Current Public Opinion Myths, Part Three

Part One: The Recovery Myth
Part Two: The Equal Polarization Myth

Part Three: Voters Are Not Turning To Democrats Myth

Earlier today, Harris put out a poll showing President Bush with the worst disapproval rating, and the worst net approval / disapproval rating, of any President since Richard Nixon. Of course, as many pointed out, the poll seemingly did not have any good news for Democrats either. As Taegan Goddard notes:

However, Democrats also saw "one of the biggest dips in approval" in this poll. "Only a quarter of Americans polled give Democrats a positive rating in the latest poll, compared with 31% in August, while Republicans' approval ratings fell to 27% from 32%."
Polls like these are the most often cited examples of the third myth I am dealing with in this series: that while Republicans are faltering, voters are not turning to Democrats. Like the other two myths I discussed in this series, that other Presidents have recovered from similar low approval ratings, and that the country is equally polarized by Republicans and Democrats, this one is also a myth.

Voters are turning to Democrats as they turn away from Republicans. The first place one can find evidence of this was in the 2005 elections, where Democrats did very well across the country in actual elections. One would think that these results alone would have dispelled this myth, but apparently not.

The second location one can find evidence of this is on polls for the 2006 elections. Look for example, at Polling Report's new feature, a summary table of generic congressional ballot polls for 2006. Here are the results from the past month:

Poll	     Date		Dem	 Rep	 O / U
Newsweek      11/11	 53	  36	  11
DCorps	     11/06	 48	  40	  12
ABC-WaPo      11/02	 52	  37	  12
Gallup	     10/23	 50	  43	  7
DCorps	     10/23	 48	  39	  9
Hotline       10/16	 40	  31	  9

Democrats hold sizable leads in generic ballot polls, and as I have blogged a million times, these polls matter. Democrats even hold sizable leads in leaked internal Republican polls on the generic ballot. Why then, some will ask, are congressional Democrats not polling higher than Republicans when it comes to favorablity and job approval?

The answer lies in the weak favorability and job approval Democrats receive from their own base--the same base that plans on voting for them anyway. While Democrats are crushing Republicans among Independents, and while congressional Democrats receive a noticeably higher job approval from Republicans than Republican congressional leaders receive from Democrats, Democratic congressional leaders are not well thought of by Democrats themselves. A September poll from Pew that actually offers internals on Democratic approval and favorability tells the story on this one. As I wrote back in September:

One of the most interesting findings of the study is that while Democrats are unbelievably united when it comes to voting for a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2006, they actually don't like their leaders very much. According to the graphic on the right, only 3% of Democrats, whether they are liberal, moderate or conservative Democrats, plan to vote for a Republican in congressional elections 2006. However, while Democrats are far more united than they even were in 2004, and while they are more united than Republican in the generic ballot, Democrats give their leadership very, very low ratings. While Republicans give their leaders in Congress a fifty-six point approval spread, Democrats only give their leaders a seventeen point approval spread. While only 16% of Republicans disapprove of their leaders in Congress compared to 32% for Democrats, Democrats are holding fast in terms of voting intentions while moderate and liberal Republicans are actually poised to break from their party in large numbers. I guess that is what you get when you put movement conservatives in control of every leadership position in Congress.

And that, my friends, is the story here. This is why Democrats hold huge leads in polls despite favorable ratings roughly equal to Republicans. This is why Democrats have begun to win elections again despite relatively equal job approval with Republicans. The Democratic base that is more united in voting Democratic than ever before is not approving of its leaders in Washington. Democrats hold large leads among Independents (15 points in the Pew poll). They are doing much better among Republicans than Republicans are doing among Democrats. However, they are doing much worse when it comes to their own base.

This is the sort of disapproval that only shows up in approval and favorability polls, not in election polls or actual elections. Voters are indeed turning to Democrats, even if the Democratic base does not like Democratic leaders very much. Those same Democrats who disapprove of their leaders still vote for Democrats, and still signal their intent to vote for Democrats. The inability for Democrats to pull away from Republicans in favorability polls is a mirage created by the differences in the nature of favorability polls and trial heat / election polls. In a two party system, just because you don't like your leaders does not mean that you are somehow unwilling to vote against your opposition.

