Politics and Public Opinion « The Enterprise Blog

Archive for the ‘Politics and Public Opinion’ Category

Polls suggest class warfare and the Buffett Rule won’t reelect Obama

April 9, 2012, 12:16 pm

If only it were this simple for Democrats. Step 1: Call for higher taxes on the rich. Step 2: Win elections. Rinse and repeat.

Indeed, a simple reading of the polls suggests it really should be this simple. President Obama’s Buffett Rule tax certainly scores well in public opinion surveys. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 64% of Americans support the idea, including 59% of self-described independents. Yet a new AEI study of public opinion concludes that it “does not appear that taxing the rich or tax reform will be key issues for voters this fall. Occupy Wall Street has done little to change attitudes toward taxing the rich, with long-standing support toward taxing them more remaining strong.”

Over the past three or four decades — a period supposedly marked by stagnant middle-class incomes and sharply rising income inequality — Americans have become less interested in raising taxes on the rich. In questions asked by the Roper Organization between 1972 and 1992, between 72 and 80% said “high-income families” pay too little in taxes, the AEI study notes. In 1992, Gallup started asking whether “upper-income people” pay too little, too much, or the right amount in federal taxes, and 77 percent said they paid too little. That response has moved downward unevenly. In 2011, 59% said they paid too little vs. 66% in 2007, just before the Great Recession.

In other words, Americans always think the rich pay too little in taxes. If there’s anything new here, it’s that the view seems to be held less strongly today than in the past.

Now here is a second Gallup poll that really gets at the heart of the Obama agenda:

Again, Americans always think that wealth should be more evenly distributed. But that feeling is less strong today than in the past, despite the financial crisis. Finally, should government redistribute wealth?

So the idea of raising taxes on the rich seems to be more popular than important to Americans. Our aspirational streak is still wider than our populist one. We realize heavy taxes may create a “fairer” system by some measure but not a more prosperous one. The Economic Prosperity Party tends to beat the Economic Security Party. It didn’t work that way in 2008, of course. But that was time of economic panic not seen in the United States since the Great Depression. Also note that Obama’s major attempt at a new economic security program, Obamacare, remains more unpopular than popular:

The next president? Whoever can persuade Americans that the next four years will be more prosperous that the past four.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Economic Policy, Fiscal Policy and Taxes, Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: 2012 campaign, Buffett Rule, taxes

What you may have missed in the polls: Jewish voters, the Supreme Court, and news interest

By Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg

April 6, 2012, 10:39 am

Jewish Voters: A new survey conducted by Knowledge Networks for the Public Religion Research Institute looks at the political opinions and social and cultural values of Jews in America. Sixty-two percent of self-identified Jewish voters in the panel survey said they would like to see President Obama re-elected, twice as many as say they would prefer the GOP candidate (30 percent). Jews were about 2 percent of all voters in 2004 and 2008. They gave 25 of their votes to the GOP candidate in 2004 and 21 percent in 2008.

When asked about the congressional elections, 65 percent of Jewish voters said they would vote for the Democratic candidate in their district and 27 percent the Republican.

In the survey, seven in ten Jewish voters identified with (50 percent) or leaned to (20 percent) the Democratic Party compared to three in ten who identify (13 percent) or leaned to (16 percent) the GOP. The top issue for Jewish voters was the economy (51 percent), followed by national security (29 percent). Israel and Iran were selected by 6 percent each.

In the News: The table below shows the results from a question in Pew’s most recent News Interest Index that asked people whether news organizations were giving too much, too little, or about the right amount of coverage to these stories.

Views on the Supreme Court: President Obama has signaled his intention to make the Supreme Court an issue in the fall campaign. Gallup’s data on the Court shows that approval of the Court has dropped from 48 percent in the first asking during the Obama presidency to 46 percent in 2011. The proportion having a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Court has moved up slightly during his presidency. Thirty-two percent had high confidence in 2008; 37 percent did so in 2011.

In 2008, 30 percent said the Court was too conservative and 21 percent too liberal. In 2011, those responses were reversed: 31 percent said it was too liberal and 20 percent too conservative.

Pew’s new poll, taken after the Supreme Courts’ hearing on the health care law last week, showed that 65 percent said their opinion of the Court had not changed from what they saw or heard. Twenty-one percent had a less favorable opinion and 7 percent a more favorable opinion. Democrats were more likely than the public as a whole to have a more negative opinion following the hearings (32 percent). Republicans were slightly more likely than the national sample to have a more favorable view of it (13 percent).

The Road Ahead: The next batch of Republican Primaries occurs April 24. In Connecticut, a mid-march Quinnipiac poll showed Romney up 23 points. In New York, Romney was up 33 points in late March/early April Quinnipiac survey. The last poll we have from Rhode Island, a mid-February PPP poll, shows Romney up 23 points. In Pennsylvania, recent surveys show mixed results. An early April PPP poll shows Romney up 5 points while a late March/early April Quinnipiac poll shows Santorum up 6 points. There has not been any recent polling in the last April 24th state, Delaware. It’s expected that Romney will carry it.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: polls, what you may have missed

Karlyn Bowman

What the exit polls in Wisconsin tell us

By Karlyn Bowman

April 4, 2012, 9:18 am

*Is it really, truly over? It seems so, yet the exit poll in the important swing state of Wisconsin revealed some problems for the all-but-inevitable nominee Mitt Romney.

*Santorum continued to do well with rural voters, those with lower incomes, and evangelicals. Romney does better with suburban, somewhat conservative, higher income, and non-evangelical voters. Romney’s “coalition” will be more numerous in the fall.

*Romney and Santorum each won 43 percent of voters who described themselves as very conservative, an improvement for front runner Romney. He won somewhat conservative and moderate to liberal voters decisively.

*Eighty percent of Wisconsin voters said Romney was mostly likely to win the nomination. But 44 percent of voters in another question said that Romney’s positions were “not conservative enough,” which may indicate a problem in the fall. Two-thirds of voters there said they would be satisfied if Romney wins the nomination, but 32 percent said they would not.

*Wisconsin voters trusted Romney more than the other candidates on health care.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: exit polls, mitt romney, polls, republican nomination, Rick Santorum

Banter #50: The one about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

By Andrew Rugg

March 30, 2012, 3:52 pm

On the 50th episode of AEI’s podcast, Banter, we sit down with AEI scholar Michael Greve to talk about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. We go over the week’s proceedings in the Supreme Court, the prospects of the court overturning the individual mandate, and the looming questions surrounding Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Michael brings his deep legal knowledge to help not only describe the major issues facing opponents and proponents the law, but give an accurate assessment for the law’s future prospects.

Listen to the full episode on the Banter Blog!

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: AEI Banter, Banter, Michael Greve, obamacare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

What you may have missed in the polls: Wisconsin, the nomination contest, and nuclear energy

By Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg

March 30, 2012, 9:38 am

Wisconsin watch: In a new Marquette Law School poll, Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker has a narrow lead over announced recall election candidate Kathleen Falk (49 to 45 percent) among Wisconsinites. Walker leads another potential candidate, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by 47 to 45 percent. In the poll, Walker has a 47 percent favorable rating in the state, 45 percent unfavorable.

Forty-one percent of Wisconsinites had a favorable opinion of public sector unions and 42 percent an unfavorable view. The recall election will probably take place on June 5.

Interesting or dull?: In February 2008, 70 percent of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center described the 2008 campaign as interesting; 25 percent said it was dull. In a new poll this year, 38 percent said the 2012 campaign was interesting, while 52 percent said it was dull.

Get out now: No, we don’t mean Afghanistan. In the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 61 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents said Ron Paul should drop out, 60 percent said Newt Gingrich should, and 39 percent felt Santorum should go. Twenty-one percent wanted Romney to get out.

Trial heat: Marist/McClatchy pollsters asked their presidential trial heat question and included possible running mates for Mitt Romney. With Marco Rubio on the ticket, voters preferred Obama (and Biden) by 49 percent to 44 percent. With Jeb Bush on the ticket, voters split evenly (47 to 47 percent). Latino voters appear to like Jeb Bush. With Rubio on the ticket, Latinos went for Obama over Romney 50 to 46 percent. With Jeb Bush, Latinos went for Romney 57 to 36 percent.

Social issues: In the Marist/McClatchy poll, 47 percent said the Democratic Party comes closer to their views on social issues such as abortion, contraception, and same sex marriage. Forty-four percent said the Republican Party comes closer. Women (by 50 to 41 percent) and those 18 to 29 (55 to 35 percent) felt closer to the Democratic Party. Latinos broke toward the Republican Party, 52 percent to 41 percent. Independents were equally divided.

The nuclear option: One year after the Fukushima nuclear failure, 57 percent of Americans told Gallup that they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity to the United States. Forty percent were opposed. The responses mirrored views on the safety of nuclear power perfectly. Fifty-seven percent think it’s safe, 40 percent don’t. Women were much more skeptical than men about nuclear power on both questions.

