Polling

Excited for Tomorrow's Presentation by Mike Hais and Morley Winograd on Emerging Political Coalitions

Tomorrow, Thursday March 4th at 12 noon, we're going to be having a great event here at NDN,  a special presentation on a new poll regarding the changing political coalitions of the 21st Century.  I encourage partisans and political idealogues of all stripes, as well as those interested in changing demographics to join us.You can rsvp to jsingleton@ndn.org or by following this link.

Part of what is so great about this presentation is that it takes a look at very important segments of the electorate (Millennials, Unmarried Women, African-Americans and Latinos) and really emphasizes how their power exists in their emergence as a coalition - and how that coalition is growing. 

I know that this is going to be an exciting kickoff for our 21st Century America project.

How to Sink a Three-pointer Today - Part II

Last week, I offered up some advice for President Obama on how to shape his speech to the joint session of Congress today. Here are a few more pointers, based on the numbers:

Demonstrate that reforming health care will aid or at least not hurt individual Americans or their families. Surveys conducted by both Pew and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation have consistently indicated that at least a plurality of the public (albeit a declining one) believe that current health care reform proposals would help the country as whole. At the same time, voters are not as sanguine about the impact of health care reform on themselves and their family. The recent CBS News survey indicates that 31% believe that current congressional health care reform proposals would hurt them personally, while only 18% say they would help. More specifically, voters are more likely to believe that these proposals would raise (41%) rather than reduce (20%) their health care costs; worsen (34%) rather than improve (19%) the quality of their health care; and, make it harder (37%) rather than easier (13%) for them to see a doctor. Similarly, clear pluralities perceive that these proposals would hurt the middle class (43%), seniors (36%), and small businesses (46%). As has occurred so often during the past four decades, Republicans and conservatives, with Democratic assistance, have managed to define a Democratic initiative as a social program that would aid others to the detriment of average Americans. Given this, it's surprising that the public is not more strongly opposed to what it perceives to be President Obama's and Democratic health care reform proposals than it already is. If he does nothing else, the president must use his speech to inform and convince the public that his health care reform proposals will benefit, or at least not hurt, middle class Americans.

Recognize that he and his party are dealing from a position of relative strength, even on the matter of health care reform, than Congress as a whole or the Republican opposition. Even though President Obama's overall job approval score and his marks for handling health care have trended downward over the past several months, they remain well above those of the other actors in this drama. In the most recent Daily Kos tracking survey, only Barack Obama was rated favorably by at least a plurality of voters (52%). By contrast, only a third have favorable impressions of the two Democratic congressional leaders, Nancy Pelosi (32%) and Harry Reid (31%). Less than one in five are positive about the two GOP leaders in Congress, Mitch McConnell (19%) and John Boehner (15%). Only 39% are favorable toward the congressional Democrats as a whole, while just 18% feel that way about the congressional Republicans.

And, with regard specifically to health care reform, the CBS News survey indicates that by a greater than 2:1 margin (50% vs. 23%) voters believe that President Obama has better ideas than Republicans. This margin has remained consistent throughout the summer.

Moreover, the Democratic Party is clearly the majority party both inside Congress and within the electorate, although some reporters seem to forget this. In commenting about President Obama's speech on the Today Show, Chuck Todd said that the setting on Wednesday evening would be odd because "half of the members will be applauding wildly and the other half will be sitting on their hands." Actually, Democrats comprise about 60% of the members of each House and that 10-percentage point difference is of more than academic importance. Democrats not only have enough members in Congress to make more noise than their GOP counterparts, but their edge is sizable enough to control the legislative process if they are willing and have the courage to use it. 

Meanwhile, out in the country, according to both Pew and Ipsos, about half of the electorate identifies with or leans to the Democratic Party. By contrast, only somewhat more than a third say that they are Republicans or lean that way. This is a far different pattern than it was in 1994, the last time Congress considered health care reform, when equal numbers (44%) identified with each party. This Democratic majority is bolstered by the party's disproportionate strength within emerging and growing demographics-Millennials (voters 18-27), Latinos, Asians, and African-Americans-as well as women, who comprise a slight majority of both the population and electorate. These groups underpinned the president's decisive victory in 2008 and continue to support him, his legislative initiatives (including health care reform), and the Democratic Party to a substantially greater extent than other groups.

Stemming from its status as America's majority party, voters continue to have a far more favorable image of Democrats than Republicans on most issues and government management matters.

 

Democratic Party

Republican Party

Democratic

Advantage/Disadvantage

Can do better on issue of...

