedented if there were an in-depth discussion about ongoing covert activities.” The Senate Intelligence Committee “simply doesn't work that way, especially under chairman Sen. (Dianne) Feinstein” of California, he said.

Zenko added that the most useful line of questioning of Brenna would be regarding his conceptions of airpower. Brennan has repeatedly used the cancer analogy for air strikes killing terrorists without damaging the surrounding “tissue.”

“That's a dangerous, antiseptic, and unrealistic conception of military force,” Zenko said.

Interrogation vs. deadly strikes
But Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at a White House briefing Wednesday, “Far fewer civilians lose their lives in an effort to go after senior leadership in al-Qaida” by using drone attacks “as opposed to an effort to invade a country with hundreds and thousands of troops and take cities and towns.” Implication: if you want to avoid another Iraq or Afghanistan, then support Obama’s drone policy.

Carney said Obama believes “that we need to move forward with more transparency as well as create, in his words, a legal framework around how these decisions are made.” But Obama believes he has the full constitutional authority to order targeted killings -- “transparency” or no transparency.

For those skeptical of Obama’s policy, there will be two other possible lines of questioning directed at Brennan:

1. Do the foreign policy costs of Obama’s use of drones -- alienating and angering people in Muslim countries -- outweigh its benefits?
2. Does the drone policy suggest that Obama would rather kill jihadists than capture them? Adding more detainees to those already held at Guantanamo -- a facility he pledged to close but hasn’t -- could amount to a political public relations headache.

The drone strikes have been unpopular in Pakistan and other countries. Making the case that drone strikes have high costs as well as benefits, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told Reuters recently, “What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world. The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes … is much greater than the average American appreciates.”

Brennan has an opportunity on Thursday to rebut this view. He argued last August that “contrary to conventional wisdom, we see little evidence that these actions (drone strikes) are generating widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits” for al-Qaida. The targeted strikes against terrorists, he said, “are not the problem, they are part of the solution.”

Finally, Thursday’s Brennan hearing is a chance for senators on the panel to ask him whether Obama is using drone strikes as a less politically troublesome option than capturing detainees and putting them in Guantanamo.

This is an argument that former Bush administration officials such as ex-CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden and former CIA legal counsel John Rizzo have made.

Last week in a panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank, Hayden said interrogating al-Qaida operatives is a vital source of insight into the terrorists’ plans and capabilities:

But he warned, “We have made it so legally difficult and so politically dangerous to capture that it seems, from the outside looking in, that the default option is to take the terrorists off the battlefield in another sort of way” – in other words, by killing them. This could result in a loss of valuable intelligence.

Rizzo said, “It’s always been in the agency’s institutional DNA to want to collect intelligence by all sorts of means, especially human intelligence. You can’t collect human intelligence from a dead guy.”

Related:

White House: Congress to get classified drone info

4 key questions about controversial Justice Department drone memo

Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid speaks to members of the press after the weekly Senate Democratic Policy Luncheon at the U.S. Capitol January 29, 2013.

The Nevada Democrat’s comments come as Congress begins the challenging process toward approving its first major piece of gun legislation since the 1990s.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds its first hearings that topic on Wednesday, featuring high-profile witnesses on either side of that issue. Speaking in favor of gun control will be retired astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman injured critically in a 2011 shooting.

Giffords herself will deliver an opening statement to the committee.

On the other side will be National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, whose influential gun rights lobby is working to thwart the administration’s proposals on Capitol Hill. According to LaPierre’s prepared testimony, released Tuesday by the NRA, he will stake out a clear stance against the heart of the president's plan.

“When it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest – background checks will never be ‘universal’ – because criminals will never submit to them,” said LaPierre in those prepared remarks.

LaPierre's testimony on Wednesday will surely reflect the sharp opposition to the Obama plan among gun rights groups; aversion that threatens to transform the battle into a legislative slog and sap the administration’s momentum.

Skepticism over assault weapons ban
While the outrage prompted by the December rampage at Sandy Hook elementary school has lingered longer than previous mass shootings, the impetus for gun control measures threatens to fade as time passes.

Already, one of the central proposals from Obama’s plan – renewing the ban on assault weapons – faces an uphill battle to be included in any final legislation. 

Reid, who has said he would not seek Senate passage of legislation that had no chance of approval in the House, was non-committal on the issue of the assault weapons ban during his comments on Tuesday. 

“I'll take a look at that,” he said of a proposed ban on assault weapons favored by California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

“As I've indicated to you folks, we're going to have votes on all kinds of issues dealing with guns. And I think everyone will be well advised to read the legislation before they determine how they're going to vote for it.”

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said that the House would consider whatever legislation on guns the Senate manages to pass, but has committed to little more than that. 

