Bookmark and ShareShare
Friday, October 17, 2014

Democrats’ and Republicans’ Confidence in Their Party to Handle Key Issues

Americans who identify with one of the two major political parties, not surprisingly, say their party will do a better job than the other party handling almost any issue we can put in front of them. But this confidence in one’s party varies across issues, and that variance provides insights into today’s political landscape. On some issues, fewer partisans are willing to say that their party does the best job and concomitantly more (perhaps reluctantly) say the other party would do the better job. Other issues generate strong confidence from partisans on both sides of the aisle.

A good example of an issue that has fairly even party confidence is the Affordable Care Act. Here an analysis of our recent survey data finds almost perfect parity. Eighty percent of Republicans (including those who lean Republican) say the GOP can do the best job handling the Affordable Care Act (presumably including many who would say the best way to handle it would be to repeal it), while 14% choose the Democrats. On the other hand, an identical 80% of Democrats say that their party can best handle the ACA (presumably many who say they would strengthen and support it), while 13% choose the Republicans. 

One might assume that this type of mirror image would be the same for all issues -- partisans highly likely to choose their party on issue after issue.

But, as noted, that’s not the case. 

The most extreme counterexample comes with the issue of equal pay for women. Only 49% of Republicans say their party is best able to handle the issue of equal pay for women, while 36% of Republicans concede that the Democrats are better able to handle it. That’s a net GOP advantage among Republicans of only 13 percentage points (that is, subtracting the 36% who choose the other party from the 49% who choose their own party). On the other hand, a whopping 86% of Democrats say their party is better able to handle the issue of equal pay for women, while only 6% choose the Republicans. That’s an 80-point net Democratic advantage. In other words, Republicans on a relative basis tend to concede this issue to Democrats, while Democrats are overwhelmingly convinced that their party does the best job on it.

In the other direction is the federal budget deficit. Eighty-five percent of Republicans choose their party as best able to handle the deficit, compared with only 7% who choose the Democrats. Democrats are less confident in their party on this issue, although not to the extreme that we found with Republicans for equal pay for women: 64% of Democrats choose their party, while 25% choose the Republican Party. So we have a net confidence advantage for Republicans.

The chart below groups the 13 issues we measured in our Sept. 25-30 poll into those where the Democrats have a clear confidence advantage, those where the Republicans have a clear confidence advantage, and those that are at a rough parity.  

Four of the six issues with above average importance to Americans as a whole have a Party Confidence Index in favor of the Republicans. These are the economy, the way the federal government works, dealing with the Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, and the deficit. One of the issues of above average importance has roughly equal Party Confidence -- jobs. One has a clear confidence advantage for the Democrats -- equal pay for women.

In other words, Democrats concede some weight to the Republicans in terms of their ability to handle four key issues in the election, while having above average confidence in just one issue.

Another way of looking at the challenge for the Democrats is to take into account the relative importance of the issues to Democrats themselves. The economy and the way the federal government works are ranked in the top five most important issues among Democrats. A third -- the Islamic militant situation in Iraq and Syria -- is sixth in importance. The Republicans have a confidence advantage on all three of these issues. The only one of the major issues on which the Republicans enjoy an advantage where the Democrats don’t rank as important is the federal budget deficit (fourth from the bottom on their list).

Thus, rank-and-file Democrats across the country are in a position in which they, in essence, admit that their party is not optimally positioned to handle several issues that they (the Democrats) recognize as important, including the economy, the dysfunctional government, and the Islamic militant situation in Iraq and Syria. On the other hand, Republicans have an edge or are tied on each issue they consider to be highly important. 

Monday, October 13, 2014

Despite Intense News Coverage, No Increase in Americans’ Worry About Ebola

A Huffington Post headline on Monday about the Ebola virus, taking up the entire screen in Huffington Post’s typically large, bold font, read: “The Most Severe Health Emergency Seen in Modern Times.” Meanwhile, the Voice of America headlined a story on the same topic: “New U.S. Ebola Case Raises Fears,” while The New York Times headlined a story on the crisis thusly: “W.H.O. Chief Calls Ebola Outbreak a ‘Crisis for International Peace.’”

One might think, with this type of apocalyptic news coverage, the American public would increasingly be worried and concerned about their own chances of catching the disease, and/or their government’s ability to handle it.

Not so.

We find hardly any movement at all in Americans’ concerns about Ebola when comparing interviewing done this past Saturday and Sunday (Oct. 11-12) with interviewing conducted the previous week (Oct. 4-5).  

Here are the trends:

• Overall, 23% of Americans worried yesterday about getting the Ebola virus this week, compared with 22% last week.

• In addition, 16% of Americans were concerned that they or their family would get Ebola this weekend, compared with 14% last weekend. 

• And 60% of Americans were confident that the government could handle an outbreak of the Ebola virus in the U.S. this weekend, compared with 61% last weekend.