Important issues: In Gallup’s latest survey on the most important problems Americans think face the country, the top four were the economy (71 percent worry a great deal about it), gas prices (65 percent), federal spending and the deficit (60 percent), and the availability and affordability of healthcare (60 percent). The bottom four, out 15 issues reported, were the quality of the environment (37 percent), the possibility of future terrorist attacks in the United States (35 percent), illegal immigration (34 percent), and race relations (17 percent).

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: mitt romney, nuclear power, polls, republican nomination, what you may have missed

Marc Thiessen

New poll shows majority has no idea progress being made in Afghanistan (whose fault is that?)

By Marc Thiessen

March 27, 2012, 1:04 pm

The New York Times reports this morning on the continuing collapse of public support for the war effort in Afghanistan:

After a series of violent episodes and setbacks, support for the war in Afghanistan has dropped sharply among both Republicans and Democrats, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The survey found that more than two-thirds of those polled—69 percent—thought that the United States should not be at war in Afghanistan. Just four months ago, 53 percent said that Americans should no longer be fighting in the conflict, more than a decade old.

But here is the most damning result:

The increased disillusionment was even more pronounced when respondents were asked their impressions of how the war was going. The poll found that 68 percent thought the fighting was going “somewhat badly” or “very badly,” compared to 42 percent who had those impressions in November.

Given this broad impression that the fight is going poorly in Afghanistan, it’s little wonder that a growing majority of Americans want to pull out. But the fact is the fighting is not going “very badly” or even “somewhat badly.” As Fred and Kimberly Kagan recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the U.S.-led coalition actually has the momentum in the fight in Afghanistan:

Progress in the fight is undeniable. Coalition forces have driven the Taliban from their major safe havens in southern Afghanistan and are continuing to press into lesser enemy strongholds. The Taliban have launched operations to retake the ground they have lost, but so far to no avail….

There is every reason to believe that coalition forces and their increasingly effective Afghan partners can hold the gains in the south through this fighting season (that is, until November). This would allow them to create meaningful security zones around all of the major population centers in the south for the first time since 2001, but only if they have the resources and the time to do it.

Aggressive operations have managed to preserve a great degree of security in Kabul and are slowly expanding out from there. But the enemy still has safe havens within eastern Afghanistan that must be cleared before they are turned over to Afghan responsibility … Removing U.S. forces prematurely will deny the coalition and the Afghans the ability to shift their forces to eastern Afghanistan. … Right now, we have the momentum against [our] enemies in Afghanistan. This is the time to press the fight.

So if this is the reality on the ground, why do so many Americans believe the opposite is true? The question can be answered with another: When is the last time you heard the commander in chief deliver the American people a progress report on Afghanistan? As House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon recently explained in an outstanding speech at the Reagan library:

President Bush gave over forty speeches about the war on terrorism and the importance of victory. President Obama has given three. We must do a better job of communicating the importance of this fight. We must do a better job highlighting the stories of courage and daring our military have etched into the stone of history. Our troops have earned that honor, and our troops deserve that honor.

Why does this president, who envisions himself as the second coming of FDR, not have a single fireside chat in him? Why does he refuse to use the bully pulpit to explain his own policy and report on the progress of his own strategy? The administration argues that we have to get out of Afghanistan because public support for the effort there is collapsing—when they are in fact responsible for that very collapse.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Foreign and Defense, Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: afghanistan, president obama

AEI Blog Symposium: Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity and the 2012 Election

By The Editors

March 23, 2012, 2:27 pm

For this online symposium, we posed the following question to a variety of all-star pundits and commentators: How will Paul Ryan’s new Path to Prosperity budget affect the 2012 election?

Jay Cost, staff writer for the Weekly Standard.

President Obama and his partisan hatchet woman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, are surely pleased that Paul Ryan has released this budget, as it gives them an opportunity to run the “Mediscare” tactic against Republicans.

They should get some political mileage out of it, but their alternative is certainly no more popular, and much more dangerous. As Keith Hennessey has noted, the Ryan budget and the Obama budget offer distinct paths for the country: One of sustainable deficits and one of unsustainable deficits.

This points to the value of the Ryan plan. For decades, Americans have turned a blind eye to the fact that its entitlement system is unsustainable, as the next step is too uncomfortable: Either big reforms must be implemented, or huge tax hikes imposed. Americans have consistently chosen “none of the above,” and politicians have encouraged this willful ignorance.

The Ryan budget forces the political class to finally discuss the nature of our debt crisis, and thus begin the arduous process of building a political consensus for solving it. President Obama would rather continue the happy fiction that our debt problems can be solved with a few tax hikes on the wealthy. But the Ryan plan makes it harder for him to pull the wool over the public’s eyes in 2012—and just might induce the country to confront its entitlement crisis.

Jonathan S. Tobin, senior online editor of Commentary magazine.

Paul Ryan’s budget proposal will be prime campaign fodder for Democrats in 2012. They will seek to tie every Republican on the ballot to Ryan’s vision, which they will label as an effort to gut Medicare and Social Security. The “throw granny off the cliff” trope will be used for all its worth. But the ultimate effectiveness of this strategy is an open question.

Class warfare demagoguery can certainly rally the liberal base, whose mobilization is essential for Democratic victory. The template is the special Congressional election last spring in Western New York, where the Mediscare theme flipped a safe GOP seat to the Democrats. Yet a rigid defense of entitlements during a shaky economy may not be as bulletproof as Democrats think. Ryan’s ideas give the GOP, and especially its presidential candidate, an opportunity to play the responsible adult on economic questions.

A campaign aimed at convincing voters that tax reform and a mandate to stop the out-of-control spending that is bankrupting the nation can be every bit as effective as the Democrats’ Mediscare theme. It also plays into Mitt Romney’s economic expertise and fears about the cost of ObamaCare. Though Ryan’s decision to put his ideas on the table was a risk, it’s one that might pay off for his party.

Jennifer Marsico, senior research associate, AEI’s Political Corner.

With the GOP candidates still locked in a tight primary battle, it’s to be expected that all of them will voice support for the Ryan budget. The plan, introduced on Tuesday, includes a range of conservative policies, from simplification of the tax code to deficit reduction to spending cuts in several government programs, so opposing the budget in the midst of a close primary could be the kiss of death. (Don’t expect to hear any charges of “right-wing social engineering” this year.)

But even though all of the GOP candidates will probably support the Ryan plan, they’ve made few comments about it (Romney says he supports it, while Santorum calls it “a good blueprint”). Meanwhile, congressional Democrats have been quite vocal, arguing that the Ryan plan would hurt Medicare and therefore hurt seniors. Although Ryan himself disagrees with the idea that his budget plan could be a hindrance to the eventual GOP nominee, fervent, demonstrative support for it now could make the general election run-to-the-center more difficult. In a year where winning independent voters will be key to winning the election, GOP candidates’ quieter support may be their best approach to the budget, politically speaking.

James Pethokoukis, AEI’s Enterprise blog editor and CNBC contributor.

Yes, the sweeping budget plan put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan would radically transform how Washington taxes and spends. Over the next decade, Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” would cut spending by $5.3 trillion compared to President Barack Obama’s recent budget proposal. Longer term, reforming Medicare is what the Ryan plan is really all about. Ryan wants to use competition to cut costs while maintaining and improving quality. Under his “premium support” plan, seniors starting in 2023—at least those under 55 today—would use Medicare dollars to choose among private plans and Medicare.

A big change? Sure. But that mechanism has received kind words across the political spectrum. Current Democratic budget hawks, including Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and former Clinton budget adviser Alice Rivlin, are supportive. And it is pretty tough to argue that Ryan wants to kill Medicare when he specifically keeps it as an option for tomorrow’s seniors and would spend more on it as a share of GDP. I think the Democratic anti-Ryan argument will quickly sound like a tired talking point. Which it is. Republicans shouldn’t hesitate to embrace it.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, U.S. Politics | Tags: budget, paul ryan, republican nomination

Political news roundup, March 22, 2012

By Henrik Temp

March 22, 2012, 7:49 pm

Headlines:

Matt K. Lewis, the Daily Caller: ‘Etch A Sketch’ leaves a mark on Mitt.

Michael A. Memoli, the LA Times: Etch-A-Sketch moment could haunt Mitt Romney in the fall.

Jake Sherman, Politico: How Paul Ryan sold his budget plan.

Amy Gardner and Scott Wilson, Washington Post: Obama tries to reclaim advantage on gas prices, health care.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, the Wall Street Journal: The Supreme Court Weighs ObamaCare.

In-Depth:

Bill Maher, the New York Times: Please Stop Apologizing.

Alec MacGillis, The New Republic: When Romney Liked High Gas Prices.

Jack Gillum, Associated Press: Is big GOP money finally flowing to Mitt Romney?

John F. Gaski, The American: How to Beat ObamaCare in Court.