 

 

 

Education

47%

22%

+25

Energy

47%

25%

+22

Health care

46%

27%

+19

Foreign policy

44%

31%

+13

The economy

42%

32%

+10

Afghanistan

37%

28%

+9

Abortion

41%

33%

+8

Immigration

36%

31%

+5

Budget deficit

36%

35%

+1

Taxes

37%

38%

-1

Terrorist defenses

32%

38%

-6

Which party...

 

 

 

More concerned about disadvantaged

58%

20%

+38

More concerned about people like me

51%

27%

+24

Can bring needed changes

47%

25%

+22

Selects better candidates

46%

28%

+18

Governs in more honest/ethical way

42%

26%

+16

Can better manage federal government

38%

34%

+4

More influenced by lobbyists

31%

37%

-6

More concerned about needs of business

26%

55%

-29

Obviously, Congress is constitutionally equal to the executive branch. The president cannot simply dictate to or command it to act in order to win a congressional majority. It would also be a plus if at least a few Republicans supported Democratic health care reform initiatives, although seems increasingly unlikely, something that may ultimately force the president and his party to go it alone. Some compromise will likely be necessary to obtain either or both of those ends. But, in his negotiations to achieve those goals President Obama, his staff, and congressional Democrats should recognize that they do some advantages, among them majority status in Congress, a majority coalition within the electorate, and a far higher level of public favorability than the Republicans. This means the president and Democratic congressional leaders should not have to completely roll over to achieve meaningful health care reform. They will not have to do so if they recognize and work from their current position of strength.

A recent Los Angeles Times article maintains that whatever ultimately happens with current healthcare reform proposals, President Obama has taken the matter further than did Bill Clinton, the last president to make such a concerted effort-or indeed any president has since Harry Truman proposed a national health care program six decades ago. What Barack Obama says next Wednesday and does in the weeks that follow will go a long way toward determining whether he will have to be satisfied with the moral victory of simply exceeding his last Democratic predecessor or go on to win final victory. Clearly and forcefully stating his goals and being willing to take advantage of his political and institutional strengths will put him in position to, at long last, win the health care championship.

There’s Always A Generation Gap If You Know Where to Look

A recent Pew Research Center survey suggests that generational conflict in the U.S. has significantly declined in the 40 years since Woodstock, NY symbolized the sharp differences between the Baby Boom Generation (born 1946-1964) and its elders. A plurality (38%) believes that strife between the generations has diminished since the late 1960's and early 1970s. Boomers are especially likely to believe that inter-generational strife is less severe than it was four decades ago: 43% of them believe it has declined. Now only a quarter (26%) of Americans perceive that there are very strong or strong conflicts between young people and older people, far less than those detecting significant discord between immigrants and people born in the United States (55%), rich and poor people (47%) and blacks and whites (39%).

But, as generational theorists, William Strauss and Neil Howe indicate, generational conflict, like the poor, is always with us. A deeper analysis of the Pew data suggests that what has changed is not so much the fact of generational conflict, but its tone. Young people and their elders may not shout at one another across the generation gap as they did four decades ago, but they still appear to differ in many ways.

Value/Element

Young and older people different

Young and older people similar

Way they use computers/new technology

86%

10%

Music they like

86%

12%

Their work ethic

80%

16%

Their moral values

80%

16%

Respect they show others

78%

18%

Their political views

73%

19%

Their attitudes toward different races and groups

70%

21%

Their religious beliefs

68%

23%

The American public is right in perceiving a continuing generational conflict, at least with regard to politics. Today's young people, the Millennial Generation (born 1982-2003) are sharply distinctive from older generations in their political attitudes, identifications, and behavior. These differences will strongly benefit the Democrats and the progressive movement, but only both of those forces have the foresight and courage to take advantage of the opportunity that the emerging Millennial Generation offers. The Democratic Party and Barack Obama clearly benefitted from it in 2006 and 2008 winning first a large, presumably unassailable, majority in both houses of Congress and later the White House. Since then, however, the Democrats seem intent on frittering away the sizeable gift that the electorate, led by the Millennials, has given them.

The stakes in firmly capturing the loyalties of the Millennial Generation couldn't be higher. At 95 million, Millennials are the largest generation in American history. There are now 17 million more Millennials than there are surviving Baby Boomers and 27 million more of them than there are members of Generation X (born 1965-1981), the relatively small generation between Boomers and Millennials. In 2008, when only 40% of Millennials were eligible to vote, they accounted for about 17% of the electorate. In 2012, when Barack Obama runs for reelection, about 60% of Millennials will be old enough to vote and they will comprise nearly a quarter of the electorate. By 2020, when virtually all members of the generation will be at least 18 years old, more than one in three voters will be a Millennial. This will put Millennials in position to dominate American politics, as has no other generation before them.