And, in fact, whatever legislation the Republican-controlled House is able to consider might depend ultimately on a handful of moderate Senate Democrats.

Several of those lawmakers have expressed skepticism toward the assault weapons ban, but have conveyed more interest in universal background checks – the element of Obama’s plan that gun control proponents that might have a better chance at passage. 

That provision appears poised even to win some Republican support: Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn told a Tulsa television station on Friday that he’s working with Democrats on legislation to ensure universal background checks. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was more reluctant to endorse such a measure, saying during an availability at the Capitol on Tuesday: “I'm among those who'd be happy to take a look at whatever the majority decides to advance on that subject.” 

But Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin congressman who frequently mentioned his pride as a hunter during his time as Mitt Romney’s running mate appeared to lend support to that idea during a Sunday interview on “Meet the Press.” 

“I think the question of whether or not a criminal is getting a gun is a question we need to look at. That's what the background check issue's all about,” he said. “And I think we need to look into making sure that there aren't big loopholes where a person can illegally purchase a firearm.”

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker said Friday that “the American people should be disgusted” the nation’s leaders haven’t been able to avert the fiscal cliff.

Well, mission accomplished.

John Makely / NBC News

Abigail Holt, 17, (right), of Hartford, Conn., says Washington's inability to avert the fiscal cliff is "annoying."

Across the country, people are shaking their heads about negotiations that go nowhere and fingers that point everywhere while the nation hurtles toward the precipice of a new economic crisis.

“They should make a plan, make up their minds and do something!” Abigail Holt of Hartford, Conn., told NBC News.

She’s 17 years old and admits she’s just learning about the federal government and the fiscal cliff. But she knows this much: “It’s annoying.”

And that's being polite.

Writing in the Daily Beast, Howard Kurtz called the nation's capital "the country’s biggest day-care center." The famous sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer hit below the belt, noting on Twitter that "Members of Congress who can't compromise probably aren't good lovers."

Californian Pat Marshall said the politicians "appear to be very self-centered on making sure that they’re taken care of and the American public comes second."

After an hourlong meeting Friday with congressional leaders that he described as "constructive," President Obama acknowledged that people outside Washington were bewildered by D.C. "dysfunction" and that time -- and patience -- were running out.

Lawmakers have 'lost touch'
Indeed, with higher taxes and deep spending cuts looming without a deal, Americans’ faith in Washington is dissipating by the day.

A Dec. 9 Gallup poll found that 59 percent thought it was likely the White House and Congress could hammer out a deal to avoid a slide down the cliff; by this week, that had sunk to 50 percent.

Skeptics were gaining ground, meanwhile: 48 percent think an agreement before the year-end deadline is unlikely, up 10 points from two weeks earlier.

John Makely / NBC News

Rich Dodds, 49, of Houston, Texas, says the elected officials in Washington have "lost touch" with Americans who will be affected by the fiscal cliff.

“It doesn’t feel like they’re doing much,” said Rich Dodds, 49, an energy product manager from Houston, Texas. “I think they’ve lost touch with who the American people are. It’s a pretty elite group in Washington.”

The fact that both houses of Congress went into recess -- the Senate took a nearly week-long break, and the House is still on vacation until Sunday -- bothered some.

“This is one of the most important issues and they are not even working,” said Bill Prosser, 49, a telecommunications salesman from Clifton, Va. “I’m very disappointed in them.”

Nicole Hayward, 28, of Brooklyn, N.Y., was so angered by the congressional recess that she posted a petition on Change.org demanding lawmakers get back to business.

“I turn on the news every day while I’m getting ready for work and I saw coverage about how Congress was going to break for the holidays and we might not have a resolution,” the marketing director said. “I thought, who cares about their holiday vacation? It really got me going.”

Hayward got only 101 signatures on her petition. She attributed the lack of interest to cynicism.

“The reason why the average American doesn’t pay attention to this issue and the details is they think Congress will come together and pass something that just kicks the can down the road and things won’t change in [their] life,” she said.

John Makely / NBC News

Bill Prosser, 49, of Clifton, Va., says members of Congress should be locked in a room until they can make a deal.

Bipartisan blame
Inside the Beltway, Democrats are condemning Republicans and vice versa for the stalemate. But the nation’s voters are more bipartisan in their blame, with neither Republicans nor Democrats obtaining majority support.

“Essentially, right now, 25 percent of the public approves of the job the GOP congressional leaders are doing and 40 percent approves of the job the Democratic leaders are doing,” said Jocelyn Kiley, a senior researcher for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Prosser thinks there’s a time-tested way to bring the two sides together before Jan. 1 -- something akin to the old papal conclaves in which cardinals were locked in a room until they chose a new pontiff.