Linda Greenhouse, NY Times Opinionator blog: Never Before.

The big political news today is the aftermath of “etch-a-sketch-gate” on Mitt Romney. Matt K. Lewis of the Daily Caller describes the effect it’s had so far on the campaign. Meanwhile, Michael Memoli of the LA Times reminds us that the effects of this gaffe will last far longer than the primary. Key quote:

At any point in the fall, if the Obama campaign senses any massaging of his earlier positions, they now have the perfect image to respond to. What windsurfing was to John Kerry, Etch-A-Sketch could be to Romney in a 30-second TV ad.

My thoughts: This story isn’t going away; it’s just too easy to turn into political hay. It’s also a great distraction from the issues, and perfectly reinforces the stereotype of Mitt Romney. Fortunately for Mitt, it’s probably come too late to make a difference in the primary. Unfortunately for Republicans, it’s going to be a winner for Obama in the fall.

In other big news, Rep. Paul Ryan continues his publicity blitz for the new House GOP budget. Jake Sherman of Politico describes the careful, methodical rollout of the plan after last year’s PR disaster. Still, as predicted, there are tons of anti-Ryan articles on the Web today, most of them portraying the budget as anti-senior and anti-poor. To make things worse for Mr. Ryan, he’s taking fire from his right flank as well.

My thoughts: The Path to Prosperity has no chance of becoming law until after the 2012 election, so Republicans and conservatives have nothing to gain by criticizing it as too moderate. Most Americans are going to hear “Ryan pushes elderly off cliff” style stories nonstop between now and November. If they hear that some Republicans are criticizing as not conservative enough, it will only reinforce the Democratic narrative of an “extremist” GOP.

While Romney deals with the etch-a-sketch aftermath and Ryan continues his PTP rollout, Amy Gardner and Scott Wilson remind us that the president is still out there, too! And he’s on the warpath, blasting Republicans as “Flat Earth Society” members and lecturing the American people on why the president isn’t responsible for gas prices. His message seems to be working quite well on Democrats, as the below graphic from WaPo shows, but not so well on Republicans. (As a sidenote, I know partisanship influences perception, but a 40 point change?? Come on, Democrats, I thought you were the party of objectivity and rationality.)

In more minor news, Bill Maher makes an excellent point about false outrage in the New York Times today. Here’s Maher:

When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like?…

I don’t want to live in a country where no one ever says anything that offends anyone. That’s why we have Canada. That’s not us.

My thoughts: Despite the fact that he’s likely holding this position out of obvious self-interest, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong. It seems to me that all these “outrageous outrage” stories are just so much filler which could be replaced with serious discussions about the issues. But who am I kidding? This is so much more fun! …

Also in minor news we get another example of a Mitt flip-flop, some good news for Romney, and competing opinions on the constitutionality of the ACA. Before you head out, chuckle at this hilarious cartoon by A.F. Branco. Enjoy!

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, U.S. Politics | Tags: Political Roundup

What you may have missed in the polls: Gas prices, healthcare, and electability

By Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg

March 22, 2012, 4:55 pm

Energy Angst: In Oklahoma yesterday, President Obama announced his administration’s plans to order federal agencies to speed up approval of the southern part of the Keystone XL pipeline. Fifty-seven percent in a new Gallup poll say the government should approve the building of the pipeline, while 29 percent are opposed. A majority of Republicans and Independents are in favor, as are a plurality of Democrats. Seventy-eight percent of those following news about the pipeline very closely support it.

In a broader question, 65 percent in Pew’s new poll favored allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters. In the poll, there was also support for Obama’s “all-of-the-above” options, including increasing funding for alternative energy sources.

Happy at the pump?: In a new Fox News poll, 12 percent described their feelings about increasing gas prices as happy because it will encourage the United States to find alternative energy sources. Seventy-three percent were unhappy. Thirty-one percent thought President Obama is also happy about high gas prices for the same reason.

Healthcare Views: AEI’s new compilation of dozens of polls from major pollsters examines views about the law, President Obama’s handling of the issue, Democrats’ and Republicans’ strengths on healthcare, and views about the mandate. View the full report on the AEI website.

Electability: In every exit poll, voters in Republican primaries and caucuses have checked a box saying that being able to defeat Barack Obama was the most important candidate quality in deciding their vote. Among all Republican primary voters in the CBS/New York Times poll, however, “electability” ranked third. Thirty-four percent said strong moral character was the most important quality, 24 percent having the right experience, followed by being able to defeat Obama (19 percent), and being a true conservative (18 percent.)

Etch-a-Sketch: Senior Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom compared the campaign yesterday to an Etch-A-Sketch because “you can kind of shake it up and we start all over again” during the general election. That’s what many conservatives are worried about. Thirty-six percent of Republican primary voters in the CBS News/New York Times poll said Romney’s views weren’t conservative enough for them, more than gave that response about any of the other GOP candidates. Fifty-two percent said they were about right, and 5 percent too conservative.

Purists: Fox News asked self-identified Republicans to narrow their nominee choice between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Among those who selected Santorum (44 percent), 18 percent said that they would rather lose the general election in November with Rick Santorum as the nominee that win with Mitt Romney. The question was not asked of Romney supporters.

Back home: In this week’s Ipsos/Reuters poll, 61 percent agreed that the U.S. should bring home all of its troops immediately. Thirty-five percent strongly agreed and only 5 percent strongly disagreed. The consensus extended across partisan lines. Fifty-five percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Democrats, and 70 percent of Independents thought the troops should be brought home immediately.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: afghanistan, gas prices, Health care, polls, republican nomination, what you may have missed

Jonah Goldberg

With apologies to Henrik Temp

By Jonah Goldberg

March 21, 2012, 3:37 pm

Henrik, I agree with a lot of your points, for the obvious reason that they’re statements of fact. Young people’s attitudes are different than older peoples’ attitudes. That is part of the reason we call them “young people.” And while I agree that Republicans can and should do better in explaining conservative views in terms young people understand, I think Republican politicians should also go to some lengths to explain to young people why they are wrong.

Simply because young millennials have disproportionately liberal views doesn’t require conservatives to show disproportionate deference to liberalism when talking to millennials.

They shouldn’t do so for several reasons, but I’ll just expand on two.

First, young people are very good at spotting condescension and pandering. There’s nothing more uncool to young people than older people trying to act cool. If old Republicans start talking to young people “on their terms,” odds are they will make a hash of it. If you have to do that sort of thing, it’d be better to have young Republicans talking to young non-Republicans. I’m not a huge Ron Paul booster, but I’ve been struck by how many young people think Ron Paul is the exciting guy in the presidential field this time. Barack Obama, from what I can tell, is not nearly so cool to young people as he was in 2008 or as you make him sound today. You say that millennials love Barack Obama in part because he “gets” technology. I don’t get the sense that Ron Paul is a whiz at technology. Moreover, what an absurd reason to like a candidate! I like single malt scotch, Tommy Bahama shirts, and Star Trek, but I would never cite such shared affinities with a politician as a reason to vote for him.

Which brings me to point number two. Conservatives are supposed to believe in the power of ideas. If 2+2 = 5 is wrong for a 65-year-old, then it’s no less wrong for a 21-year-old. The same goes for free markets, foreign policy, and the rest. The rush to cater to the views of young people is not merely condescending, it’s a form of power-worship. Again, I hold no brief for Paul, but his success with younger voters stems directly from the fact that he at least seems unafraid to hold unpopular and principled (and at times esoteric) positions.

Conservatives should be telling young liberals that they are wrong in their views not because they are young but because they are liberal. If that message needs to be sugarcoated or framed in such a way so as to protect their delicate sensibilities, that’s fine, even if it reflects poorly on young people. Politics is ultimately about persuasion, after all. And if the Republican Party wants to pander to millennials by showing how hip it is, it is free to do so. But it seems to me, as a conservative concerned about America, the wiser course of action is to level with young people in the hope that they grow up and put aside childish things as quickly as possible.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, Society and Culture, U.S. Politics | Tags: millennials

Christopher J. Conover

Maybe it’s Paul Krugman who’s lying about Obamacare

By Christopher J. Conover

March 21, 2012, 11:51 am

Paul Krugman says the opponents of the Affordable Care Act are liars. According to Mr. Krugman, “To understand the lies, you first have to understand the truth. How would ObamaRomneycare change American healthcare? For most people the answer is, not at all. In particular, those receiving good health benefits from employers would keep them” (emphasis added).

I don’t wish to put words into Mr. Krugman’s mouth, but this claim sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s oft-repeated promise “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan.” But even at the time it was uttered in August 2009, PolitiFact.com scored this claim as only half true. When pressed on this promise, President Obama gave a lengthy answer that PolitiFact summarized as follows: “Obama’s saying that the government will not force employers to change their health plans.” That was then, this is now. What we know now that the law has actually been passed and some of the regulations have been written, is that President Obama’s 2009 assertion is factually false.

One can quibble over whether the president was lying when he made this claim (which implies knowingly stating a falsehood) or was merely mistaken in guessing the contents of the final bill and attendant regulations. But for Mr. Krugman to, in essence, repeat this claim in 2012 is a flagrant falsehood. If Mr. Krugman is so ignorant of the projected effects of the Affordable Care Act, as codified in official estimates issued by the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare actuary, and the regulations issued by the Obama administration himself, then he has no business pontificating about the “truth” of the Affordable Care Act on the pages of the New York Times. If he is aware of these projected impacts, then an impartial observer might be forgiven for concluding that he is lying. You be the judge.

Millions of Americans will be adversely affected by Obamacare, such as the 7.4 million elderly individuals who will lose their Medicare Advantage Plans by 2017, according to the Medicare actuary. But let me focus only on employer-based coverage, since that is where Mr. Krugman makes his most concrete (i.e., empirically testable) claim. If you like your current health plan, can you keep it? To borrow a phrase from Mr. Krugman, “For most people the answer is, not at all.” This, of course, is the precise opposite of what Mr. Krugman and the president have asserted. They would have you believe that most of the 169 million Americans with employer-based health coverage will be able to keep their current coverage (if they like it). Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, every single health plan in America, even those that are “grandfathered” from having to comply with the thicket of Obamacare regulations, has been forced to make changes in coverage. These include prohibition of pre-existing condition exclusions, prohibition on excessive waiting periods, no lifetime or annual limits, and prohibition on rescissions, each of which will add to the premium cost of insurance (if such provisions were cost-free, employers would have added them years ago).

Second, federal regulators have projected that only one in three small employers (under 100 employees) and half of large employers will remain grandfathered by 2013. In short, official government figures explicitly acknowledge that more than half of all employees will not be able to keep their current coverage. The grandfathering rules are far too strict to allow this. Worse, the regulators further concede that as few as one in five small employers and one in three large employers might qualify for grandfathered plan status under the rules they have issued. In that case, more than two-thirds of workers will have lost their current coverage by 2013.

Finally, looking beyond 2013, the restrictions on grandfathered plans are sufficiently binding that proponents of the ACA fully concede that “eventually, if the ACA remains in effect, grandfathered plans will disappear.” Knowing all this, do you feel confident in your ability to keep your current coverage? More to the point, does a claim that ObamaRomneycare will not change American healthcare for “most” people sound even remotely truthful?

Paul Krugman has no monopoly on deceptiveness when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. Just this week, Jonathan Tobin has observed: ‎”President Obama’s willingness to falsify the facts about a personal tragedy in order to make a political point speaks volumes about not only his cynicism but also his character. It’s important to remember that this is no misunderstanding but rather a bald-faced lie.”

But perhaps Mr. Krugman could set an example to which his students and readers could aspire.

Mr. Krugman, lying in the public square is despicable, inexcusable behavior. Please stop.

Christopher J. Conover is a research scholar at Duke University’s Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research, an adjunct scholar at AEI and affiliated senior scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. His new book American Health Economy Illustrated, was released in February 2012 by AEI Press.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (7)
Categories: Health Policy, Politics and Public Opinion, Society and Culture | Tags: obamacare, paul krugman

Right-of-center wonks to Ryan: Faster, please

By James Pethokoukis

March 21, 2012, 11:01 am

Rep. Paul Ryan’s new budget has been generally well received on the right. Among its most important features, the proposal would make the tax code less injurious to economic growth by making it flatter and simpler. It would also revamp Medicare to give markets and competition a real shot at holding down costs while improving value.

But there are some gripes among conservatives and libertarians. Some I agree with, some I don’t. I wish Ryan’s Path to Prosperity included Social Security reform as well as more clarity on reducing tax expenditures. And Republicans really need to reach some consensus on a comprehensive replacement for Obamacare.

But perhaps the most widespread complaint on the right is that the PTP “takes too long.” Indeed, the budget would not balance for three decades, adding trillions in new debt during that period. One reason why: Ryan’s Medicare premium support reforms wouldn’t kick in until 2023 and only affect those under 55 today.

But why not start those reforms earlier, especially since Medicare would continue to be an option for seniors? Certainly the earlier you begin, the more money you would potentially save—and the faster you would reduce the distorting aspects that fee-for-service Medicare has on U.S. healthcare overall.

And is there any legit reason why someone retiring today—who will likely receive three times more in medical services than what they paid in payroll taxes—shouldn’t be part of the solution rather than continuing to be part of the problem? Talk about shared responsibility. There’s no economic reason for waiting, only political: to keep current and near retirees at bay with delay. But that approach a) raises doubts about Ryan’s confidence in the efficacy of reform, b) undercuts Ryan’s arguments that a debt crisis is just around the corner, and c) places too much confidence in the priorities of future Washington legislators.

So I basically agree with this criticism. But let me add a few things:

– If Ryan’s plan was using more realistic growth assumptions, it would balance sooner.

– Even with CBO’s slow growth economic assumptions, PTP quickly gets debt-to-GDP on a downward trajectory, 62% by 2022, 53% by 2030. Though, again, if we had faster growth from tax reform, the downward debt trajectory would be steeper.

– I don’t think financial markets need to see a balanced budget in five years as much as they need to see the United States on the right path to fiscal sustainability and solvency. And the Path to Prosperity does that.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Economic Policy, Health Policy, Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: budget, conservatives, healthcare, Medicare, path to prosperity, paul ryan

With apologies to Mitt Romney: 3 reasons millennials vote Democrat

By Henrik Temp

March 20, 2012, 3:57 pm

Yesterday, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney said he couldn’t see how a young American could vote for a Democrat. The Hill reports:

“I don’t see how a young American can vote for, well, can vote for a Democrat,” Romney said in a speech at the University of Chicago.

The former Massachusetts governor said Democrats were saddling young people with debt while Republicans are committed to reducing spending and balancing the budget.

Romney then said he didn’t mean to be “flip.”

“I apologize for being so offensive for saying that,” Romney added. “In the humor, there’s some truth there.

“My party is consumed with the idea of getting federal spending down and creating economic growth and opportunity so we can balance our budget and stop putting these debts on you,” he said.

Romney’s point is well taken: Under our current fiscal path, debt as a percentage of GDP will continue to grow, as the below chart from Obama’s 2013 budget shows. In 2054, the year I turn 65 and theoretically retire, publicly held debt will be about 140% of GDP under the president’s plan. For comparison, Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio was only 112% in 2009 (though it has since spiked significantly due to a shrinking economy). So in the abstract, Romney is right: it doesn’t make sense for voters of my generation to elect politicians who ignore or even add to the mounting debt crisis. We (and our children) will be the ones paying this debt off.

The problem with Romney’s assertion is that, of course, Americans don’t vote based solely on long-term economic interest. Oftentimes, they vote based on social issues, foreign policy, or even personal connection with a particular politician. And on all these issues, millennials tend to agree with the Democratic Party. All numbers and charts are taken from Pew’s February 2010 report on millennials.

1. Social Issues. As the chart below shows, millennials are significantly more liberal than older Americans on issues of the family, homosexuality, and civil liberties. My generation has been hearing about the benefits of tolerance, inclusion, and acceptance since we were children, both from popular culture and our teachers. These values are often as fundamental to us as religious values were to our parents and grandparents. They aren’t going to change anytime soon, and so long as the GOP is popularly perceived as being against those values (I disagree with that perception, but that’s the way it is), millennials will keep pulling the Democratic lever.

2. Foreign Policy. Having come of age during the 2000’s, millennials have witnessed two divisive and expensive wars. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are widely perceived as failures by my generation. Iraq in particular is perceived as a total mistake. These perceptions lead us to be more timid and avoid sabre-rattling in foreign policy, as the charts below show.

3. Personal Connection. Millennials love Barack Obama. He’s young (for a politician), he’s hip (Jay-Z went to his birthday party!), and he gets technology. That’s a big deal to a generation that listed “Technology Use” as the top reason their generation is unique. As the chart below shows, millennials are the age group most inclined to approve of Obama’s job performance.

Romney is right to point out that millennials should vote Republican based on long-term economic trends. I consider myself a conservative for that exact reason. But if Republicans really want to win over young Americans, they’re going to have to talk about a lot more than the debt-to-GDP ratio in 2030. They need to convince millennials that the party respects their deeply-held social and foreign policy convictions. And they’re going to have to connect with them on a more personal level as well.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (3)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, Society and Culture, U.S. Politics | Tags: barack Obama, millennial voters, mitt romney

What you may have missed in the polls: Trouble ahead for Romney and the GOP?

By Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg

March 16, 2012, 10:31 am

Negatives: In virtually every recent poll we’ve seen, negative impressions of Mitt Romney outweigh positive ones. Take the new Fox News poll: 39 percent of registered voters rate Romney favorably, 49 percent unfavorably. President Obama has a 50 percent favorable and 47 percent unfavorable rating. In Pew’s new poll, 29 percent had a favorable opinion of Romney and 51 percent an unfavorable one. Those responses for Obama were 56 percent favorable, 41 percent unfavorable.