So far, by any measure, the Millennial Generation has been solidly liberal and Democratic. In 2008 Millennials voted for Barack Obama over John McCain 66% to 32%, accounting for about 80% of the president's popular vote majority and converting what would have been a narrow win into a solid one. Millennials also gave Democratic congressional candidates almost the same level of support that they gave Obama (66% vs. 34%). And, as indicated in a June 2009 Pew survey, Millennials identify or lean to the Democrats over the Republicans by nearly 2:1.

 

Millennials

Generation X

Baby Boomers

Silent and older generations

Democrat/lean Democrat

56%

50%

44%

50%

Independent not leaning to a party

8%

8%

10%

6%

Republican/lean Republican

30%

34%

41%

36%

Finally, Millennials are the first generation in at least four to contain a greater number of self-perceived liberals than conservatives.

In their attitudes, Millennials are "liberal interventionists" in the economy, "tolerant non-meddlers" on social issues, and "activist multilateralists" in international affairs.

 

Millennials

Older Generations

Strongly concerned that government will become too involved in health care

36%

47%

Agree that government regulation of business does more harm than good

51%

56%

Agree free market economy needs government regulation to serve the public interest

69%

61%

Agree that federal government controls too much of our daily lives

48%

56%

Agree when something is run by government it is usually wasteful and inefficient

42%

61%

Agree government is run for the benefit of all

60%

46%

Agree stricter laws and regulations needed to protect the environment

47%

39%

Agree government investment needed to develop new energy technology

68%

56%

Agree that government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep

69%

59%

Agree that immigrants threaten American values and customs

35%

55%

Agree that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to gain legal status

71%

62%

Agree that free trade agreements like NAFTA are a good thing

61%

40%

Agree that peace best assured through military strength

39%

58%

Completely disagree that women should return to their traditional place in society

67%

51%

Decades of political research indicates that, for most people, once attitudes, identifications, and behaviors like these are formed during youth they tend to remain in force for the rest of their lives. Coupled with the sheer size of the Millennial Generation, this gives the Democratic Party an opportunity to dominate American politics for at least the next four decades.

Are Barack Obama and the Democratic Party taking advantage of this opportunity and maintaining the loyalty of the Millennial Generation, especially during the past several months as the president's approval rating has declined? The picture is mixed. On the one hand, as Daily Kos tracking surveys data indicate, Obama and his party have lost ground, albeit much less sharply, among Millennials just as they have among the electorate as a whole. Since January, favorable opinions of the president have fallen by 17-percentage points among all voters, but only by five points among Millennials. Similarly, positive attitudes toward the Democratic Party have declined by 12 points within the entire electorate, but by just two among Millennials. At the same time, Millennials remain significantly more positive toward Barack Obama and the Democratic Party than older generations.

Moreover, Democratic losses among Millennials (indeed among all voters) have not been matched by Republican gains. In fact, the GOP has lost more ground since the first days of the Obama administration than either the president or the Democratic Party. Since January positive impressions of the GOP have been cut in half among all voters and, among Millennials, have dwindled to nearly the vanishing point (only 4%).

 

Total Electorate / Millennials January

Total Electorate / Millennials March

Total Electorate / Millennials May

Total Electorate / Millennials July

Total Electorate / Millennials August

Favorable opinions of Barack Obama

77% / 87%

68 / 83%

68% / 83%

62% / 82%

60% / 82%

Favorable opinions of the Democratic Party

57% / 63%

55% / 64%

52% / 63%

48% / 62%

45% / 61%

Favorable opinions of the Republican Party

34% / 26%

29% / 12%

20% / 6%

21% / 6%

17% / 4%

All of this raises the question of why the administration and congressional Democrats have persisted in their well-intentioned, but now clearly ill-advised and so-far never ending effort to enlist significant Republican support on virtually all important parts of President Obama's legislative program.

The directive delivered to Democrats by voters last November couldn't have been clearer. A post-election CNN survey indicated that 59% of the electorate favored the idea of the Democrats controlling both elective branches of the federal government. Only 38% said that one-party rule was a bad idea. A Wall Street Journal poll completed at the same time confirmed those results and presented the rationale for them: when the same party controls both Congress and the presidency, "it will end gridlock in Washington and things will get done."

