85,000+ turned out in Madison for this protest against the effort to destroy public employee unions by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Republican state legislators — a turnout that matches or exceeds all tea party demos.
staff
Republicans keep acting like they have a mandate to butcher social programs and shut down the government in pursuit of that objective. But the latest Bloomberg News Poll data indicates quite the opposite, as TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira explains in this week’s edition of his ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages. As Teixeira explains:
The survey asked about a number of domestic areas and found opposition to cuts in eight different areas. Views ranged from 77-21 opposition to significantly cutting education programs to 50-46 opposition to significantly cutting funding for public television and radio.
The news for Republicans got even worse when respondents were asked about their views about a implementing a government shutdown to force spending cuts:
…By an overwhelming 77-20 margin, the public favors compromise over spending cuts to avert a shutdown rather than holding out for deep cuts even if that means shutting down the government.
As Teixeira puts it, “Conservatives may think the public is simpatico with their antispending crusade. The facts suggest otherwise.”
Many progressive Democrats have long argued that the party fares best when Dems buck the common wisdom about conservatives having momentum and take a bold stance on critical issues, based on progressive principles. WaPo’s E. J. Dionne, Jr. makes the case exceptionally well in his column today “What Wisconsin Democrats can teach Washington Democrats.”
Washington Democrats, including President Obama, have allowed conservative Republicans to dominate the budget debate so far. As long as the argument is over who will cut more from federal spending, conservatives win. Voters may think the GOP is going too far, but when it comes to dollar amounts, they know Republicans will always cut more.
In Wisconsin, by contrast, 14 Democrats in the state Senate defined the political argument on their own terms – and they are winning it.
Dionne acknowledges that Wisconsin Republicans may win the round with their sneaky passage of Walker’s attack against on public employee unions, which Walker will sign. But Walker has branded himself, in Dionne’s words, as an “inflexible ideologue” and he and Wisconsin Republicans have damaged the image of their party nationwide with a pivotal constituency — working class voters. Further, adds Dionne,
Here’s the key to the Wisconsin battle: For the first time in a long time, blue-collar Republicans – once known as Reagan Democrats – have been encouraged to remember what they think is wrong with conservative ideology. Working-class voters, including many Republicans, want no part of Walker’s war.
A nationwide Pew Research Center survey released last week, for example, showed Americans siding with the unions over Walker by a margin of 42 percent to 31 percent. Walker’s 31 percent was well below the GOP’s typical base vote because 17 percent of self-described Republicans picked the unions over their party’s governor.
At my request, Pew broke the numbers down by education and income and, sure enough, Walker won support from fewer than half of Republicans in two overlapping groups: those with incomes under $50,000 and those who did not attend college. Walker’s strongest support came from the wealthier and those with college educations, i.e., country club Republicans.
In November, Dionne notes, working-class whites gave Republican House candidates a 30-point lead over Dems. But many blue collar Democrats still have positive feelings about unions, which have helped provide their families with decent living standards. Walker’s and the GOP’s escalation their war against unions won’t sit well with this constituency.
Dionne credits Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) with having the savvy to learn a potentially-powerful lesson from the Wisconsin Dems, and now Schumer wants to “reset the debate” over the federal budget battle in congress:
…As Schumer noted, the current battle, focused on “one tiny portion of the budget,” evades the real causes of long-term budget deficits.
Schumer dared to put new revenue on the table – including some tax increases that are popular among the sorts of blue-collar voters who are turning against Walker. Schumer, for example, spoke of Obama’s proposal to end subsidies for oil and gas companies and for higher taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” Yes, closing the deficit will require more revenue over the long run. But right now, the debate with the House isn’t focusing on revenue at all.
Schumer, who spoke at the Center for American Progress, also suggested cuts to agriculture subsidies and in unnecessary defense programs. He proposed changes in Medicare and Medicaid incentives that would save money, including reform of how both programs pay for prescription drugs. The broad debate Schumer called for would be a big improvement on the current petty argument, which he rightly described as “quicksand.”