“Just say you’re not going to leave until you have a deal,” Prosser said.  “Get in a room -- and get it done!”

An overwhelming majority of Americans want Congress and the Obama White House to reach a deal featuring both tax increases and spending cuts to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, according to the latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Click here for full results from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (pdf)

In fact, majorities of Democrats, Republicans and political independents each support such a deal.

Yet respondents are split over whether any kind of agreement can be reached, and nearly seven in 10 believe that the coming year will feature Democrats and Republicans in Congress showing little willingness to come to an agreement on important matters.

Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, says the public is sending this one-word message to Washington: compromise.

“Doing something trumps doing nothing,” Hart said.

Related: Boehner: 'Serious differences' separate GOP from Obama

The survey – conducted a month after November’s election – also shows a positive uptick in opinion toward President Barack Obama, and more negative views about defeated GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. The poll also finds that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage.

‘Hints of a thaw’

According to the poll, a combined 68 percent of Americans say that the fiscal cliff – the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts set to take place at the beginning of next year if nothing is done – is either a “very serious” or “fairly serious” problem.

A similar two-thirds of respondents are willing to accept an increase in taxes or cuts in federal government programs they care about to reach an agreement to avoid the problem.

Asked another way, 65 percent say leaders in Congress should find a compromise to reduce the budget deficit, even if that means Democrats would need to accept targeted spending cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and that Republicans would need to accept targeted increases in tax rates.

By comparison, just 28 percent believe that leaders should stick to their traditional positions on the deficit – even if that means Congress goes over the fiscal cliff, triggering those automatic spending cuts and tax increases.

“There are hints of a thaw here, compared to previous data we’ve seen,” McInturff says.

Indeed, for the first time in the poll, a majority of Republicans (59 percent) want GOP leaders in the House and Senate to make compromises in order to gain consensus in the current budget debate.

Previously, in 2011, majorities of Republicans said they preferred GOP leaders to stick to their positions rather than make compromises.

And the percentage of Democrats who favor compromise on this question (70 percent) is now at an all-time high in the survey.

Who’s to blame if there isn’t a deal? Everyone

Yet the public is split – 48 percent of respondents are optimistic, and 48 percent are pessimistic – over whether Congress will be able to reach consensus to avoid the fiscal cliff. And another 69 percent believe that the next year on Capitol Hill will be marked by division and little willingness to compromise.

If there is no compromise on the fiscal cliff and the automatic tax increases and spending cuts go into effect at the beginning of next year, 24 percent say they will blame congressional Republicans more, while 19 percent will point the finger at Obama and congressional Democrats.

But a majority of respondents (56 percent) say they’ll blame both sides equally.

Still, twice as many Americans say they trust the president more in handling this fiscal situation (38 percent) than House Speaker John Boehner and the congressional Republicans (19 percent).

And significant majorities believe Obama holds a clear mandate from the election on issues related to this subject:

• 68 percent say he has a mandate on cutting taxes for families earning less than $250,000 per year
• 65 percent say he has a mandate on reducing the deficit by both increasing taxes on the wealthy and reducing federal spending
• And 59 percent say he has a mandate on eliminating the Bush-era tax cuts for household income over $250,000 a year.

Obama’s lift vs. the GOP’s decline

Speaking of Obama, the poll shows an uptick in his numbers after his victory in last month’s presidential election.

Fifty-three percent of adults approve of his overall job performance, and 49 percent approve of his handling of the economy – higher marks on these questions than at any time during the 2012 campaign.

Another 53 percent say they feel either “optimistic and confident” or “satisfied and hopeful” Obama will do a good job as president, which is up three points from Oct. 2012.

“Any president has a little bit of a lift heading into the first few months of any new term in office,” McInturff, the GOP pollster, says.

But if Obama is getting a lift after the election, the Republican Party is seeing a further decline.

The GOP’s favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll now stands at 30 percent/45 percent (minus-15 points), which is down from 36 percent/43 percent (minus-7) right before the election.

That’s compared with the Democratic Party’s 44 percent/35 percent rating (plus-9 points).

What’s more, asked to give a word or short phrase to describe the Republican Party, 65 percent offered a negative comment, including more than half of Republicans.

Some of the responses: “Bad,” “weak,” “negative,” “uncompromising,” “need to work together,” “broken,” “disorganized” and “lost.”

By contrast, 37 percent gave negative descriptions of the Democratic Party, while 35 percent were positive.

“Republicans have gone off the image cliff,” says Hart, the Democratic pollster.

“Elections have consequences,” McInturff adds about the GOP. “And among those consequences is the cost of losing.”

The consequences of losing also exist for Romney, whom Obama defeated in November.

Romney’s favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll is 35 percent/44 percent (minus-9 points), down from his 43 percent/44 percent score (minus-1) before the election. Much of that drop comes from Republicans and conservatives. 

Majority supports same-sex marriage

Finally, for the first time ever in the NBC/WSJ poll, a majority of respondents – 51 percent – support same-sex marriage.

That percentage in support is up from 30 percent in 2004, 41 percent in 2009 and 49 percent in March 2012, demonstrating how quickly public opinion on this issue has changed in just eight years.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Dec. 6-9 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Updated 7:48pm ET In the storm-ravaged states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, officials have moved some Election Day voting locations, although many remain unchanged.

As of noon Monday, Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill said that utility companies in her state have reported that electricity has been restored to all but two of 773 voting precincts in the state.

Her Web site posted the two voting place changes:

· Bridgeport’s Longfellow School polling place has been relocated to Aquaculture School, 60 St. Stephens Road, Bridgeport.

· New London’s Ocean Beach polling place has been relocated to Harbor School, 432 Montauk, Ave, New London.

Recommended: Romney, Obama hit must-win states in 'barnburner' campaign day

In New Jersey, storm-displaced voters who are temporarily staying in a part of the state where they are not registered, are permitted to go to any polling place in New Jersey on Election Day and vote by using a provisional ballot. The ballot will be forwarded to the county of the voter’s residence.

Tim Aubry / Reuters

Utility trucks and first responders navigate flood waters on the main stretch of road in Peahala Park, N.J., in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, in this photograph taken on October 30, 2012 and released on Oct. 31.

Displaced New Jersey voters also have until 5 p.m. ET on Election Day to fax or e-mail a request for a mail ballot to their county clerk.

More information is available at the New Jersey Division of Elections website, on voting by fax or e-mail.  The voter must transmit the ballot to the county board of elections no later than 8 p.m. ET on Election Day.

Some counties in New Jersey have posted changes in voting locations or have alerted voters about the status of voting locations in their area.

Here are a few:

· Union County: County officials have posted an announcement that “almost all polling places are expected to be open on Election Day, Tuesday November 6. An updated list will be available later today.”

·   Ocean County: The county has posted a list of changes in voting locations here.

·  Atlantic County: The elections board has posted a list of changes in voting locations here.

·  Monmouth County: The county has posted a list of locations here.

The county also says: “Provisions have been made for residents in two of the most severely storm-ravaged boroughs to vote in neighboring communities. Sea Bright residents will vote at the Fair Haven Fire House on 645 River Road in Fair Haven. Loch Arbour residents will be voting at the Allenhurst Fire House on 311 Hume Street in Allenhurst. All other residents will vote in their own community.”

Recommended: Romney adds Election Day stops in Ohio, Pennsylvania

In New York, as of Monday morning, some counties were still in the process of finding new voting locations but had not yet posted them on their Web sites.

Suburban Nassau County, which was hit especially hard by last week’s storm surge and flooding, has posted a list of the voting locations that have been moved or consolidated, here.

In addition, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order on Monday that will allow displaced voters from one of the federally-declared disaster counties, such as Nassau, who may temporarily be in a county other than where they live to vote by affidavit ballot.

The affidavit ballot will be sent to the board of elections where the voter is registered. According to Cuomo’s press office, these votes by affidavit ballot will count for the office of president and United States senator “and for any other candidate and ballot initiative that appears on the official ballot where the voter is registered.”

Listed below are links to the polling place search tools that each state offers, but be aware that in some cases changes in polling locations might not be reflected in the voter lookup tool databases.

· Search tool for New Jersey voters here.

· Search tool for New York state voters here.

· Search tool for New York City voters here.

· Search tool for Connecticut voters here.

For voters who want to use early voting or an absentee ballot, here’s some information:

· In New York, a voter needs a specific reason to vote by absentee ballot, such as being out of the state on Election Day, having a disability, or being in prison due to having been convicted of a non-felony offense. The State Board of Elections has announced that the deadline for applying in person for an absentee ballot is Monday. Absentee ballots must be postmarked no later than Monday, Nov. 5. Those mailed ballots have until Nov. 19 to arrive at the local Board of Elections.

· In New Jersey, any voter can vote by mail. A voter may apply in person to the County Clerk until 3:00 p.m. ET Monday. Vote by mail ballot must be received by the County Board of Elections no later than 8 p.m. ET on Election Day.

· In Connecticut, voting by absentee ballot is limited  to the sick and disabled, those in active service in the armed forces, and those absent from their town for all of Election Day. The deadline to apply for an absentee ballot is Monday and the deadline for returning the absentee ballot is 8 p.m. ET on Election Day.