In spite of this, Democrats in Washington have continued to pursue the chimera of bipartisanship. The response from across the aisle was a political version of Mohammed Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy: induce the opponent to expend major energy, accomplish nothing, and exhaust himself in the process. This recently reached the ultimate absurdity when the GOP's most visible health insurance reform negotiator in the Senate, Iowa's Chuck Grassley, said that he wouldn't vote for a bill that he himself had negotiated except in the very unlikely event that large numbers of his fellow Republicans would join him. That is why rumors that the administration and congressional Democrats may now finally be willing to go it alone in passing health care insurance are encouraging. It's been a hard lesson to learn, but better late than never.

However, to avoid missteps in the future, the Bible (and election and poll results) offers a plan: "a child shall lead them" and "out of the mouths of babes comes wisdom." The answer is with the emerging liberal and Democratic Millennial Generation on the youthful side of today's version of the generation gap. If Democrats and progressives go there, they will prosper now and in the future.

Act Like the Majority That You Are

In an April article, Jonathan Chait attempted to explain "Why the Democrats can't govern." This week, Jonathan Cohn focused on the same concern by asking the question, "Do the Dems have what it takes?"   Based on the results of several recent surveys showing a slow erosion in President Barack Obama's overall approval ratings and a more precipitous decline in his handling of specific issue areas such as the economy, the answer to this question seems far from certain.

Right now, the major inside-the-Beltway test case for measuring the success of the Obama administration and the Democrats is passage of comprehensive health care reform legislation in this session of Congress, preferably before midterm recess in August. According to E. J. Dionne, the key to doing this is for President Obama "to convince his fellow Democrats that they're in the majority." Dionne's focus is entirely on congressional Democrats, especially that wing of the party variously known as moderates, conservatives, or, in the words of Washington Post columnist, Harold Meyerson, the "can't do" Blue Dogs. But, the Democratic majority extends well beyond Washington and Congress to the American electorate. For the first time in decades, due largely to the emergence of the Millennial Generation (young Americans born 1982-2003), the Democratic Party holds a clear and decisive majority in party identification nationally, one that overwhelmingly favors, even demands, meaningful health care reform.

A mid-July Washington Post-ABC News poll that showed a decline in the president's overall job performance mark and indicated that only a bare plurality approved rather than disapproved of his handling of health care (49% vs. 44%), also found the Democrats with a clear 53% vs. 38% party ID edge over the GOP. This margin is virtually unchanged since the president was inaugurated in January or elected last November, but it is far different from the situation that existed during much of the past three decades. The last time Congress considered comprehensive health care reform in the early 1990s was during an era when neither party had a party identification majority and the margin between the two parties rarely exceeded four or five percentage points.

The current solid Democratic majority within the electorate provides support and, if necessary, political cover for health care reform. In part, this is true because Democrats, especially the young Millennials, who identified as Democrats over Republicans by nearly a 2:1 margin in a June Pew Research Center survey  (56% vs. 30%), are significantly less likely than Republicans and older Americans to even have health insurance. Nearly nine in ten Republican identifiers, but only eight of ten Democrats are now insured. That number falls to less than two in three among Millennials (63%). In stark contrast, 96% of senior citizens (who, of course, already participate in a federal health care program) have health insurance.

Because they are less often insured, and perhaps because whatever insurance coverage they do have may not be as comprehensive, Democrats have greater difficulty meeting and paying for their health care needs than Republicans. As the following table indicates, half of all Democratic identifiers (and non-aligned independents) say they have trouble paying for the cost of a major illness and for health insurance. About four in ten are concerned with having to pay a larger share of employer-provided health insurance and for routine medical care and prescription drugs.

Is each of the following a "major" problem for you and your family?

Democrat/lean Democrat

Independent

Republican/lean Republican

Paying cost of major illness

51%

54%

43%

Paying cost of health insurance

46%

52%

36%

Employer making you pay larger share of health insurance

38%

36%

30%

Paying for cost of routine medical care

38%

42%

27%

Paying for cost of prescription drugs

37%

42%

26%

As a result, it's hardly surprising that virtually all Democrats (91%) and 80% of Millennials, but barely half of Republican identifiers (54%) favor "changing the health care system in this country so that all Americans have health insurance that covers all medically necessary care" or that a majority of Democrats (51%) believes that the country is spending "too little" on health care while a plurality of Republicans (46%) believe we are spending "too much." Nor is it hard to understand why few Democrats and Millennials are put off by the possibility of greater federal government health care activity. In a May Pew survey, 69% of Republicans, but only 28% of Democrats and 36% of Millennials, professed concern about the government becoming too involved in health care.

These broad beliefs are reflected in attitudes toward the specific health care reform package now before Congress. The July Washington Post and ABC News survey indicates that a majority of all Americans (54%) favor the legislation. This includes three-quarters of Democrats and six in 10 independents, but fewer than a quarter of Republicans.