As Dionne concludes, “Wisconsin Democrats have shown that the only way to win arguments is to take risks on behalf of what you believe. Are Washington Democrats prepared to learn this lesson? ”
For the second straight week, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira’s latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ takes a look at public attitudes toward taking away collective bargaining rights, and finds “This week the signals from the public are even clearer. Poll after poll rolled in with the same basic finding–taking away collective bargaining rights is unacceptable to the public.” Teixeira explains:
Consider these results from the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Respondents were asked whether it was acceptable to eliminate public employees’ right to collectively bargain over health care, pensions, and other benefits as a way of dealing with state budget deficits. The public said no by almost 2:1 (62-33).
Those who think the public is much less supportive of public employee collective bargaining rights than for private sector employees, should review the NBC/WSJ poll and think again. As Teixeira notes,
The poll also asked whether state workers who belong to a union should have the same right to collectively bargain over benefits as workers in private companies who belong to a union. The response was an ever more overwhelming 77-19 in favor of unionized state workers’ right to collectively bargain over benefits.
“What part of “don’t take away state workers’ collective bargaining rights” does Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker not understand?,” asks Teixeira. “Or does he simply not care what the public thinks? The latter seems a distinct possibility given conservatives’ track record on this score.”
Democratic oppo researchers should surf over to Facing South, and read some of Kris Kromm’s excellent reportage on the increasingly influential conservative benefactor (and former state legislator) Art Pope, who was instrumental in the GOP’s 2010 sweep in NC. In October Facing South joined with the Institute for Southern Studies and began a series of investigative reports about “the scope and nature of Pope’s political empire.” Among the revelations, according to Kromm:
…About 90 percent of the funding of the state’s leading conservative think tanks and advocacy groups comes from Pope’s family foundation, which he runs. Pope is also installed on the board of directors of most of these groups.
…Three groups backed by Pope — Americans for Prosperity, Civitas Action and Real Jobs NC — joined with Pope family members to spend over $2.2 million targeting 22 key state races last November. Republicans won 18 of the contests.
…Pope’s groups have worked closely with the Tea Party Express, whose leaders have been widely condemned for making racially-charged statements, and Pope’s foundation has funded many groups that deny the scientific consensus about global climate change.
…Pope has taken a leading role in the right’s crusade against “voter fraud.” But the groups he supports still can’t prove it’s a real problem.
…North Carolina conservative groups founded and largely funded by Republican benefactor Art Pope are calling for an end to the state’s widely-used ‘clean elections’ program. Maybe it’s because Pope’s record-shattering spending in 2010 was so successful in fueling the GOP’s capture of the state legislature.
The Facing South investigation of Pope’s influence and activities is obviously important for Dems in formulating strategy for the 2012 election. Many political observers were surprised at the extent of the GOP’s lavishly-funded takeover of the NC state legislature in 2010. NC’s African Americans (25.3 per cent of the state population) and research triangle progressives were instrumental in Obama’s 2008 victory the tarheel state. But it’s a safe assumption that Art Pope will use all of the considerable resources at his command to put the state back in the GOP column next year. He could make a pivotal difference nationally, since NC ranks 10th in electoral college votes ( tied with GA and NJ) among the 50 states.
Pope’s economic empire is rooted in his Variety Wholesalers chain, which includes Roses, Super Dollar, Value Mart and Maxway, bargain retail outlets that are familiar to southern shoppers, and now reportedly targeted for boycotts by the state Democratic party. According to Andrew Whalen, the executive director of the NC Dems, “Pope’s company, Variety Wholesalers, has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars – profits taken from hard-working North Carolinians who shop at his stores – to fund organizations that attack Democratic candidates.” (More on Variety Wholesaler stores here)
Few TDS readers will be shocked by Political Animal Steve Benen’s Washington Monthly post, “How the Media Covers health Care Rulings, Cont’d,” which shows that unfavorable court rulings on the legality of the Affordable Care Act are getting a lot more ink than favorable decisions. What is a little surprising, however, is that the rule of thumb holds true even for top liberal rags that supported the legislation in their editorials, including the Washington Post and the New York Times (nifty chart here).
Benen does a content analysis of the word counts, page placement and mentions in the news reports, showing a clear pattern of decisions upholding the ACA getting the short end of the stick for the Post, Times, Politico and the Associated Press. “…the discrepancy is overwhelming. In every instance, conservative rulings get more coverage, longer articles, and better placement,” says Benen.
Benen acknowledges that it may not be entirely because of political bias in each case, because conflict generally gets more coverage than agreement. He expresses some puzzlement about WaPo’s lack of any coverage for the most recent (Kessler) decision, especially since the courthouse is right around the corner from The Post’s offices.
