A Contradiction in Data

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the Republican standing on the generic ballot being significantly better off now than four (and two) years ago.   Amy Walter from the Hotline made the following comment on my Facebook page:

“Thanks for the smart post Glen. It’s also interesting to note the tightening of the generic even as Congressional Dems have much higher fav ratings (and lower unfavs) than GOPers”

Amy made a good point (and a problematic for us Republicans).  In two late March surveys, two different polling firms came up with very different approval ratings for Democrats in Congress, but very similar — and troubling — ratings for Republicans in Congress.

The national Quinnipiac Survey conducted March 24-30, 2009 found that 40% approve and 49% disapprove of Democrats in Congress.  Meanwhile, the Financial Dynamics national survey for Hotline, conducted March 26-29, found a mirror opposite — 48% approve/43% disapprove of Democrats in Congress.

However, the two national surveys were consistent on the job rating for Republicans in Congress — The Q Poll found Americans rating GOPers in Congress at 30% approve/59% disapprove, while the FD Survey for Hotline found 30% approve/57% disapprove for the same group.

Don’t focus on the wrong part of this contradiction.   It’s not about which rating of congressional Dems is right — I can’t explain the difference, and as Republicans, that’s less important than the two-to-one negative rating we clearly have in Congress.  The contradiction, as Amy pointed out succinctly above, is that the generic ballot FOR CONGRESS has tightened despite low opinions of GOPers IN CONGRESS.

First of all, it is important to remember that the public, and therefore public opinion, is not required to be consistent.  We see this in data all the time.  It also helps explain why politicians aren’t always consistent either.

My theory in explaining this contradiction is a several step process.  First, voters haven’t forgiven Republicans for the 2005-2008 years of Iraq, Katrina, the economic crash, political scandals, and more.  Therefore, it’s going to take time before they trust Republican incumbent politicians as a group (even if they like their individual incumbents).  Secondly, voters are beginning to show signs that they worry they may have over-corrected and gave the Democrats too much unchecked power.

I remember back in the late 1980s doing focus groups with voters in swing districts that were voting Republican at the Presidential level, but Democratic at the Congressional level.   Those voters explained their behavior as ensuring “checks and balances.”  They didn’t trust either political party, so they wanted to make sure neither party could do too much — because that’s usually when things went too far.   Thus, these swing voters didn’t define “checks and balances” as judicial/legislative/executive, but as making sure there is enough of one party to keep an eye on the ones from the other party who are running the show.

Right now, the contradiction of the tighter generic ballot and the still weak rating of GOPers in Congress underscores that Republican candidates should focus on themselves and their opponent rather than nationalizing their campaign.  This can change, but it probably won’t shift enough to change that strategy heading into 2010.

Similar Articles

  • Public Education Update
    read more

  • Americans See China And Russia As Adversaries Posing Two Different Threats
    read more

  • A New Look At Ideology
    read more

  • Is social media your friend or a frenemy?
    read more

  • Trump’s numbers tied for his peak high as impeachment talk looms
    read more

Public Opinion Strategies helped us to clarify what we wanted to learn and then conducted research and analysis that shed light even beyond the questions we set out to ask. They were very receptive to our suggestions, responsive to our queries, and flexible when we needed them to be.

Public Opinion Strategies has consistently offered unparalleled advice and spot-on polling that has shaped how and where we spent money and deploy key resources. Additionally, they have always been an excellent steward of limited campaign resources, ensuring we spend wisely and not a dollar more than necessary in order to get the information we need.

Robert Blizzard and Public Opinion Strategies did a great job for us throughout our successful campaign for Congress. Robert gave us accurate data, spot on analysis, and professional advice, all of which were essential to our victory.

Public Opinion Strategies is one of our go-to pollsters when it comes to testing public support for bond ballot measures and other initiative proposals. They are available to provide ongoing consultation with regard to crafting of ballot questions, public outreach messaging, and related efforts.

ACLI has worked with Public Opinion Strategies for decades, through several tough industry battles—often ones in which public opinion does not naturally fall on the side of insurers. Yet Bill and his team consistently provide invaluable strategic advice by refining our messages and helping us frame our issues in a way that makes them understandable and persuasive.

The data from Public Opinion Strategies provided important insight and informed our public awareness campaign. We sincerely appreciate their professionalism and expertise in this arena.

Nicole McCleskey and the team at Public Opinion Strategies have been invaluable to me, both during my campaigns and as Governor of the State of New Mexico. It’s not just the accuracy of their numbers, but guiding the overall strategy that makes them so valuable.

Public Opinion Strategies has been a part of our team in Missouri for more than a decade. With their data and guidance, Republicans here were able to attain a majority in the House in 2002 for the first time in fifty years, and we have been able to grow that majority to the point that we now have a record, veto-proof majority.

In my tenure at two leading business associations, facing huge and complex consumer issues, I have benefitted enormously from the objective advisory skills of Bill and his team. They do their homework, they are rigorous, dispassionate and thoughtful. Turning questions into answers is a clever tag, but it’s also an apt description of the professional talents of the firm.

I consider Public Opinion Strategies to be a part of our team. That is the way we have always worked. They have helped us to understand our needs and fashioned research solutions to meet those needs. They have helped us to meet killer deadlines by being flexible, executing rapidly, and insuring quality. Teamwork is the best way to describe it.

Accuracy, speed, and deep knowledge of key issues and public sentiment are the hallmarks of quality opinion research, and on these measures Public Opinion Strategies consistently delivers. I have had the pleasure of working with Public Opinion Strategies for more than 15 years on dozens of issues, and they are undoubtedly the gold standard.

Public Opinion Strategies’ track record of success and wealth of experience in political campaigns and issue advocacy are why they are one of the most trusted and well respected public opinion firms in Washington, D.C. Their insights and perspectives have helped to inform a wide array of public affairs activities across multiple industries.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com