In the end, however, in spite of claims by Republicans such as South Carolina's Senator Jim DeMint that congressional failure to pass health care legislation could prove to be Obama's "Waterloo," the matter is really an almost entirely Democratic concern. Throughout the current health care debate commentators have drawn a parallel with the situation that existed in 1993, when a newly elected, personally appealing, young Democratic president--Bill Clinton--last pushed for comprehensive health care reform. From the Democratic perspective, the outcome nearly two decades ago was disastrous. In spite of having majorities in Congress similar to the current Democratic majorities, the effort to remake America's health care system foundered and died. A year later, the Republican Party, led by Newt Gingrich, took control of the both the Senate and House, a majority status it did not relinquish until 2006. Many of the Democratic Senators and Representatives who resisted health care reform in 1993 were defeated in 1994 and, as Nate Silver points out, only a handful ever returned to Congress. But, E.J. Dionne reminds today's congressional Democrats that they "are not living in the Republican congressional eras of 1995 or 2003...they have the strength on their own to win."

 Democrats have that congressional strength because the country has entered a new political era, driven by the emerging civic Millennial Generation, in which the Democratic Party is now clearly the majority party within the American electorate and is in position to retain that majority status for decades to come. Most in that Democratic electoral majority personally need meaningful health care reform and expect Congress to enact it. This is today's new political reality. The next several weeks will tell us whether congressional Democrats will perceive and take advantage of that new reality or look backward to the old realities of the past. The stakes in that decision for the Obama presidency, the Democratic Party, and the nation will be crucial for years to come. We will soon see if congressional Democrats have the ability and courage to choose wisely and perceptively.

Independent Means Nonpartisan: Just Another Washington Myth, Part 2

For Washington pundits not otherwise engaged in dissecting the strength and effectiveness of Barack Obama's reaction to events in Iran or the extent to which he still might use tobacco, the chief topic of conversation during the past week has been about how political independents may be deserting the president, thereby accounting for a modest dip (a fair amount of which already seems to have been restored) in his job approval marks.

One of those writing about the presumably crucial role of independents is the normally highly astute Wall Street Journal columnist, Gerald Seib. According to Seib "independent voters are the canaries in the coal mine of American politics, telling a leader whether the air is safe or starting to fill up with some toxic gases. Bearing that in mind, President Obama and his team ought to start worrying about the health of those canaries."

Citing Wall Street Journal/NBC surveys, Seib indicates that the president's job approval rates among independents fell from 60% in April to 45% in June. What makes this particularly important, according to Seib, is that independents "tend to decide most elections, and they went for Mr. Obama by a 52% to 44% margin" last November.

Independents, in fact, may have been less decisive in the president's victory than, for example, members of the Millennial Generation (voters 18-27) who in 2008 comprised slightly less than one-fifth of the electorate, voted for Obama by a 66% to 32% margin, and accounted for 80% of his popular vote margin over John McCain.

But, the biggest flaw in Seib's commentary is that his portrayal of independents is narrowly focused and shallow. It does not fully account for the demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal diversity of those who tell pollsters that they are "independents" rather than Republicans or Democrats.

As indicated in last week's posting on this site, the large majority (about 80%) of self-identified independents actually "lean" to one or the other of the two parties. Consequently, most independents (and by extension, the electorate) are far more partisan than a cursory overview of poll findings might suggest. Currently, the Democrats hold a solid and increasing lead over the Republicans among the majority of independents who lean toward a party. About six in 10 "leaners" now tilt to the Democrats. Pew Research Center data for the past three months indicates that a majority of the electorate (51%) identifies with or leans to the Democratic Party. A third (34%) is Republican identifiers and leaners. Only 14% (not quite the 20% cited by Seib) is completely unaffiliated or "pure independents." Rather than being the decisive center as Seib and others suggest, non-committed voters actually comprise a small minority of the electorate.

Of course, all of this would simply be interesting trivia if those who lean to one of the parties were not different in important ways from those who lean to the other party and from "pure independents." In fact, the differences among these groups are profound.

Demographic Differences

The following table, based on data drawn from Pew's Political Values and Core Attitudes survey, conducted every two years with a large than normal sample, compares those who identify with, lean to, or are completely unaffiliated with one of the two parties on key demographic attributes.

 

Strong Democrat

Not Strong Democrat

Independent

Democrat

Unaffiliated Independent

Independent Republican

Not Strong Republican

Strong Republican

Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male

37%

44%

51%

60%

59%

56%

45%

Female

63%

56%

49%

40%

41%

44%

55%

Ethnicity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

White

55%

67%

70%

75%

87%

92%

93%

African-American

30%

17%

12%

10%

7%

1%

2%

Hispanic

15%

16%

18%

15%

6%

7%

5%

Age

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18-29

18%

28%

28%

25%

20%

16%

21%

30-49

31%

38%

37%

34%

34%

36%

34%

50-64

32%

22%

22%

24%

28%

27%

25%

65+

18%

12%

12%

14%

16%

20%

18%

Region

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northeast

21%

22%

21%

15%

15%

18%

18%

Midwest

23%

19%

27%

26%

24%

22%

21%

South

36%

36%

33%

36%

40%

38%

38%

West

20%

22%

19%

23%

21%

22%

23%

Much about this data will not surprise anyone who has followed American politics during the past half-century. Democratic identifiers, particularly Strong Democrats, are disproportionately female, ethnic, and reside in the Northeast. In addition, over the past several election cycles younger voters have increasingly affiliated with the Democrats. Republican identifiers are more likely than average to be male and white, especially from the South. Republican identifiers are now also a bit older than their Democratic counterparts, a gap that is likely to grow as greater numbers of solidly Democratic Millennials come of age during the next decade.

But what is most important, and perhaps may be most surprising to DC observers, about these survey results are the differences between independents who lean to the Democrats and those who say they are closer to the GOP. While a majority of both groups are male, the Independent Republicans contain a greater number of men than any of the party identification subgroups (59%). In addition, the Independent Democrats contain nearly two and a half times as many African-Americans and Hispanics than do the Independent Republicans (30% vs. 13%). The Independent Republicans also contain the largest percentage of Southerners and the Independent Democrats the smallest. On the other hand, voters from the Northeast contribute disproportionately to the Independent Democrats. Finally, nearly two-thirds of the Democratic leaners (65%) are under 50 while, by contrast, nearly half (44%) of those who lean to the GOP are 50+. In other words, demographically those who lean to a party look a lot like those who identify with that party.

Voting Behavior Differences

They also vote very much like them. The following table, using data collected by the Millennial Strategy Program of Frank N. Magid Associates about a week before Election Day 2008, displays the presidential and congressional vote intentions of party identifiers, independents who lean to a party, and unaffiliated independents.

 

Strong Democrat

Not Strong Democrat

Independent Democrat

Unaffiliated Independent

Independent Republican

Not Strong Republican

Strong Republican

 2008 Presidential Vote Intention

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama

93%

56%

78%

37%

2%

19%

4%

McCain

3%

15%

8%

24%

84%

73%

93%

Other candidate

1%

1%

1%

11%

1%

1%

1%

Undecided

3%

27%

13%

29%

12%

7%

2%

Congressional Vote Intention

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Democratic Candidate

94%

63%

64%

19%

1%

5%

3%

Republican Candidate

1%

8%

3%

19%

62%

70%

85%

Other Candidate

*

1%

1%

6%

*

1%

--

Undecided

7%

28%

33%

56%

37%

25%

12%

* Less than .5%

These results lead to a number of clear and important conclusions about the voting behavior of independents, both those who lean to a party and those who don't.

  • The independent leaners are decisively partisan. Upwards of eight in 10 of them indicated the intent to vote for the presidential candidate of the party to which they lean. In fact, they were more likely to do so than those who identify weakly with a party. About two-thirds of independent leaners said they would vote for the congressional candidate of the party to which they lean. Almost none expressed any willingness to cross party lines and vote for opposition candidates.
  • On one level the uncommitted independents are indeed nonpartisan. The choices of those "pure independents" that had made one at the time of the survey were divided fairly evenly. A significant number of them had not yet determined for whom they would vote. However, it is a clear misperception to portray the "pure independents" as voters who were closely observing the political process and carefully weighing their choices. In the face of the social desirability of wanting to appear concerned about a crucial election at a time of major national stress, only about 60% of the uncommitted independents (in contrast to nearly 90% of the other groups) said they were very interested in or that it was very important to them who was elected president. Many, if not most, of the uncommitted independents were nonpartisan simply because they had too little interest in and knowledge of politics to make a choice.

Attitudinal Differences

The clear and persistent partisanship of Independent Republicans and Independent Democrats is also strikingly evident in their political opinions. The table below, containing data collected by Pew in May 2009, portrays favorable attitudes toward a number of political figures and the two parties. 

 

Strong Democrats

Not Strong Democrats

Independent Democrats

Unaffiliated Independents

Independent Republicans

Not Strong Republicans

Strong Republicans

Barack Obama

97%

94%

94%

78%

37%

58%

37%

Michelle Obama

95%

90%

87%

70%

61%

65%

59%

Joe Biden

80%

70%

65%

44%

22%

33%

30%

George W. Bush

7%

15%

15%

38%

56%

65%

83%

Democratic Party

94%

87%

79%

35%

27%

35%

13%

Republican Party

11%

26%

34%

28%

62%

71%

88%

 Again the implications are clear.

  • Independent leaners hold strikingly partisan attitudes. Solid majorities of them have positive impressions of politicians from the party to which they lean and of that party itself. Only a minority of them express favorable opinions about the opposing party and its politicians. While the independent leaners may not be as firmly positive about "their" party as are strong identifiers, they do have a solid sense of partisan connection. They are clearly not uncommitted and easily malleable centrists.
  • The non-leaning independents are indeed broadly nonpartisan in their attitudes. Fewer than half express positive opinions about any political figure other than the president and first lady or toward either party. But this is as much a matter of limited political knowledge and involvement as it is of conscious weighing of options or firmly divided opinion. This is evidenced by the fact that while almost all of the uncommitted independents were able to say whether or not they like Barack and Michelle Obama as people (or celebrities), a third were unable to rate the president's job performance in the same survey.

In sum, almost nine in 10 American voters are currently attached, in varying degrees, to one or the other of the two political parties. Some of those are indeed independents that lean toward a party rather than identifying with that party outright. But in their demographics and, importantly, their voting behavior and political attitudes, these independent leaners more closely resemble committed partisans than they do the small minority of "pure independents."

Together those who identify and lean to the Democratic Party now comprise a majority of voters. This is the first time since the mid-1960s that either party can make that claim. This puts President Obama and his Democratic congressional colleagues in position to break the gridlock that has dominated Washington for the past four decades. To do that, however, they will have to take a new, outside the Beltway, look at the electorate and all of its component parts. They will have to recognize that voters have moved America into a new era and have the fortitude to follow.

Independent Means Nonpartisan: Just Another Washington Myth

In Washington perception is often reality and, based on the reported results of two new surveys, one by the New York Times and CBS and the other by the Wall Street Journal and NBC, the perception du jour in DC is that President Barack Obama has lost ground because of public concern with government spending, the deficit, and, perhaps most of all, the General Motors "bailout." The New York Times story on its survey is even headlined, "In poll, Obama is seen as ineffective on the economy.

But a look beneath the headlines to the survey data itself indicates that New York Times writers, or at least their headline writer, may have misread their own poll results. Instead of condemning of the president's handling of the economy, in the New York Times/CBS survey, the public actually approves of it by a greater than twenty-percentage point margin (57% vs. 35%), statistically unchanged since the first weeks of the administration. In the aftermath of the president's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe, his marks in foreign policy have actually risen since May.  And, even in health care reform, a work in progress and a relative soft spot for Obama, voters approve of his performance by 44-percent to 34-percent.

As a result, Obama's overall job approval rating is unchanged over the past month, down slightly since April, and even up marginally since February and March. To the extent that the president's performance rating has fallen, the drop has been almost totally concentrated among Republicans.

What may contribute to the expectation that Obama is standing on shaky ground, or soon will be, is another incorrect inside-the-beltway perception, this one primarily advanced by Republican commentators since the president's election, that America is "conservative," "center right" or at least "centrist." More often than not these pronouncements stem from narrowly focused interpretations of surveys suggesting that the number of "independents" in the electorate is growing and that self-perceived independents represent some amorphous, undifferentiated group of "centrists" who are decisive in U.S. politics.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The large majority (about 80%) of those who tell pollsters they are independents actually "lean" to one or the other of the two parties. Those who lean to the Democrats differ demographically and, even more importantly, behaviorally and attitudinally from those who lean to the GOP. As a result, the electorate is far more partisan than superficial analyses of survey results might suggest. Currently, the Democrats hold a substantial and growing edge over the Republicans among independents who lean toward a party. About six in ten "leaners" now tilt to the Democrats. Coupled with their large lead among those who do identify with a party, the Democrats are clearly operating as the country's decisive majority party.

John P. Avlon, who served on the policy and speech writing teams of Rudy Giuliani's abbreviated 2008 presidential campaign, is only the most recent of those professing the importance of centrist independents. Citing Pew Research Center data, Avlon claimed in an early June Wall Street Journal article that the number of self-identified independents in the electorate has risen sharply since Obama's win last November while the percentage of both Democrats and Republicans has fallen. Because of these post-election shifts, according to Avlon, "independents hold the balance of power in the Obama era."