So Republicans can go ahead and return to denying that while Democrats are winning elections are holding large leads in election polls, voters are not actually turning to Democrats. If they want to believe that fantasy, that is fine with me. One thing the media needs to learn when it puts out press releases like the Harris poll today is that Democratic weakness in favorability and approval polls is coming from Democratic weakness among their own base--aka, voters who will go with them anyway. Democrats hold sizable, gaping leads among independents and swing voters. While in the long term this lack of strength among their base might hurt Democrats by reducing turnout and/or creating a splinter movement, all evidence currently points to greater unity among the Democratic base at the voting booth, not less. Hell, Kerry actually received the highest percentage of the vote among Democrats, 89%, of any nominee over the past forty years (at least). Voters are turning to Democrats, and realignment remains a real possibility.



Display:


Does it matter? (none / 0)

Are these myths things that Democrats need to be fighting against? Seems to me if the GOP spinsters want to say that Bush is going to recover like past Presidents or that Democrats arent doing any better than Republicans, it makes very little difference. We won in 2005. At this rate we'll win in 2006. We dont need to spin, let the elections do the talking.
by AC4508 on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 02:40:09 PM EST

I think (none / 0)

...the idea is to keep Bush from falling any farther and being able to pass his second term agenda.

The idea is that if Bush is considered a lame duck (which he is) then he won't be able to do all the things he wanted to do in his second term (Social Security, making tax cuts permanent, eliminating the estate tax, etc.).

Plus, Republicans are linked with this guy, so what's good for Bush is good for the party in general.

So what they're trying to do is keep public perception at least slightly positive. And the fact is if people hear something enough, some people will believe it. (It's a tried and true conservative tactic).

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 02:54:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Practical effect? (none / 0)

So what if Repubs are in disfavor, enough congressional districts seem to be safe that the prospects for a change in majority in either house is still slim.
If Dems are dissatisfied with their own leaders they may just stay home in next year's election. That may have been some sort of factor in NJ and Virginia (except this time on the other side.)

The real scandal continues to be the lack of competitive seats.

---Policies not Politics
Daily Quiet Image
by rdf on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 02:41:43 PM EST

The problem with this is... (none / 0)

...even if they vote for Democrats, which is fantastic, this is a short-term answer.  In order to regain a lasting majority, Democrats need people to approve of them, not just disapprove less than they do of Republicans.  I'm glad people will vote for our guys, but if it's a lesser-of-two-evils situation, it presents no long-term strength.  All it takes is a six point bump for Republicans, and our electoral victories can be reversed.

Winning elections is the most important thing, but I don't think we can just toss the rest of this off as myth.

by jhupp on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 03:34:07 PM EST

Short term is the relevant phrase (none / 0)

I don't think anyone would assert it's a myth right now. We would have benefitted by a tidal shift of probably 3-4 points in statewide races nationwide in November 2005. That can't be downplayed but it also can't be stickied to November 2006 or beyond. If the GOP woes are ongoing and they offset the impact of 9/11 then the gains can be real and resilient. I'm still waiting for party identification numbers with specific questions like whether the Fitzgerald situation or Katrina handling, etc. shifted the party identification factor in our favor.
by jagakid on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 05:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you are happy the GOP is deluded (none / 0)

If you say that "if the GOP wants to believe that voters are not turning into democrats" why are you trying to wake anyone from the fantasy.

Frankly speaking I have found mydd to have descended into chaos since the last election with a self satsfied air of nonchalance and a confusing plate of issues. I miss Jerome. :-(

A democrat from Pennsylvania stood up against the war, today. A vet. Someone who had voted for the war stood on the floor in the house of congress and said, simply, that its not in the best interests of the USA to stay in Iraq and called for a full and immediate withdrawal - he felt that the move would force the Iraq government to take control of the security situation and start dealing with the problem.

Do you agree?

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 03:58:54 PM EST

Great (none / 0)

Democratic voters think that Democrats don't suck quite as much a Republicans. "We Don't Suck as Much!" Good slogan for 06 Dems.

The last three years, Democratic voter anger has been most dynamic force in electorate. As the DC Republicans implode, and each day it becomes more apparent that Dems are no real alternative, there will be big anger from the Ind/Reps thrown into the mix. The political environment of 06 has only begun to ferment.

All and all your present analysis is accurate and a pretty a damning view of the state of this repbulic.

by brutus1 on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 04:06:09 PM EST

Hey, that's snappy! (none / 0)

Helluva lot better than, "Together, America can do better."  Geez, the cottage cheese of slogans!
by psnyder on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 08:51:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The polls will move up for Dems (none / 0)

The Dems responding to the polls don't like their leaders because they have been doing a crappy job.  They haven't been standing up to Bush, they haven't been protecting the environment, health care, etc.  They have been spineless when it comes to the war and they have been losing elections.  This is the Daschle echo still prominent in the polls.  Daschle gets replaced by Reid, a pro-life Dem who can't beat the Gang of 14.  No big improvement.

Now, suddenly (in the last two months), the Dem leadership has found some cahones.  Look at all the RahRah Reid posts here at MyDD.  As the public catches on, they might decide we have some good leadership.  As they begin to approve more, the numbers will go up and it will look like the voters are 1.  moving away from Bush, and 2. moving toward the Dems.

How is John McCain different than John Edwards?
by The lurking ecologist on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 04:07:48 PM EST

What this means.. (none / 0)

..I guess, is that the democratic party needs new leaders.  Or maybe I should say, the democratic party needs leaders.   I hope the DLC and their Liebermans and Hillarys realize that while trying to triagulate into an electable position, they have merely marginalized themselves within their own party.  

Actually, I am much less cynical now that Dems are stepping up, but I am still disappointed that instead of moving to conquer the media and aggressively defining the debate on the Bush presidency, they have merely let Bush implode and now are attempting to exploit the situation.  

And what has happened to Rahm E's platform that promised massive spending increases that we cant afford, while ignoring the war, the patriot act, the environment, or substantive discussion about record deficit spending.  I hope he shoved it back up his ass where it came from.  

by Winston Smith on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 04:09:03 PM EST

This makes me crazy (none / 0)

I hate having my views clearly identified by pollsters . . .

Yes, I'll vote for any Dem any day over any Republican.  No, I'm not that happy with my Party's leadership.

Pelosi and Reid are doing a good job.  (Does it occur to any one that they're both Westerners?  And since getting them in leadership, we've done better?)  But we're a long way from strong national leaders and much as I hate to say this, the Clintons are not working for me anymore.  I've always through Hillary would be as good if not better at being President than Bill was, but I'm starting to not be so sure.  A real leader would have spoken out long before this - instead, she's been silent.  

Yes, we're doing better, but it's not enough.  I'm not happy - but I could be made happy.

by glendenb on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 04:20:26 PM EST

This plus the activist graph from Myth II. (none / 0)

Although in Myth II, Chris cited the famous Rep/Dem activist graph to show that Dems have since the mid-80's moved closer to the center while Reps have moved even farther from it, it has always seemed to me that the graph more simply shows that Rep and Dem activists suddenly both began moving rightward in the mid-80's (moving the Reps activists farther from the center, and the Dem activists closer to the center, since they were already left of center).  That said, I wonder whether the low approval ratings of the Dem leadership by the average Dem party member is due to this rightward acceleration.  Did the Dem activists move right relative to the party, or just relative to centrists as a whole?  Does anyone have data that can track the yearly approval of Dem activists (or elected officials) against the difference between their political leftness and that of the party as a whole?
by brackdurf on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 05:08:21 PM EST

It might just be the issues (none / 0)

I would have to characterize myself as a former independent and swing voter who is now going to vote straight Democratic for the forseeable future.  Why the change?  How about the dominance of the Republican party by the religious right?  How about the attack on Social Security that was only pushed back by the Democrats in the Senate with a lot of help from AARP?  What about the non-functioning health care system which has grown to such a problem that it's a major cause of relatively higher manufacturing cost for US industries?  We are seeing for the first time widespread expectations of the younger generation that they will not be as well off as their parents.  

   

by SteveJ on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 05:09:26 PM EST

Dems expect more (none / 0)

Dems expect more of their leaders.  They inherently believe in government and have a much different view of the role of government than their Republican counterparts.  

Simply put, the Democratic voter has a higher bar that their representative must jump over for "approval."  They are more openly critical and, as is the case with those more to the left, prone to be pessimistic (not everyone, but many).

And yes, the Democratic party needs better leaders.  There is a dearth of leadership on both sides of the aisle.  As Democrats, we expect much, much more.

by wintersnowman on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 05:12:55 PM EST

And Two More Points (none / 0)

There are three somewhat points involved, IMHO:

(1) As you say, Dems expect more, because they expect government that actually does something constuctive.

(2) Dems want their leaders to step up and confront the Reps.

(3) Dems tend to think for themselves more, which makes them more critical of those in power across the board.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 09:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Two More Points (1.00 / 1)

The real problem is the  republicans have learned something about congressional seats we haven't. You run people that are representive of the District they live in.

An example of that is Salazar ok you may not like him you may think he is too conservative but he will probally keep winning that seats as long as he wants it because he is able to connect with the locals because he is one.

Alot of the races we lose we lose because the activist in the party don't seem to understand their district and push forward candidates they would like but not candidates that any chance of winning.

I'm sorry in certain districts being Pro-Life is an end all be all requirement for a candidate. It doesn't matter what the candidate says otherwise if they aren't Pro-Life they are dead from the very begining and no reframing of the issue is going to change it. It's a drop dead issue.

I keep hearing for the party activist I want this and I want that. In most district party activists make up less than 10% of the voters and are hardly ever representive of the District they live.

An example of this is in Indiana's 5th district where a  feminist ran in the most red district in the state and got her but handed to her. Though all the activists in the district though she was a wonderful candidate and couldn't figure out how she lost.

It's called connect people you can't make one if your ideologies don't connect with the Ideas and beliefs of the people in the district

by orin76 on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 12:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Except, You're Wrong, Of Course (none / 0)

As Chris has noted, there's a nifty little chart in Off Center (on p. 27) showing that Republican activists are much farther from the center than Democratic activists are--and that the divergence has been growing over time since the 1960s.

Ya gotta learn, orin. This here's reality-based territory.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 04:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Except, You're Wrong, Of Course (1.00 / 1)

No it's delusion based terrority and more of the same in thinking that is going on in the activist base in the party that makes us lose. I never said anything about the center. What I said is candidates that represent the districts they live in. In pennsylvania for example if 4 out of the 7 elected Democrats weren't pro-life we would only hold 3 congressional seats. There are close to 150 congressional districts in the us where this is an electablity issue. The activists in these areas tend to go further left to compensate for the area they live. I'm sorry this is reality based on the group observation not hypothetical scholastic nonsence
by orin76 on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 05:29:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pot. Kettle. Black. (none / 0)

The 50-State SUSA poll on abortion shows 32 states that are 51% or more pro-choice--with Pennsylvania standing at 51-44%--including 13 that went for Bush in 2004.  Another 4 states have pro-choice pluralities.  All went for Bush in 2004. Not ONE state that Kerry carried had an anti-choice majority.

Now, Pennsylvania is undoubtedly a very anamolous state. First, as already noted, it has the smallest pro-choice majority of any state that is majority pro-choice. Second, as POLIDATA's "PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS" notes:

"Of the 34 states with `turnover' districts, the most were in Pennsylvania, with 1 district with a Democrat voting for Bush and 4 districts with Republicans voting for Kerry."
 Third, the state heavily gerrymandered--so that even though it's very evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, it's Congressional delegation is 12-7 Republican.  

Thus, even if your claim were true, it would tell us almost nothing about the rest of the country.  

But is it true?  Honestly, there's no way to tell.  But we can clarify the question.

Using Planned Parenthood's scorecard for Pennsylvania, we find that four Congressmembers were 100% pro-choice in the last Congress--3 Dems and 1 Rep:
Bob Brady (D), Chaka Fattah (D), Joseph Hoeffel (D) and James Greenwood (R). Hoeffel was succeded by Allyson Schwartz (D), who carried 56%. So, we can assume these are the 3 districts you refer to.