The GOP Brand: Mitt Romney isn’t alone. The Republican Party has problems with its brand, too. In Fox’s new poll, 48 percent of registered voters had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party and 44 percent an unfavorable one. For the Republican Party, those responses were 39 percent favorable, 52 percent unfavorable. In Pew’s poll, 49 percent nationally had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party and 43 percent a negative one. For the Republican Party, the responses were 36 and 56 percent, respectively.

Lukewarm Endorsement? When Fox News asked registered voters who preferred Romney in a head-to-head matchup with Obama, 40 percent said their vote was more a vote for Romney and 54 percent more a vote against Obama. Seventy-three percent of Obama supporters said their vote was more of a vote for him; 23 percent more of a vote against Romney.

Enthusiasm: Sixty-six percent of Republicans in the ABC/Washington Post poll said they would be satisfied if Romney became the nominee. Twenty-nine percent said they would not be satisfied. Santorum didn’t fare much better (69 to 26 percent). In Gallup’s latest, 35 percent of Republicans and those who lean to the party said they would vote enthusiastically for Mitt Romney if he became the party’s nominee, and 42 percent said they would vote for him but mainly as a vote against Obama. In 2008, the responses for Romney were identical. Republicans were more enthusiastic about voting for McCain in 2008.

Campaign Fatigue: Forty-six percent of Republicans interviewed by Selzer/Bloomberg pollsters said the Republican nominating process had been too negative. A third said it had struck the right balance and 16 percent said it was mostly positive. Forty-seven percent of Republicans told Pew it was a “good thing” the Republican primary contest has not yet been decided, but 43 percent said it was a bad thing for the party. In February, 55 percent said it was a good thing, 36 percent a bad thing.

Bottom Line: In the new Pew poll, just 60 percent of Republicans thought Romney would defeat Obama (30 percent said Obama would win). Nationally, 59 percent said Obama would win (32 percent Romney). In the ABC/Washington Post poll, 54 percent expected Obama to win a second term, up 17 points since October.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (4)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, U.S. Politics | Tags: 2012 campaign, mitt romney, polls, republican nomination, what you may have missed

Republican negativity toward Ron Paul

By Andrew Rugg

March 14, 2012, 9:55 am

Ron Paul has failed so far to win a major Republican primary or caucus in 2012, but he has managed to increase his vote share over 2008 in just about every state. In an election that has seen candidates rise and fall week after week, the stability of Ron Paul’s vote share stands out. He has also managed to give a strong voice to libertarians seeking electoral clout. But two important patterns appear in recent polling data and exit poll results. It’s far from clear that Paul has moored libertarians to the GOP ship for the long haul, or that Republicans want Paul to be an anchor for them.

Ron Paul Vote 2012 and 2008
State	2012	2008	% Point Change
Iowa	21%	10%	+11%
New Hampshire	23%	8%	+15%
South Carolina	13%	4%	+9%
Florida	7%	3%	+4%
Nevada	19%	14%	+5%
Colorado	12%	9%	+3%
Minnesota	27%	16%	+11%
Missouri	12%	4%	+8%
Maine	35%	18%	+17%
Arizona	8%	4%	+4%
Michigan	12%	6%	+6%
Wyoming	21%	0%	+21%
Washington	25%	8%	+17%
Virginia	40%	4%	+36%
Oklahoma	10%	3%	+7%
Massachusetts	10%	3%	+7%
Tennessee	9%	6%	+3%
Vermont	25%	7%	+18%
Ohio	9%	5%	+4%
Georgia	7%	3%	+4%
Idaho	18%	24%	-6%
North Dakota	28%	21%	+7%
Alaska	24%	17%	+7%
Kansas	13%	11%	+2%
Alabama	5%	3%	+2%
Mississippi	4%	4%	-

First, Ron Paul supporters aren’t exactly embracing the GOP. Exit polls across several of the contests so far show that Ron Paul supporters say they would probably not support Mitt Romney if he was the GOP nominee and they will not vote for the GOP nominee if their candidate does not win.

Second, Republicans are increasingly wary of Ron Paul. Nationally, most Republicans and Republican leaners have a mixed opinion of him. In Gallup’s latest survey, 50 percent have a favorable opinion and 41 percent an unfavorable one. But within the primary and caucus states so far, views of him are much more negative. In Public Policy Polling’s surveys, Paul enjoyed a higher favorable to unfavorable rating only in Minnesota (+10). In Tennessee and Mississippi, his favorable to unfavorable ratio was -27 and in Alabama it was -30.

Opinions among Republicans who self-identify as very conservative are even more negative, as the chart below shows. These negative assessments persist despite the fact that Ron Paul won voters who thought being a true conservative was the most important candidate quality in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Massachusetts, and Virginia.

Competing for the Republican nomination, including participating in the seemingly endless debates, has been an enormously powerful vehicle for Ron Paul’s message. It has allowed him to broadcast his views to a large audience and has forced GOP leaders to take his libertarian message seriously. But the cost has been enormous disapproval among GOP voters.

This estrangement threatens any future electoral cooperation between the two groups at a time when Republicans and the Ron Paul libertarian coalition need each other more than ever. Ron Paul has brought young, independent, and new voters into the Republican primaries and caucuses. This is something the other GOP candidates have failed to do. At the same time, it’s clear that Ron Paul’s views are not shared by a majority of Americans, particularly in the South. At the age of 77, it’s unlikely that Paul will run for president again. But how Republican leaders deal with his libertarian supporters remains a crucial question for GOP’s electoral success in 2012 and beyond.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (28)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: Election 2012, gop primary, libertarianism, polls, republican nomination, ron paul

Highlights from Alabama and Mississippi exit polls

By Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg

March 14, 2012, 8:03 am

*In both these southern states, Santorum showed strength among conservative voters and especially very conservative voters. He won the votes of white born-again and evangelical voters and those who said their religious beliefs mattered a great deal. He won rural voters. These groups have been a source of strength for Santorum in other states.

*In Mississippi, Santorum and Gingrich split the votes of Tea Party supporters. In Alabama, Santorum beat Gingrich by 2 percentage points among this group, 36 to 34 percent. Throughout this year’s primaries and caucuses, Tea Party supporters have consistently backed the winning candidate.

*As he has in most other states, Romney won the votes of those who selected “can defeat Obama” as the most important candidate quality in Alabama and Mississippi. Santorum won the votes of those who chose “true conservative” and “has a strong moral character.” In both states, people who checked “has the right experience” voted for Gingrich.

*42 percent of voters in Mississippi said they were angry about how government is working, one of the highest percentages we have seen on this question.

*67 percent of Mississippians said they would be satisfied if Santorum won the nomination. Fifty-seven percent felt that way about Romney.

*81 percent in Alabama said they would definitely vote for the party’s nominee in November and another 10 percent said they would probably do so.

*In Alabama, Santorum won the votes of married women, while the results for unmarried women were too small to report. In Mississippi, Santorum won married women and Romney won unmarried women.

*In both states, the candidates won the same education groups. Gingrich won those who had never attended college, Santorum won voters who had some college education and college graduates, and Romney won postgraduates.

*In both Alabama and Mississippi, 50 percent of voters said campaign ads were important to their vote. These voters narrowly preferred Santorum over Romney, despite the large sums Romney spent on ads.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: 2012 campaign, Election 2012, exit polls, polls

AEI Blog Symposium: The long GOP primary

By The Editors

March 9, 2012, 12:31 pm

For this online symposium, we posed the following question to a variety of all-star pundits and commentators: Has the long Republican primary helped or hurt the eventual nominee’s chances of defeating Barack Obama?

Jay Cost, Staff Writer for the Weekly Standard.

My answer: a qualified no.

The “no:” base voters will come home to the nominee because what defines them is that they are devoted supporters who turn out in thick and thin. So, the wounds, such as they are, will heal. Additionally, no permanent damage has been done to any candidate with the Independent voters. The small sliver of voters (10% or so) up for grabs in November has not even begun to make up their minds yet, so no need to worry about ebbs and flows in the polls just yet. The three-day infomercial of the convention should successfully “reintroduce” the nominee to them.

The “qualified:” Primary battles are inherently messy, hinging on personalities, regional/cultural affinities, and temperaments more than issues. So far, no damage has been done, but if this persists to the GOP convention—or, heaven forbid, into the convention itself—then there is a real potential for damage. The GOP needs a tidy convention to promote the party and the candidate; a convention fight or even hurt feelings among the candidates will give the media an obvious story to follow, thus damaging the much-needed PR blitz that the Tampa event should be.

Matt K. Lewis: Senior Contributor, the Daily Caller.

Conventional wisdom says a protracted primary hurts Republicans—and there is some evidence to demonstrate that it already has. But the truth is, we won’t be able to accurately judge the impact of this until after the general election. There is, of course, a point of diminishing returns. But in the heat of battle, most observers probably tend to overestimate the damage—and underestimate the benefits—of a hard-fought primary contest.

Some of the hand wringing, of course, is coming from Republicans. It’s perhaps ironic that the very people who ostensibly believe in creative destruction in the marketplace find themselves advocating for a form of political protectionism. What if the central planners at the RNC had decided a year ago that Rick Perry was the best positioned to defeat Barack Obama? They might have decided to clear the field so as to spare him the trouble of running in a primary. That, of course, would have been absurd.

Competition usually makes us better.

But for those who want to protect the nominee, there is another possible benefit to this internecine chaos. Once Republicans settle on a nominee, the media will begin covering the general election in earnest. That means Team Obama will finally begin their full-fledged assault. In this regard, Mitt Romney (or whoever) has been granted a bit of a reprieve. The question is whether or not they use this time to sharpen their message—and build a national infrastructure.

They could turn this crisis in to an opportunity.

Jonathan S. Tobin, senior online editor of Commentary magazine.

Optimistic Republicans point to the 2008 Democratic race in which a protracted struggle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton eventually led to triumph in November. But the differences between that contest and the bitter and protracted struggle the GOP is currently undergoing are far greater than the similarities. Obama and Clinton had few disagreements on the issues and not many of her supporters abandoned their party.

By contrast, many on the right believe this is a contest for their party’s soul and the resultant struggle will leave wounds that will not be easily healed. Though Mitt Romney will almost certainly be the GOP’s presidential nominee, a few more months of him being bashed over his healthcare record and abused as a product of the establishment will make it harder for him to convince conservatives to turn out in November. Romney’s need to play the right-winger in the primaries will also make his eventual tack back to the center in the fall to appeal to Independents more awkward, while also draining his resources.

None of this necessarily precludes Romney’s election, but the longer his opponents refuse to concede, the lower his chances of victory will be.

Sean Trende, Senior Elections Analyst for RealClearPolitics.

The answer is both “yes” and “no.” I’ll assume that there is no brokered convention, and that Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee.

One the one hand, the primary process has clearly hurt Romney. The most prominent is that his favorable ratings have taken a hit over the past few months, going from roughly even to net negative, especially among Independents. This is due in part to a combination of attacks from his opponents on his record at Bain Capital and for his flip-flopping. It is also due, however, to a number of self-inflicted wounds.

On the other hand, it has clearly helped in other ways. Romney would rather have things like Bain and his taxes be old news by the time the general election rolls around, and its better to make his gaffes now than in the fall (think if Jeremiah Wright came out in September, or if Obama had made his bitter/cling comment in October). More importantly, Romney has improved as both a debater and a candidate; his stump speech is actually pretty decent.

So a mixed bag. Romney would probably rather this be over sooner rather than later, so he can husband his resources and gear up for the fall. But it isn’t the complete disaster for him that some are suggesting.

Henrik Temp, deputy editor of the Enterprise Blog.

Assume Romney’s going to be the nominee. Here’s 3 reasons the long primary is hurting more than helping:

Resources: Romney is going to have to spend about 50% more than originally envisioned to capture the nomination. In February, the Romney campaign and affiliated SuperPacs spent twice as much as they took in. This is all money that could have been put to better use in the fall.

Enthusiasm: While anti-Obama sentiment will be enough to get the majority of Republicans to fall in line in November, the longer the primary drags on the more they will be reminded of Romney’s similarities to Obama, and the more likely they will be to vote third-party or stay home.

Narrative: The longer the primary goes, the longer the media is focused on Republican infighting rather than the president and the economy. Democrats have seized the narrative (contraception, the payroll tax cut) because the GOP has been unable to present a united front. Republicans need the election to be a referendum on Obama.

It’s true that Romney has benefited in some ways from the primary. Getting his taxes released and discussing the Bain issue has definitely helped him, but that was back in January/February. From here on out, Romney is essentially playing whack-a-mole with Santorum and Gingrich; that doesn’t make him stronger.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, U.S. Politics | Tags: 2012 campaign, mitt romney, symposium

What you may have missed in the polls: same-sex marriage, gas prices, and Super Tuesday

By Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg

March 9, 2012, 10:01 am

*Forty-nine percent of respondents told NBC/WSJ pollsters that they favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages. Forty percent did not. In an October 2009 asking, those responses were essentially reversed. The change in attitudes could be related to more people reporting they know someone who is gay or lesbian. In the NBC/WSJ poll, 64 percent said they personally know or work with someone who is gay or lesbian. In a CBS/New York Times August 1992 question, 47 percent said they knew someone who is gay or lesbian.

*Nearly four in ten Americans (39 percent) approved of Obama’s handling of gas prices in February, according to an AP poll. Although the president’s approval rating on gas stayed the same for the past three months, 58 percent of the public were still dissatisfied with Obama’s performance on the issue. During the last week of February, 18 percent told Pew that they blame the Obama administration the most for rising gas prices. Fourteen percent named oil companies or domestic oil producers to be most responsible, and 11 percent blamed Iran and the upheaval in the Middle East.

*After Mitt Romney’s victories on Super Tuesday, one interesting question has arisen: if Newt Gingrich drops out of the race, where will his supporters turn? Data compiled by the FiveThirtyEight blog shows that among voters in OH, TN, GA, WI, and NC, 57 percent would turn to Santorum, 27 percent to Romney, and 16 percent to Paul.

*We took a close look at each Republican contest so far where an exit poll was conducted. Below are some of the major trends.

*In every state in which an exit poll was conducted, Republican voters have listed the ability to defeat Obama as the candidate quality that mattered most to them.

*Romney has usually won the votes of those who checked “can defeat Obama” as the most important candidate quality for them. With the exception of Massachusetts, he has not won the votes of those who checked “true conservative.”

*Ideological, class, and religious divisions continue in the Republican electorate. Romney usually loses “very conservative” voters, but he does well with the “somewhat conservative” and “moderate/liberal” voters. He loses rural voters and more religious voters. He does well with suburban, college-educated, and upper-income voters.

*Romney has done pretty well with Tea Party supporters, but not with strong Tea Party supporters.

*Tea Party supporters have backed the winner in every contest except Ohio, where Santorum edged out Romney by 1 percentage point among that group.

Interns Min Yoo and Wylie Galvin assisted in the research for this post.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: gas prices, mitt romney, polls, what you may have missed

Marc Thiessen

Portman delivers Ohio, drops in veepstakes?

By Marc Thiessen

March 8, 2012, 12:14 pm

Mitt Romney’s Super Tuesday victories, particularly in Ohio, mean he is all but certain to secure the GOP presidential nomination. So the Hotline has just put out its new “Veepstakes Power Rankings” listing the most likely candidates to join Romney on the ticket.

So it’s a bit mystifying as to how they gave a down arrow to Senator Rob Portman (#4) — the man who just delivered Ohio for Romney and helped him avert what would have been a disastrous defeat at the hands of Rick Santorum. (Full disclosure: my wife works for Portman.)

Consider: When Portman was named to lead Romney’s Ohio campaign on February 28, Romney was down by double digits. Portman put his Ohio political machine to work, helping Romney build an organization from the ground up in every county across the state, bringing in surrogates and supporters to augment Romney’s ground game, recording robocalls across the state, and putting his 1 million-person email list to work for Romney’s get-out-the-vote effort. Romney beat Santorum by a margin of 28,500–more than double his statewide margin — in the six counties that make up Portman’s political base in Southwestern Ohio (Hamilton, Clermont, Butler, Warren, Montgomery, and Greene). Romney won the Second Congressional District by 6,400 votes — which means roughly half of his entire margin in Ohio against Santorum came from Portman’s old congressional district. It is not an overstatement to say that Portman saved Romney from disaster in Ohio — and may have saved his entire campaign as a result.

This does not mean Portman has, or should have, a lock on the VP slot. There are a lot of factors that will come into play in deciding on the right running mate. I have written that Romney would be crazy not to lean heavily towards Marco Rubio, who could help deliver an electoral trifecta for Romney: Florida, Hispanic voters, and Tea Party support. (Rubio also, surprisingly, gets a down arrow, coming in at #2).

But the suggestion that Portman merits a down arrow just two days after he delivered Ohio for Romney this week is just plain inane. Without Portman’s efforts, no one would be talking this week about who Romney will be picking as his running mate; they would be discussing who Santorum might pick to join his presidential ticket.

Here is the Hotline list. You be the judge.

THE TOP TIER

			Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell McDonnell preserved his spot on the short list by backing off a controversial antiabortion measure in Virginia, but he didn’t emerge entirely unscathed. The incident refocused attention on McDonnell’s conservative background — and Democrats would surely dredge up the 1989 thesis he wrote at Regent University. But if Romney’s team decides they must win the Commonwealth, McDonnell’s approval rating in the 60s has to look attractive.
			Florida Sen. Marco Rubio Rubio’s biggest downside, and the reason he’s dropped a spot in our rankings, is his good fortune in 2010. He skated into office without much of his past being vetted in the media. That would change in a hurry if he’s tapped for the vice presidency, and coming four years after Sarah Palin had such trouble adjusting to harsh scrutiny, that’s a very real concern for some Republicans. After all, Tallahassee has its own secrets. Rubio’s team, to their credit, zealously guards their man’s narrative — but some Republicans worry about thrusting someone so young and untested onto the national stage.
			New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie Christie is popular with Republicans because he exudes the one thing Romney will never be able to: Authenticity. Christie’s penchant for yelling at some opponents and calling others stupid is part of what got him elected in the first place. But two white guys from the Northeast may not be the image Romney’s team is going for. Still, for all his demurrals, his recent veto of same-sex marriage legislation keeps his name in the game.
			Ohio Sen. Rob Portman Sometimes, slow and steady really does win the race. Portman is never going to send chills down the spine of the Republican Party, but he oozes competence, and a lack of competence in government lies at the core of voter anger. Portman wouldn’t overshadow the top of the ticket, the way Palin did and Rubio or Christie might; and, as a known Washington commodity, he checks the box among those looking for Romney to make his first presidential decision.
			Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal Perhaps if Jindal had planned his primary endorsement a bit better, he would be higher on the list. Jindal brings almost everything Rubio would — youth, diversity, conservative credentials — without the specter of the unknown and with an added policy background that’s hard to match outside Rep. Paul Ryan’s office (see below). If only he hadn’t endorsed Rick Perry for president.
			Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan The Budget Committee chairman has taken a decidedly more bullish tone on Romney lately, saying in a recent interview that the front-runner is “well on his way to the nomination.” Ryan likes Romney’s tax plan as much as Romney likes the Ryan budget. And while Ryan said no to a presidential campaign of his own (he has young kids), perhaps the short sprint of a post-convention campaign would change his mind. Democrats will saddle Romney with the Ryan budget; why not win favor with conservatives by picking him?

THE PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES

			Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty He continues to serve as one of Romney’s top surrogates on the trail, endearing himself to Boston by hopping on daily conference calls and flying around the country to headline second-tier events. His willingness to embrace the role of team player makes him a viable choice. But we still have trouble imagining a ticket of two white, middle-aged, rhetorically challenged ex-governors doing much to inspire the Republican base — much less win over minorities and independents.
			Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey We left Toomey off our first list, but in the intervening weeks he’s getting a little buzz, and a bit of a push from certain circles on Capitol Hill. As Romney blasted Rick Santorum for backing Arlen Specter in 2004, Toomey got to play the conservative alternative to the hated liberal Specter. Still, when it comes to white male Republicans from the Northeast, why pick Toomey over Christie?
			Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels The Hoosier governor, like Pawlenty, would do very little to bring balance to the ticket. And unlike Pawlenty, Daniels has demonstrated little interest in the nonstop national spotlight that accompanies presidential campaigning. But Daniels, like Portman, brings a gravitas that would play well on the editorial pages.
			Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Like Toomey, we left McMorris Rodgers off our first list. Like Toomey, we got a call from a McMorris Rodgers ally urging us to reconsider. And they have a point: She would bring age, regional, and gender balance to the ticket, and she has a policy portfolio that’s deeper than Palin’s. But picking an unknown House member from a state Romney won’t win might smell too much of desperation for McMorris Rodgers to make the serious short list.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, U.S. Politics | Tags: Marco Rubio, mitt romney, rob portman, veepstakes

Super Tuesday exit poll results

By Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg

March 7, 2012, 9:27 am

As if we didn’t know it already, Republicans are a conservative lot. In Gallup’s polling from all of 2011, 71 percent of Republicans called themselves conservative. And, as the exit polls showed last night, many of these voters still aren’t sold on Mitt Romney. Last night’s results underscore ideological, religious, and class differences in the GOP electorate. Here are a few highlights from the races.

*In every state for which we had an exit poll, being able to defeat Obama was the candidate quality that mattered most to voters. In Georgia, Oklahoma, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, and Tennessee, Romney won these votes.

*People could also check a box that indicated that being a “true conservative” was the quality that mattered most to them. Gingrich won the “true conservative” vote in Georgia, Santorum in Oklahoma, Ohio, and Tennessee. Santorum and Paul were tied for first place among this group in Vermont. Paul won them in Virginia (where Santorum and Gingrich weren’t on the ballot).

*In Ohio, voters split evenly in terms of describing themselves as very conservative (32 percent), somewhat conservative (34 percent), or moderate/liberal (34 percent). Santorum won the very conservative voters decisively; Romney won the other two groups decisively.

*Also in Ohio, 42 percent of voters described themselves as very conservative on social issues such as abortion (Santorum won them), and in another question 47 percent called themselves very conservative on fiscal issues (Santorum won them, too). But Romney beat him decisively among those who described themselves as somewhat conservative or moderate/liberal on the social issue question and he beat him narrowly in both groups on the fiscal issues question.

*Ohio underscored class differences in Republican ranks. Santorum won the votes of those making less than $50,000 (32 percent of Ohio voters) and people with no college degree (55 percent). Thirty-four percent of voters there said that Santorum best understands average Americans’ problems, followed by 22 percent who said Romney did, 19 percent Gingrich, and 15 percent Paul. Romney confirmed his hold on upper-income and better-educated voters almost everywhere last night.

*In every state except Ohio, supporters of the Tea Party backed the winning candidate. Gingrich won them in Georgia, Santorum in Oklahoma, Ohio, and Tennessee, and Romney in Vermont and Virginia.

*Mitt Romney received solid support from Catholic voters. Santorum lost them to Romney in Ohio, as he did in Michigan. Catholics were 12 percent of voters in Georgia, where Romney beat Gingrich among them (38 to 34 percent). In Massachusetts, Catholics were 55 percent of voters (Romney won 75 percent of their vote). In Tennessee, where Catholics made up 9 percent of the electorate, Santorum won them 36 percent to Romney’s 35 percent.

*In Ohio, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Massachusetts, Santorum won voters who thought abortion was the most important issue. While the issue was not a top priority in any state (it ranked behind the economy and the budget deficit in terms of importance everywhere), it ranked higher than illegal immigration in every state.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: mitt romney, polls, Rick Santorum, Super Tuesday

Marc Thiessen

10 disasters America will face if Obama gets a second term

By Marc Thiessen

March 5, 2012, 3:02 pm

In today’s Washington Post, I argue that while electing a transformational conservative president may not be in the cards this November, stopping a transformational liberal president still is. The damage of a second Obama term could be potentially irrevocable. I asked a number of conservative thinkers what they feared most from a second term, and compiled this list of the top ten disasters that would befall America if Obama were re-elected this fall:

1. Obamacare will not be repealed.

2. The unprecedented levels of spending in Obama’s first four years will become the new floor, as America sets new records for fiscal profligacy and debt.

3. Job creators will face massive tax increases, and more Americans will come off the tax rolls—resulting in fewer citizens with a stake in keeping taxes low and more with a stake in protecting benefits.

4. Government dependency, already at record levels, will continue to grow.

5. Four lost years in dealing with the entitlement crisis will become eight—digging us into a hole from which we may not be able to emerge.

6. Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the Left demands.

7. He will unleash the Environmental Protection Agency to impose crushing new burdens on U.S. business.

8. His administration’s assault on religious freedom will go on and expand to new areas.

9. The Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower.

10. Obama could have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices, ending the Roberts court in all but name for a generation.

This is, of course, not a complete list—not by a long shot. I’d be interested what readers and my fellow AEI scholars think: What’s missing from this litany of impending disasters?

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (219)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, Society and Culture, U.S. Politics | Tags: 2012 campaign, president obama

What Jim Wilson taught me

By William Bennett

March 2, 2012, 11:40 am

Jim Wilson defined the highest reach of social science and made it possible for all of us to grasp it. He was a man of great Irish charm, wit, and probity.

I will always remember two things he taught me: one, a poignant memory of his own; the other, a formative message for me.

First: “During my adult life I have been part of five institutions—the Catholic Church, the University of Redlands, the United States Navy, the University of Chicago, and Harvard University. If I were required to rank them by the extent to which free and uninhibited discussion was possible within them, I am very much afraid that the Harvard of 1972 would not rank near the top.”

Second, a lesson he taught me early on when I became drug czar. He taught me the most important insight about drugs; it guided all my policies, and I still believe it: “Drug use is wrong because it is immoral and it is immoral because it enslaves the mind and destroys the soul.”

As to his humor, we were sitting together at a roast for Norman Podhoretz’s 80th birthday. I gave a bit more of an emotional talk than we were all used to and when I sat back down he said, “You are a good Irishman, you finished.” We shall miss him, but he leaves his life on the minds of the men and women he taught. May he rest in peace.

William J. Bennett is former Secretary of Education and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, Society and Culture, U.S. Politics | Tags: James Q. Wilson

Peter J. Wallison

A brokered convention would be a disaster for the GOP

By Peter J. Wallison

March 2, 2012, 11:09 am

Get a hold of yourselves, folks. You are not thinking this through. Every time Mitt Romney loses a state or a caucus in this topsy-turvy Republican race, the media starts talking about a boomlet for Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, or some other candidate who might enter the race now or be nominated at a “brokered convention.” And there is always a Republican pundit or two—someone not aligned with any of the campaigns—who’s available to stroke his chin and opine that yes, we’re getting closer to just that kind of scenario.

Now, no one should exclude the possibility of really weird events occurring in U.S. politics this year. The international economic, financial, military, political, diplomatic, and oil scene—quite apart from the economic, employment, and energy picture in the United States—could easily produce major changes in the political lineup before November. But these are what Donald Rumsfeld used to call “known unknowns,” and not something anyone can plan to exploit.

However, there’s one fact that everyone should know and keep in mind: this year, there are 67 days between the end of the convention and the election. No matter what might have been possible in 1924, 1932, or even 1952, it is simply impossible for a candidate chosen at a convention in 2012 to raise the funds and put together a credible campaign in a little over two months. Can’t be done.

Republicans who want to beat Obama should stop talking about the possibility of a brokered convention. It only encourages the losing candidates to stay in the race and savage one another, and—even more likely—it stimulates financing sources that are keeping these tigers in the ring. To have any chance of beating Obama, the Republican convention this year will have to nominate one of the four candidates now in the field. Any other idea is both unrealistic and ultimately destructive to Republican chances.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, U.S. Politics | Tags: 2012 campaign

What you may have missed in the polls … about Obama’s foreign policy

By Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg

March 2, 2012, 9:28 am

This week, Republicans Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie and Democrats Stan Greenberg and Jeremy Rosner wrote dueling articles on ForeignPolicy.com about Obama’s national security record, with the Republican team suggesting that the president is vulnerable and the Democratic team suggesting that foreign policy will be a plus for the president in November.

Our take is that it all depends on how the issue is framed and what’s going on in the world. Polls show that President Obama gets better marks on handling foreign policy than on domestic policy. But still, his ratings aren’t that strong. In the latest poll, for example, 46 percent approve and 46 percent disapprove (Quinnipiac).

In the February AP/GfK Roper poll, 48 percent trusted Republicans to do a better job on protecting the country while 40 percent trusted the Democrats. In the December 2011 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Republicans had a 3-point advantage on handling Afghanistan (26 to 23 percent) and a 13-point advantage on handling terrorism.

President Obama receives high marks for his planned troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In a February Pew poll, a majority (53 percent) thought that Obama was handling removing troops from Afghanistan “about right.” Twenty-two percent thought he wasn’t withdrawing troops quickly enough. While Iraq receives scant news coverage, Obama receives positive marks for handling the situation there in all recent major polls.

At the same time, many of Obama’s foreign policy actions remain unpopular. A plurality of 49 percent told CBS News pollsters in November 2011 that the United States did not do the right thing by taking part in Libya. Thirty-seven percent thought the United States did the right thing. Only 33 percent approve of the way Obama is handling the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, in a January ABC/Washington Post poll.

Obama must also confront the growing concern over American decline. Sixty-four percent told Gallup in February that they are dissatisfied with America’s position in the world. A majority believe China is the world’s leading economic power. Only 10 percent felt that way about China in 2000.

Americans still see Republicans as stronger on foreign affairs than Democrats, but absent new events, President Obama may have addressed a familiar weakness of Democratic presidential candidates. At this very early stage of the campaign, polls suggest Obama has at least diffused a potential weakness. But it is still very early in the election cycle, and in today’s volatile geopolitical environment any number of potential events could make Americans reconsider their current thinking about the president.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (4)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion | Tags: foreign policy, polls, president obama, what you may have missed

Highlights from the Arizona and Michigan exit polls

By Karlyn Bowman and Andrew Rugg

February 29, 2012, 10:05 am

Arizona

In Arizona, Hispanics were 8 percent of the electorate. Thirty-eight percent voted for Romney, 23 percent for Santorum, and 20 percent for Gingrich. The top issue in the poll was the economy (49 percent), followed by the budget deficit (30 percent), illegal immigration (13 percent), and abortion (6 percent).

Attitudes in Arizona and elsewhere about illegal immigrants appear to be softening. Thirty-four percent of respondents said most illegal immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for citizenship, 28 percent said they should be allowed to stay as temporary workers, and 34 percent said they should be deported. In 2008, those responses were 24, 29, and 44 percent respectively.

Forty-eight percent of working women in Arizona, a category the exit pollsters broke out for the first time, voted for Romney. Twenty-seven percent voted for Santorum.

Sixty-four percent of Arizonans supported the Tea Party. They supported Romney 43 percent to Santorum’s 31 percent.

Mormons were 14 percent of the electorate, and as expected, they voted overwhelmingly for Romney.

In Arizona, Santorum was voted the “true conservative.” Fifteen percent of voters said that was the most important candidate quality for them. Forty percent said beating Obama was their top quality. Fifty-six percent of those voters selected Romney. Fifty-seven percent in another question said Romney was most likely to defeat Obama.

Fifty-three percent had a favorable opinion of John McCain. Forty percent had an unfavorable opinion.

The Arizona electorate was more conservative than in 2008. Four years ago, 66 percent identified as conservative. Of those, 30 percent said they were very conservative. This year, 74 percent identified as conservative, with 38 percent identifying as very conservative.

Michigan

As he did in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, Ron Paul won the vote of the youngest age group in the poll.

Union members (14 percent of Michigan primary voters) and union households (23 percent) voted for Santorum.

Thirty-one percent reported that someone in their household had been laid off in the last three years. They voted for Romney over Santorum by 42 to 36 percent.

Working women in the GOP primary were 21 percent of the electorate. They narrowly supported Romney over Santorum, 40 to 38 percent. Married voters narrowly and unmarried voters more widely supported Romney.

Santorum won the votes of the 30 percent of primary voters who said they were very conservative. Romney won the crucial somewhat conservative vote and the moderate to liberal vote.

Tea Party support was more tepid in Michigan than Arizona. Fifty-two percent supported the movement. Santorum won voters who strongly supported the Tea Party movement (28 percent of the electorate) and those who strongly opposed the movement (12 percent of the electorate).

Catholics supported Romney over Santorum, 44 to 37 percent.

Santorum won the votes of the 16 percent of voters who said being a true conservative was the most important quality to them (58 to 18 percent for Romney). Romney won the vote of those who said being able to defeat Obama was the most important quality (32 percent of voters).

Only 35 percent of the electorate said the recent debate was the most important factor in their vote. Romney won this group by five points over Santorum. Sixty percent said the debate was not the most important factor and they narrowly supported Santorum, 40 percent to Romney’s 38 percent. In general, Santorum won among voters who said they decided how they were going to vote in the past few days. Those who had decided earlier supported Romney.

Email to Author | Permalink | Comments (0)
Categories: Politics and Public Opinion, U.S. Politics | Tags: 2012 campaign, mitt romney, newt gingrich, polls, Rick Santorum

AMERICAN.COM

The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute

Archive for the ‘Politics and Public Opinion’ Category

Polls suggest class warfare and the Buffett Rule won’t reelect Obama

What you may have missed in the polls: Jewish voters, the Supreme Court, and news interest

What the exit polls in Wisconsin tell us

Banter #50: The one about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

What you may have missed in the polls: Wisconsin, the nomination contest, and nuclear energy

New poll shows majority has no idea progress being made in Afghanistan (whose fault is that?)

AEI Blog Symposium: Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity and the 2012 Election

Political news roundup, March 22, 2012

What you may have missed in the polls: Gas prices, healthcare, and electability

With apologies to Henrik Temp

Maybe it’s Paul Krugman who’s lying about Obamacare

Right-of-center wonks to Ryan: Faster, please

With apologies to Mitt Romney: 3 reasons millennials vote Democrat

What you may have missed in the polls: Trouble ahead for Romney and the GOP?

Republican negativity toward Ron Paul

Highlights from Alabama and Mississippi exit polls

AEI Blog Symposium: The long GOP primary

What you may have missed in the polls: same-sex marriage, gas prices, and Super Tuesday

Portman delivers Ohio, drops in veepstakes?

THE TOP TIER

THE PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Super Tuesday exit poll results

10 disasters America will face if Obama gets a second term

What Jim Wilson taught me

A brokered convention would be a disaster for the GOP

What you may have missed in the polls … about Obama’s foreign policy

Highlights from the Arizona and Michigan exit polls

About the Enterprise Blog

Authors

Archives

Blogroll