All of the understandable reasons for the discrepancy acknowledged, however, Benen is right to fault the media outlets for failing to provide anything resembling balanced reporting on how legislation as important as the ACA is faring in the courts. While Politico may not be technically “MSM,” the huge word count discrepancy does raise a serious question about its coverage objectivity. The Times, Post and AP are critically-important, because so many editors of smaller papers read their coverage. If you had to give a letter grade to these four outlets for their coverage of the ACA rulings thus far, a “D” would be generous.
MSNBC, at least, ran a video clip of Sen. Richard Durbin, which could be instructive for reporters in putting the various rulings in a more balanced perspective. Here’s what Durbin said:
This law has been challenged in 16 different federal courts. Twelve judges have dismissed the challenges. Four have considered it. Two ruled that it was constitutional, two unconstitutional. So it isn’t exactly a wave of sentiment against the law.
And that was before the Kessler ruling. You can watch the video here, at the bottom of the page.
In their monomaniacal obsession with budget cuts, Republicans and conservatives feel compelled to pretend that there is little public support for any increased federal spending. Recent polling, however, indicates that there is overwhelming public support for one particular category of big-ticket spending — modernizing America’s deteriorating infrastructure, according to Ruy Teixeira’s latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages. Teixeira explains:
Eighty percent declared themselves in agreement with President Barack Obama’s State of the Union call for a major effort to rebuild and modernize America’s infrastructure in a new Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies survey for the Rockefeller Foundation.
Nor will conservatives be very happy with the high levels of public support for progressive measures to facilitate infrastructure modernization indicated in the poll:
What’s more, the public backs a number of government actions to provide additional funding for infrastructure projects. These include a National Infrastructure Bank (60 percent support), issuing national transportation bonds (59 percent), and eliminating oil company subsidies (58 percent).
So much for the GOP myth that increases in government spending are opposed by the public across the board. Members of congress should not be intimidated by conservative fear-mongering about federal spending for needed modernization. As Teixeira puts it, “Infrastructure investment is important — and the public’s got your back.”
from Electoral Studies
Estimating the Potential Impact of Nonvoters on Outcomes of Parliamentary Elections in Proportional Systems with an Application to German National Elections from 1949 to 2009
Ulrich Kohler
February 2011
ABSTRACT
“If turnout was 100%, would it affect the election result?” is a frequently asked research question. So far, the question has been primarily answered regarding the changes in the distribution of votes. This article extends the analysis to changes in the distribution of seats and government formation. It therefore proposes a method that fact ors in apportionment methods, barring clauses, sizes of parliaments, leverage of nonvoters, closeness of election results, and individual characteristics of nonvoters. The method is then applied to German national elections from 1949 to 2009. The application shows that Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) would have gained from the counterfactual participation of nonvoters, although usually not enough to result in a government change. However, the elections of 1994 and 2005 show evidence that such a change could have happened.
from Political Behavior
The Poverty of Participation: Self Interest, Student Loans and Student Activism
Joshua Ozymy
February 2011
ABSTRACT
Political scientists maintain that self-interest should motivate political participation; however, empirical verification of the self-interest motive for participating is rare. Self-interested activism among the less-affluent is shown to be even more uncommon. Results of the present study suggest that when lower-income college students have resources and increased self-interest motives to act, not only do they choose to participate, they do so at higher levels than their more affluent peers. Utilizing policy-motivated activism (defined as voting, contributing, and contacting officials) with respect to student loans, the analysis suggests that the probability of contacting increases among student borrowers as their income decreases. Results suggest that lower-income borrowers are more likely to participate out of concern for the program than their higher-income counterparts, and self-interest explains the behavior.
Did Disfranchisement Laws Help Elect President Bush? New Evidence on the Turnout Rates and Candidate Preferences of Florida’s Ex-Felons
Traci Burch
February 2011
ABSTRACT
This paper re-examines the impact of Florida’s disfranchisement law on the 2000 Presidential election. The analysis simulates outcomes in Florida under scenarios consistent with the turnout rates of Georgia and North Carolina ex-felons in 2000 and Florida ex-felons in 2008. Survey evidence on candidate preferences as well as data on ex-felon party registration in Florida and North Carolina are used to produce estimates of support for Bush and Gore among ex-felons. Based on the simulations, the ex-felon population in Florida would have favored Bush in 2000. Assuming that ex-felons supported Gore at rates similar to GSS respondents with at most a high school diploma, Bush would have defeated Gore by 4,925 and 7,048 votes, assuming turnout of 10 and 15%, respectively.
Updating Political Evaluations: Policy Attitudes, Partisanship, and Presidential Assessments
Benjamin Highton
The pervasive influence of partisanship on political evaluations is well known and understood. Whether citizens rely on their policy attitudes has received less attention, especially in the context of how people update and revise their evaluations. This paper focuses on presidential assessments and uses panel data covering three presidencies to model the determinants of opinion change. The results indicate that policy preferences (like partisanship) exert a regular and substantial influence on how citizens update their presidential evaluations.
from Political PsychologyExploring the Valence-Framing Effect: Negative Framing Enhances Attitude Strength
George Y. Bizer, Jeff T. Larsen and Richard E. Petty
February 2011
ABSTRACT
In his now-classic research on inoculation theory, McGuire (1964) demonstrated that exposing people to an initial weak counterattitudinal message could lead to enhanced resistance to a subsequent stronger counterattitudinal message. More recently, research on the valence-framing effect (Bizer & Petty, 2005) demonstrated an alternative way to make attitudes more resistant. Simply framing a person’s attitude negatively (i.e., in terms of a rejected position such as anti-Democrat) led to more resistance to an attack on that attitude than did framing the same attitude positively (i.e., in terms of a preferred position such as pro-Republican). Using an election context, the current research tested whether valence framing influences attitude resistance specifically or attitude strength more generally, providing insight into the effect’s mechanism and generalizability. In two experiments, attitude valence was manipulated by framing a position either negatively or positively. Experiment 1 showed that negatively framed attitudes were held with more certainty than were positively framed attitudes. In Experiment 2, conducted among a representative sample of residents of two U.S. states during political campaigns, negatively framed attitudes demonstrated higher levels of attitude certainty and attitude-consistent behavioral intentions than did attitudes that were framed positively. Furthermore, the effect of valence framing on behavioral intentions was mediated by attitude certainty. Valence framing thus appears to be a relatively low-effort way to impact multiple features associated with strong attitudes.
The End of the Solidly Democratic South: The Impressionable-Years Hypothesis
Danny Osborne, David O. Sears and Nicholas A. Valentino
February 2011
ABSTRACT
The partisan realignment of the White South, which transformed this region from being solidly Democratic to being the base of the Republican Party, has been the focus of much scholarship. Exactly how it occurred is unclear. Widespread individual-level attitude changes would be contrary to the well-known within-person stability of party identification. However, according to the impressionable-years hypothesis, events that occur during adolescence and early adulthood may have a lasting impact on later political attitudes. This would suggest that cohort replacement may be driving partisan realignment. We test this possibility using data from the American National Election Studies from 1960 to 2008. Consistent with the impressionable-years hypothesis, Southern Whites from the pre-Civil Rights cohort (born before 1936) maintained their Democratic Party identification longer than their younger counterparts. However, all cohorts in the South have changed their partisan attitudes at comparable rates over time, contrary to the impressionable-years hypothesis. These data suggest that the partisan realignment of the South was driven by both cohort replacement and within-cohort attitude change. More targeted case studies of older cohorts living through the civil rights era, and of younger cohorts in the post-Reagan era, yield results generally consistent with the impressionable-years hypothesis. More generally, our findings suggest that very large scale events are required to disrupt the normal continuity of party identification across the life span.
Religious Appeals and Implicit Attitudes
Bethany L. Albertson
February 2011
ABSTRACT
This article explores the effects of religious appeals by politicians on attitudes and behavior. Although politicians frequently make religious appeals, the effectiveness of these appeals and the mechanisms of persuasion are unknown. This article explores the possibility that religious language can affect political attitudes through implicit processes. Because religious attachments are formed early in the lives of many Americans, religious language may influence citizens without their awareness. Implicit and explicit attitudes are related but distinct constructs, and implicit attitudes may have behavioral implications in the political realm. I test these hypotheses experimentally, relying on a widely used implicit measure, the Implicit Association Test. I find that a Christian religious appeal affects implicit attitudes and political behavior among people who currently or previously identify as Christian. Furthermore, an explicit preference for less religion in politics does not moderate implicit effects.
How Exposure to the Confederate Flag Affects Willingness to Vote for Barack Obama
Joyce Ehrlinger, E. Ashby Plant, Richard P. Eibach, Corey J. Columb, Joanna L. Goplen, Jonathan W. Kunstman and David A. Butz
February 2011
ABSTRACT
Leading up to the 2008 U.S. election, pundits wondered whether Whites, particularly in Southern states, were ready to vote for a Black president. The present paper explores how a common Southern symbol–the Confederate flag–impacted willingness to vote for Barack Obama. We predicted that exposure to the Confederate flag would activate negativity toward Blacks and result in lowered willingness to vote for Obama. As predicted, participants primed with the Confederate flag reported less willingness to vote for Obama than those primed with a neutral symbol. The flag did not affect willingness to vote for White candidates. In a second study, participants primed with the Confederate flag evaluated a hypothetical Black target more negatively than controls. These results suggest that exposure to the Confederate flag results in more negative judgments of Black targets. As such, the prevalence of this flag in the South may have contributed to a reticence for some to vote for Obama because of his race.
The Republican assault on the budget is starting to lose the country — just as they unveil the scale of their cuts and the specific targets. And this survey conducted by Democracy Corps shows how Democrats and progressives can best frame their budget message, link it to the economy, and put the Republicans on the defensive.
The Republicans do not go into this battle protected by any honeymoon with voters. In our congressional ballot, Democrats have closed the margin to within 2-points — a 6-point gain since November; Republican incumbents already trail in the seats won by Obama. Just 40 percent of presidential voters approve of the new Republicans in Congress, which drops to just over a third among independents. On that critical battleground, the Republicans are losing the intensity war, with strong disapproval outpacing strong approval by two-to-one.
Still, Democrats are struggling on the economy, jobs and spending. Voters trust the Republicans more on handling the economy and jobs and employment (by 5 points) and on making the right choices on deciding how to reduce the federal budget deficit (by 15 points). Democrats have a lot of work to do to get this debate right.
But the more Americans hear about Republican plans, the less they like them. In our first survey in 2011 just one month ago, a full 60 percent of respondents supported the plan to cut $100 billion from the budget, but that support has dropped to just 50 percent with a supposedly less austere $32-billion plan. (The poll was conducted before the Republicans doubled the cuts.)
And the more the issue is debated, the more voters pull back from the Republicans’ budget plan. Respondents heard Republican arguments on the compelling need to cut spending that kills jobs, but as respondents heard more about the actual cuts, the Democratic arguments, and reassurances on spending, almost a quarter pulled back from the budget plan. Voters are paying a lot of attention to how these cuts impact them and the country.
This debate produces important potential shifts among swing voters — independents, non-college whites, seniors and suburban voters. We also saw dramatic shifts among the new Democratic base of unmarried women and younger voters. These are people who will be hit hardest by these cuts, which will erode support for families and communities, which will have to pick up the burden by spending out of pocket or losing the programs they rely on most.
The key is not just opposition to budget cuts, but credibility building on spending, making an economic argument and identifying the cuts that are most problematic.
The full memo, graphs, and frequency questionnaire can be found at Democracy Corps.
Despite the acrimonious debate between conservatives about the depth of spending cuts, the latest Pew opinion data (poll conducted Feb 2-7) indicates that the public is skeptical about the need for cuts in social spending and strongly opposed to deep cuts, according to TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira’s latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages.
…When asked about a number of possible areas where the federal budget could be cut the public shied away from decreasing spending in area after area. Under 30 percent called for spending cuts in 16 of 18 areas with the least enthusiasm for cuts in veterans’ benefits (6 percent), education (11 percent), Medicare (12 percent), Social Security (12 percent), public schools (13 percent), and college financial aid (16 percent).
Nor do conservatives win much support when it comes to cutting state budgets:
…Just 18 percent support decreasing funding for K-12 schools, 21 percent support decreasing health care services, and 31 percent support decreasing funding for roads and public transportation. And support is still only split (47-47) on cutting the pension plans of public employees despite the relentless barrage of conservative attacks on public-sector workers.
Apparently conservatives don’t pay much attention to the views of American voters on spending cuts. As for hoping they will come around and listen to their constituents, there’s not much precedent for that. As Teixeira says, “I suppose we shouldn’t hold our breath.”
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