Looking at Pennsylvania's 2004 House Races we find five supersafe district totals:

Pennsylvania 1     Bob Brady (D): 86%
Pennsylvania 2     Chaka Fattah (D): 88%
Pennsylvania 11 Paul Kanjorski (D): 94%
Pennsylvania 12 John Murtha (D): unopposed
Pennsylvania 14 Mike Doyle (D): unopposed

Now, Kerry lost Pennsylvania 11, 12 and 14.  But the local GOP remains so weak that it can barely do better than the Greens or Libertarians might (a 2% avergage across three districts).  So, is it conceivable that pro-choice Democrats would lose in all three seats if they were to run instead of these incumbants?  From the data I have on hand, it's impossible for me to say.  Kerry's loss of these districts surely means something, after all. But is it a given that they would lose?  That, too, is impossible to say with the available data.

Meanwhile, Greenwood retired, and Democrat Ginny Schrader got 44% running for the open seat he left.  If she runs again in 2006, this will be an excellent pick-up opportunity, since a freshman running just after a sea-change in national opinion is the easiest of all incumbents to beat, and a candidate whose run district-wide just 2 years earlier is the ideal challenger.

But you are claiming this is impossible.  Just as you are claiming that a pro-choice Dem could not win any of the three seats in the 11, 12 or 141th districts.

This is a classic case of faith-based political analysis on your part. And in a state so anamolous that it proves absolutely nothing.

All to prove how crazy and out-of-touch other people are.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 08:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pot. Kettle. Black. (1.00 / 1)

yep pretty much, the republicans are only getting single digits because of who they are running against. Almost every State house and state senate seat in those congressional  districts are held by a republican. Your also forgetting Tim Holden in the 17th district. No the 8th is a suburban Philadelphia district it is possible to win there. The only part of pa that is pro-choice is Philadelphia and the suburbs.  For all intents and purposes Pennsylvania is a Southern state politically.When you go district by district. What's also happening is this shift is happening on the state and house level too. One example is out in Franklin/Cumberland county where Jeff Koy held the I think 89th seat for an eternity as soon as he retired the republicans took it over.

I said there are 150 hardcore pro-life seats in the county most of which are in the south and midwest,and about 15 of them in pennsylvania. This pretty much goes along with my view and that survey 38% actually equals 165 so i guess I under est. Then there are a number of mixed districts but if we give up the 150 districts or 165 districts it becomes hard if not impossible to win the house. It's as I said called run candidates in districts that are representive of the district.

by orin76 on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 04:32:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You'e A Perfect Bush Republican! (none / 0)

Ignore the argument and cherry-pcik the data!
by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 07:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'e A Perfect Bush Republican! (1.00 / 1)

lovely childish name calling
by orin76 on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 07:58:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm The One Who's Arguments Are Being Ignored (none / 0)

I spent 20-30 minutes or more putting together that post, gather links, and crafting the argument, and you totally ignored everything I said.  My words may have been tough, but they are based entirely on how you have conducted yourself.  

There is nothing childish whatsoever in calling someone on their shit.  To the contrary. It's what grown-ups do to teach children how to behave.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 05:33:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm The One Who's Arguments Are Being Ignored (1.00 / 1)

and I looked at it and looked through the data and found your arguements wanting
by orin76 on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 01:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm The One Who's Arguments Are Being Ignored (1.00 / 1)

Beyond that Greenwood had 100% rating from Naral Bucks county is becoming more and more democratic over time from urban flight and the remaining Liberal REpublicans switching parties. Pa has been in a 20 year long term transition from a Mod-Conservative Democratic majority to a Mod-Conservative Republican Majority in most areas. While Pittsburgh,Philadelphia and the Lehigh valley make the number around the state look more democratic than it really is on a whole. Just as prior to the switch over they made the state look more republican than it was. I.E. on the state Legislative level ,and Congressional District level the state is becoming Republican the state is becoming more Democratic on the Executive level and on the Senatorial leve Santorium is gone and when Spector retires pa will replace him with a Democrat. Almost all the Executive Level offices in pa are Democratic. This is a flip from years ago when the Republicans were the Liberal party up until the early 1990's and the Democratic were the Conservative party
by orin76 on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 02:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm The One Who's Arguments Are Being Ignored (1.00 / 1)

it should have been more Democratic than before not republican than before
by orin76 on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 02:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.