None of these week-to-week changes are statistically significant. And keep in mind that, in turn, these attitudes were remarkably similar to attitudes about H1N1 or swine flu back in 2009. 

There may be a delayed reaction to the news coverage. An increase in concern may be forthcoming, particularly if there is news of more people contracting the disease or if more deaths are reported. It may also be that, as long as the Ebola virus is confined to just a few specific locations within the country, the vast majority of the public who are not in those locations will not be concerned. Whatever the reason, and whatever may happen in the future, however, the bottom line at this juncture is that overall concern levels are no higher now than they were for the swine flu breakout some five years ago, and have not changed at all over the past seven days.

Friday, October 10, 2014

American Public Attitudes Toward Affordable Care Act Frozen in Negative State

Speaking at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, earlier this week, President Barack Obama extolled the positive impact of the Affordable Care Act, his signature legislation, saying, “While good, affordable healthcare might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News -- it’s turns out it’s working pretty well in the real world.”

Earlier in the speech, the president ticked off the specific accomplishments of the Affordable Care Act:

  • “Today, we have seen a dramatic slowdown in the rising cost of healthcare. When we passed the Affordable Care Act, the critics were saying, what are you doing about cost. Well, let me tell you what we’ve done about cost. If your family gets your healthcare through your employer, premiums are rising at a rate tied for the lowest on record.”
  • “Because the insurance marketplaces we created encourage insurers to compete for your business, in many of cities they’ve announced that next year’s premiums -- well, something important is happening here -- next year’s premiums are actually falling in some of these markets. One expert said this is “defying the law of physics.” But we’re getting it done. And it is progress we can be proud of.”
  • “We’re covering more people at the same time. In just the last year, we reduced the share of uninsured Americans by 26%. That means one in four uninsured Americans -- about 10 million people -- have gained the financial security of health insurance in less than one year.”
  • “Meanwhile, partly because healthcare prices have been growing at the slowest rate in nearly 50 years, the growth in what healthcare costs the government is down, also.”
Clearly the president believes that the Affordable Care Act has been a resounding success, with quantifiable benefits in these types of very specific areas.
But we just don’t see evidence that the American people agree.
In fact, the most important conclusion from our recent analysis of Americans’ opinions of the Affordable Care Act is just how stable these attitudes are, and how negative they continue to be. Overall approval of the ACA is now at 41%, while disapproval is at 53%, and that’s roughly where it has been for a year. 
Approval was slightly higher in surveys conducted from November 2012 to last October, including the only poll (November of 2012), which showed approval higher than disapproval. But from last November to the present, approval has vacillated only in a narrow range between 38% and 43%, while disapproval has varied only between 51% and 55%. 
Importantly, this encompasses the time period when the exchanges were open and when the percentage of Americans who are uninsured dropped dramatically -- from as high as 18% in the second quarter of 2013 to 13.4% in each of the most recent two quarters. (Thus, our data clearly show substantiation for Obama’s assertion that “we are covering more people.”) There was much publicity about this drop in the uninsured. But through it all, attitudes toward the ACA have been essentially frozen in time.
Part of this attitudinal rigidity reflects the irrefutable fact that the Affordable Care Act, as evidenced by its “Obamacare” sobriquet, is a highly politicized piece of legislation. Many Americans both on the left and on the right have essentially knee-jerk reactions to it -- and these reactions aren’t subject to a lot of change. Thus, no matter what information may trickle into Americans’ consciousness from news coverage of the ACA, it doesn’t seem to matter. Attitudes are hardened. In our most recent survey, the approve/disapprove split among Democrats is 73% vs. 23%, while among Republicans the split is 9% vs. 86%. Independents tilt negative at 39% vs. 53%. If we go back to late last year, before the exchanges opened, we find that 71% of Democrats approved and 91% of Republicans disapproved -- very, very similar to the comparable attitudes today. As I indicated, hardened attitudes.
It could be argued that one reason attitudes about the Affordable Care Act are so fixed is that, in reality, the law doesn’t directly affect the majority of Americans. But we have seen a steady increase in the percentage of Americans who, in fact, say that it does affect them and their family, increasing from 28% in November 2013 to 43% in this most recent survey. This is one of the few changes that we have measured, suggesting that Americans are not totally unaware that the law is in place and having an effect.
The problem for President Obama and other proponents of the ACA: The increase in the percentage of Americans who say the law has affected them has come both among those who say it has helped them and those who say it has hurt them. In short, Americans are perceiving both negative and positive consequences of the law. To be specific, the percentage who say the law has helped them has gone from 9% in November 2013 to 16% today, while the percentage who say the law has hurt them has gone from 19% last November to 27% today. That’s a seven-percentage-point increase in “helped” and an eight-point increase in “hurt”. So, the general net negative view of the impact of the law has remained essentially intact, even as the absolute numbers have gone up.
Obama and other ACA proponents would argue that there should be a sharper increase in the percentage who say it has helped them. But we just don’t see it in the data. 
The majority of those who say the law has hurt them are Republicans, and the majority of those who say it has helped them are Democrats, which leads us to conclude that some of these views on the personal impact of the law may be more political wishful thinking than actual, real world impact. Still, the overall change in the helped/hurt numbers from 2013 have been steady on both sides of the political aisle. Last November, Republicans’ ratio of perceived help to hurt was 1% vs. 29%.  Today it is 4% vs. 40%. For Democrats, the ratio has gone from 15% helped vs. 8% hurt to 27% vs. 15%.
This basic steadiness of ratios of helped-to-hurt may help explain why the response to the basic approval question has remained constant over the past year, even as more Americans perceive that it is having an impact. 
All in all, President Obama clearly has a problem in terms of the public’s acceptance of the piece of legislation that is almost certainly destined to go down in history as one of his administration’s top accomplishments. He and his allies perceive that the law has been a significant success, helping Americans’ healthcare situation in many ways. The American public, so far, doesn’t agree.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Obama’s September Job Approval Rating Among Hispanics Is Lowest of His Administration