On the surface, Avlon's description of the Pew data may be accurate. But his characterization of party identification data is shallow and incomplete. Avlon, like most of those who write about the distribution of party identifiers within the US electorate, refers to only three discrete and presumably undifferentiated categories of voters--Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

However, voting behavior analysts affiliated with the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, who first formulated the concept of party identification in the 1950s, recognized early on that those who identify with a particular political party do so with varying degrees of strength, while those who say they are independents may lean toward one or the other of the parties. As a result, the Michigan researchers developed a seven-point scale to more fully capture the actual complexity of party identification. This scale consists of Strong Democrats on one extreme and Strong Republicans on the other. In between the two extremes are Weak Democrats, Independents who lean to the Democrats, Independents who lean to the Republicans and Weak Republicans. In the very center of the scale are Independents who do not lean to either party.

All of this might only be of academic interest were it not for the crucial importance of party identification. Party identification represents a psychological attachment of voters to a political party. While it certainly is not a contractual obligation to support a party, the large majority of Americans vote for the party with which they identify or to which they lean--and they almost always adhere to its positions on issues as well . Political scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that party identification is the single most important factor shaping the choices of individual voters. In the aggregate, these numbers really do matter.  The distribution of party identifiers and leaners is the clearest indicator of the relative strength of the two parties within the U.S. electorate and has now tilted heavily toward the Democrats.

Utilizing the more complete and useful seven-point scale rather than a three-point division paints a far different picture of American voters than the one that Avlon and most of those who report on trends in party identification paint. Based on April 2009 data that is the most recent cited by Pew, here is the overall distribution of party identifiers in the U.S.:

Strong Democrats

23%

Weak Democrats

13%

Democratic Leaning Independents

18%

Non-Leaning Independents

13%

Republican Leaning Independents

12%

Weak Republicans

10%

Strong Republicans

12%

* Table does not total 100% due to rounding

This table makes several points very clear. First, the Democrats are clearly the majority party holding a decisive twenty-percentage point party ID lead over the Republicans (54% to 34%). Second, barely one in ten voters is a non-leaning independent; rather than being the decisive center, non-committed voters actually comprise a small minority of the electorate.

The following table, also using Pew tracking data, displays the distribution of party identification for all election years from 1990 through 2006 and for every year since then. 

Year

Republican/Lean Republican

Independents

Democrat/Lean Democrat

Overall Democratic Advantage

1990

43%

13%

44%

+1%

1992

40%

11%

49%

+9%

1994

44%

12%

44%

0

1996

42%

10%

48%

+6%

1998

39%

14%

47%

+8%

2000

39%

14%

44%

+5%

2002

43%

14%

43%

0

2004

41%

12%

47%

+6%

2006

38%

15%

47%

+9%

2007

36%

14%

50%

+14%

2008

36%

13%

51%

+15%

2009

36%

12%

52%

+16%

These results lead to a number of clear and important conclusions about the distribution of party identification across the American electorate during the past two decades.

  • The Democrats have generally held the edge throughout the entire period. But, that advantage was relatively small during the 1990s and the first three election years of this century. The Democratic margin widened a bit in the two years when Bill Clinton won the presidency (1992 and 1996) and 1998, when some voters may have turned against the GOP in reaction to a politically motivated impeachment effort. By contrast, the Republicans reached parity with the Democrats in 1994, the year of the Gingrich revolution that saw the GOP gain control of Congress, and 2002, when the nation rallied to a Republican president in the aftermath of 9/11.
  • The Democratic advantage has sharply and consistently widened since the 2006 midterm elections when that party regained control of Congress. A number of factors--the disastrous George W. Bush presidency, an increasingly diverse electorate, the emergence of the Millennial Generation (young Americans born 1982-2003), the election and continued appeal of Barack Obama--have all undoubtedly contributed to the Democrats' increased party identification lead. Regardless of the relative importance of these and other factors, a greater percentage of American voters now identifies as Democrats or leans Democratic than at any time since Lyndon Johnson's landslide 1964 victory over Barry Goldwater. The Democratic margin over the GOP is larger than at any time since the post-Watergate period of the mid-1970s.
  • The number of completely non-affiliated voters has slightly, but consistently, declined each year since 2006. Rather than becoming more crucial, as writers such as Avlon suggest, unattached independents have actually become less important during past several years.

All of this leaves President Obama and congressional Democrats in strong position as they prepare for the major battles ahead on health care reform and energy--if they have the courage to avoid giving in to incorrect Washington perceptions and, instead, take advantage of the rare opportunity that the American electorate has given them.

Syndicate content