President Barack Obama’s job approval rating among Hispanics in September was the lowest monthly average of his administration on an absolute basis, and also the lowest on a relative basis compared with his approval among all adults.

Obama’s job approval rating among Hispanics for the month of September was 47%, down from 52% in August. September’s 47% is by one percentage point the lowest monthly average ever; his previous lowest month among Hispanics was 48% in August 2011.

The five-point differential between monthly Hispanic approval and overall approval is the lowest such gap since Obama took office. As I noted in this analysis, that gap had risen to as high as 23 percentage points in late 2012 and early 2013. The gap was also small in the summer of 2011, reaching six points at times. But the five-point gap in September is by one point the lowest to date.

The most likely cause of this deterioration in Hispanic support for Obama is the delay on dealing with immigration, as this Washington Post report suggests. Hispanics, it’s worth remembering, are more likely than other Americans to say immigration is the top problem facing the country.

One note of at least some encouragement to the Obama administration is the fact that Hispanic job approval moves up and down more than job approval among other demographic groups. This fluidity means that Hispanics’ differentially higher job approval for Obama can, in theory, rise as fast as it has fallen -- perhaps when the administration acts on immigration reform.

One final note. My discussion here pointed out that the president had not been suffering on a relative basis among women, despite some claims to the contrary. For September, the data show that Obama’s gap among women is about two points higher than the national average, which is slightly, but not substantially, lower than the average for his administration. In short, there are no signs that Obama’s traditional gender gap in approval is diminishing to a significant degree -- at least through September.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Leonardo DiCaprio, President Obama, the United Nations, and the American Public

President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations on Tuesday about climate change and said, “...there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate.” Academy Award nominated actor Leonardo DiCaprio spoke eloquently Tuesday at the same venue about the need for the world to focus directly on climate changes, which he calls not hysteria, but fact. Both the president and DiCaprio were speaking at the UN Climate Summit 2014, whose website proclaims, “Climate change is not a far-off problem. It is happening now and is having very real consequences on people’s lives. Climate change is disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow.”

The fascinating and important aspect of this summit and the associated speeches -- from my perspective as a public opinion scientist -- is the overwhelming degree to which the American public appears not to consider climate change an urgent threat or problem or priority. In many ways over the last decade, the higher the volume about climate change is turned up, the less concerned the American public appears to get.

As one primary example, we just don’t see any sign that climate change is top-of-mind when Americans are asked to name the most important problems facing the United States. Check out our most recent September most important problem update, where 1% of all mentions in response to the most important problem question were about the environment in any way. 

Additionally, when we ask Americans about the importance of a list of issues directly, the environment is below average in terms of importance. It’s important to note that it’s above average in terms of how satisfied Americans are with how the problem is being addressed.

When we narrow our focus down to discussions of a list of environmental concerns more specifically, we find that global warming/climate change comes in dead last. Sixty percent of Americans say that pollution of drinking water is something they worry about “a great deal,” while only 34% say that about global warming and 35% about climate change. (The words “global warming” and “climate change” appear generally to make little difference in public opinion surveys, although there are some fascinating nuances explored here.)

You can also check this series of reports, which go over in some detail a variety of indicators that underscore the lack of urgency assigned climate change by the average American.

It’s very important not to lose sight of the fact that this has become a highly partisan issue. Exactly why that is the case has many answers, but the facts are that in recent years the gap between Republican and Democratic concern about climate change has widened and widened. Republicans are much less likely to view it as a problem than Democrats are. The issue has, thus, become bound up in the general partisan polarization that affects the American political landscape at this time. The more Democrats and liberals take on the cause, the higher the resistance may be from the other side.

Clearly the strategy employed by climate change activists over the past decade to increase the American public’s concern about the issue has not worked. It’s unlikely that the UN Climate Summit will make much difference in public opinion either, despite DiCaprio and President Obama’s best efforts.

Copyright © 2010 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement