Author: Myra Miller

Myra Miller is Co-Founder of the Winston Group, a strategic planning and survey research firm in Washington, DC. She has worked with House and Senate Republican Leadership and Conferences for over a decade on strategic planning, communications and policy issues. She was closely involved in helping develop the successful House Republican leadership strategy and narrative for the 2010 elections. Recently she has worked on a variety of Congressional policy issues and bipartisan initiatives specifically dealing with governance, including Congressional reform, and improving political discourse. On behalf of the Congressional Institute, she has done research on women voters and has worked with Members of Congress on how to talk to women voters. Her experience also includes working with Fortune 100 corporations and associations on key policy issues including health care, medical innovation and tax policy, as well as brand reputation. She has advised center-right political parties throughout Europe, and has a Masters degree in International Studies from the University of Cambridge. Prior to joining the Winston Group, she served as Political Director for the Alabama Republican Party.
Posted on

Why Did The Democracy Issue Backfire On Democrats?

Throughout the presidential campaign, Democrats made democracy a major theme of their campaigns. Exit polls showed that in a choice of five issues, the two most important were “state of democracy” at 34%, and the economy at 31%. Abortion was a distant third at 14%, closely followed by immigration at 12%, and foreign policy at 4%.

Although “the state of democracy” was important to voters, it didn’t necessarily benefit Democrats. From the exit polls, 73% of the electorate said democracy was threatened rather than secure (25%), but among the voters who said democracy was threatened, Trump won by 2 (50-48). A sizable percentage of the 2024 electorate (39%) said democracy was very threatened, yet this group voted for Trump by 5 (52-47).

From our Winston Group post-election survey, we found that “threats to democracy” was the second most widely heard campaign message from Democratic candidates (17%), second to abortion (30%). With the Democrats’ emphasis on the message that Trump was a threat to democracy, why didn’t the issue translate into votes for Democrats?

In a January 2022 survey for Winning the Issues, we asked voters about the statement that some have said that there is a significant threat to democracy in our country today. A majority of the country agreed with that statement (68-18 agree-disagree) with majority agreement across party (71% of Republicans believing, 68% of independents, 66% of Democrats). But there were different definitions of the threats.

• Democrats saw the two greatest threats to democracy as Republicans undermining minority voting rights at the state level /voter suppression (36%) and right-wing extremist movements (19%).

• Republicans defined the biggest threats to democracy today as voter fraud (including non-citizen voting and lack of security with mail-in ballots) (34%) and federal government overreach and mandates (29%).

• Independents’ top concerns included a mix from the two parties’ definitions: federal government overreach and mandates (20%), voter fraud related issues (20%) followed by right-wing extremist movements (16%) and voter suppression/undermining minority voting (14%) .

• Across party, influence of the news media was seen as another significant threat to democracy, coming in at about the same level among all three groups (10% among Republicans, 10% among independents, 9% among Democrats).

Voters have different interpretations of threats to democracy, but in the 2024 campaign, Democrats only saw it from their perspective — a major miscalculation. For more analysis, see our post-election report.

Posted on

The Groceries Election, According to Trump

In an interview on Sunday, President-elect Trump attributed his win to a simple reason: ”Very simple word, groceries… I started using the word – the groceries. When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time, and I won an election based on that.”

Going into the November election, our presidential inflation showed a cumulative price increase of 20.7% since the beginning of the Biden administration, with food costs up almost 23% (22.8%.)

As some context for his statement, here are some of the economic numbers from the election:

  • The condition of the nation’s economy was seen as negative: 31% excellent/good – 68% not so good/poor.
  • An overwhelming 75% of the electorate said inflation had posed some level of hardship for them and their families. 22% said inflation had been a severe hardship; 53% said a moderate hardship; while 24% said there had been no hardship.
  • Additionally, voters were asked who they trusted more to handle the economy, Trump or Harris; Trump won 53-46.
  • In the Winston Group post election survey of 1,250 respondents who voted, economy/inflation was the top issue at 40%, with immigration a distant second at 12%, and abortion right behind at 11%. No other issue was in double digits.
  • The challenge that clearly emerged for Biden and Harris was that voters’ view of the economy was much worse than in the last election. In the 2020 exit polls, 49% said the economy was excellent/good, while 50% said not so good/poor. In this election, it dropped to 31-68.

These numbers demonstrate why the Biden White House was never able to overcome the inflation issue, and why the Harris campaign’s inability to articulate policy positions was such a problem.

For more analysis, see our post-election report.

Posted on

America’s New Third Party: Democrats

One of the questions we’re asked most frequently is whether there is room for a third party. Given the result in the 2024 election, there may be a new one on the political scene.

As we highlighted in last Friday’s Discussion Points, the 2024 election produced a historic low for Democrats, continuing a decline from the 2022 midterm election that saw the lowest percentage of the electorate (33%) that they had experienced in the past twenty Congressional elections. From 2020 to 2024, Democrats dropped 6% as a percentage of the electorate, going from 37% in 2020 to 31% in 2024 (exit polls not yet finalized). This drop translates into approximately 10 million fewer voters identifying as Democrats. The Democrats’ decline gave a historic party ID advantage for Republicans of +4, as Republicans were at 35% of the electorate compared to Democrats at 31%. This election saw a sizable increase in independents from 27% in 2020 to 34% — demonstrating the rise of independents’ size and influence in US elections.

These proportions put Democrats (31%) well behind independents (34%) and Republicans (35%) as a percentage of the electorate and into third party status. Given that the percentage of Republicans declined from 36% in 2020 to 35% in 2024, this was not a shift toward Republicans — it was a move away from Democrats.

This trend extended to the state level. As shown in the chart, Republicans had party ID advantages over Democrats in all seven competitive states, while Democrats finished behind both Republicans and independents as a portion of the electorate in five of the seven competitive states (AZ, MI, NC, NV, WI).

Despite dwindling numbers in their party, the left doesn’t seem to realize that Democrats have been relegated to third party status nationally and in many of the key states. Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton is the latest target of post-election backlash from progressive activists, as he sounded off his frustration to Bloomberg: “The biggest
problem with the party is that we just have this arrogant culture where if you don’t meet every ideological litmus test established by our party’s left wing, then you’re not only wrong, you are a bad person. And that’s the perception that a lot of Americans have of the Democratic Party.”

Democrats must start trying to attract voters back into their column rather than alienating voters with ideological litmus tests. They have 10 million reasons to start changing.

Posted on

The Electoral College Trigger

One of the questions we are asked the most is about why polls were wrong in the 2016 election that saw the “surprise” win for Trump. Polling averages had shown significant leads for Clinton, but the race tightened during October; polls not in the field toward the end missed the movement toward Trump, with the final popular vote margin being 2.1%. To some extent, many of the polls in the fall of 2016 weren’t wrong, as much as there was a lack of consideration for what can happen in the Electoral College when the margin is under 3%.

As we approach another close election, all scenarios should be considered if the current trajectory continues. Today’s Real Clear Politics average shows a Harris lead of 1.5% with 538’s average at 2.6%. Most of the political discussion is about Harris leading, but both of these polling averages are within the 3% range.

Looking back over previous presidential elections, the 3% margin is a trigger for the outcome to be determined by the Electoral College more than the popular vote. In cases where there was more than a 3% popular vote margin, the popular vote and the Electoral College vote agree. However, when the popular vote margin is 3% or less, the Electoral College comes into play as the determining factor.

The chart below shows the results of the 10 closest elections since 1856, sorted by the popular vote margin. Numbers in blue mean the result favored Democrats, and numbers in red favored Republicans. Highlighted rows denote elections where the Electoral College winner did not win the popular vote.

Starting with the 1856 election, which was the first contest between a Republican and Democrat, there have been 42 presidential elections. In that timeframe, there have been 10 elections in which the popular vote was 3% or less. Of those 10 elections, 4 were won by the candidate who did not win the popular vote: 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016.

If the current presidential polling margin continues to stay within the 3% window, there is the possibility that the popular vote winner could lose the Electoral College. Based on these historical trends, there is a 40% chance this could happen if the margin is 3% or less. This scenario should be considered as we get closer to the election.

Posted on

New Inflation Trending

This morning’s new inflation report showed a slight moderation in year-over-year inflation (2.5%) but with core inflation up 3.2% from a year ago. The year-over-year rate is the lowest since March 2021, the month that the American Rescue Plan was passed. But with inflation still well over 2%, this result seems to indicate there might be a smaller rate cut than Wall Street was hoping for, with markets initially dropping after the inflation news. While year-over-year inflation has moderated, prices are still not coming down. The Presidential Inflation Rate — the cumulative rate since the start of the Biden administration — remains over 20% (20.3%). The trend chart below shows the year-over-year rate (the red line) with the cumulative rate (Presidential Inflation Rate) in blue.

With the cumulative rate of inflation still over 20%, this means consumers are still not feeling relief. The cumulative rates of household expenses are still very high: food, 22.1%; gas, 45.8%; electricity, 30.7.%. The Harris campaign has pivoted from trying to sell good economic news as the Biden campaign had done with little success, to focusing on her plan to lower costs.

There is only one more inflation report (October 10) before the election, so the clock is running out on shaping the inflation narrative.

Posted on

The Value Of America’s Alliances

Last week was NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) week in Washington, as the alliance celebrated its 75th anniversary and welcomed the soon-to-be new Secretary General, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Alliances are receiving a heightened level of attention as they relate to the conflict in Ukraine. Former President Trump and others have indicated they are open to changes with our alliances and pressing allies to pay more for security. From our research for Winning the Issues (June 14-16, 1000 registered voters), we explored foreign policy topics and how voters perceive the value of our alliances.

Conflicting beliefs in foreign policy: Seven out of ten voters believe that peace, prosperity and security are products of American leadership and sacrifice (70-16 believe-do not believe) with this belief consistent across party (75-14 among Republicans, 65-20 among independents, 70-15 among Democrats). However, there is also concern that the US has become overstretched. Two- thirds of the electorate believes that the US is overstretched with funding and providing military weapons assistance for international conflicts. We must focus on rebuilding our country (63-21). Republicans (72-14) and conservative Republicans believe this (75-14) at a high level, but this is also the case among independents (63-20) and Democrats (53-28).

With majorities of the electorate believing both statements, this outlook indicates a conflict of foreign policy beliefs. For example, 60% of conservative Republicans believe both statements — that peace, prosperity and security are products of American leadership and sacrifice (79% believing) and that the US is overstretched (75% believing).

Importance of alliances: Alliances are seen as important (91-6 important-not important) but with a generational difference among Republicans on the scale of importance. Republicans over age 45 view the alliances that the US has with other countries as being very important (64%) rather than somewhat important (27%), while among Republicans 18-44, there is a much a larger percentage viewing them as only somewhat important (42%) rather than very important (49%).

Alliances as effective peace-keepers: Although alliances are seen as important, their value as effective peace-keepers is less clear. A majority of the country (54%) believes alliances like NATO have kept the peace since World War II (54-27 believe-do not believe). On this question, conservative Republicans are split 41-41, with Republicans overall (45-37) tending to believe this but with belief less than 50%. In contrast, Democrats (67-17) believe this more than Republicans (45-37) and independents (50-29).

NATO has helped keep the peace since World War II, but this current belief system indicates that it is time for a redefinition of the value proposition of our global alliances in the modern context.

Posted on

Deficit Claims From The Presidential Debate

Democrats are in full-scale panic after last week’s disastrous debate. Subsequent coverage has focused on the President’s performance, but today we are addressing one of the debate statements about the deficit.

In the debate, President Biden said: “He [Trump] had the largest national debt of any president in a four-your period, number one.” At the Office of Management and Budget’s historical tables page on the White House website, there is a file (table 1.1) that looks at the summary of receipts, outlays, and surpluses or deficits (-) from 1789 through 2029 (estimate). The OMB data shows a different picture. In Trump’s four years, the federal budget added 5.56 trillion dollars to the deficit. In Biden’s first three years, his budgets added 5.84 trillion.

Receipts in Biden’s first three years matched Trump’s four years, and the same comparison was true for spending. While Trump spent over 6 trillion dollars in 2020 to deal with COVID, each of the three prior years were under 4.5 trillion.

The difference between the two has been that Biden has normalized the COVID level of spending. In 2022 and 2023, he spent over 6 trillion, and the OMB estimate for 2024 increases to almost 7 trillion (6.9). In the projected four-year period estimated by OMB, President Biden’s federal budget deficits would reach 7.70 trillion dollars, which would be 2.14 trillion dollars larger than the four-year total for Trump’s presidency.

Posted on

Biden Underperforms Senate Candidates

Democrats are in full scale panic as polling nationally and in battleground states show the President in trouble, and in several cases, underperforming Congressional candidates. A new Wall Street Journal analysis shows Biden underperforming Senate candidates by 9 points. According to the WSJ, “What’s the opposite of presidential coattails? Presidential ankle weights? Whatever you call them, Joe Biden has them.”

This presidential underperformance of the Congressional level results from the negative image he has in contrast to his positive image in 2020. In 2020, Biden outperformed Congressional Democrats, while Trump underperformed at the Congressional level, resulting in Republicans picking up seats in the House despite a Trump loss. As shown in the chart, a few points difference between the presidential and Congressional levels made a significant impact in the election outcome.

  • Of several key voter groups, the most significant difference was among Hispanic voters with Biden winning by 33 but House Democrats only winning by 27.
  • Another notable difference was among college graduates (42% of the electorate) with Biden winning by a 12-point margin but House Democrats only winning by 7 — a 5-point difference between the presidential and House levels.
  • Among independents, Biden won by 13, but House Democrats only won by 9.
  • Among seniors, there was a 3-point difference between the presidential and House level, and a 1-point difference among women.

Biden’s slippage from 2020 to the present is most noticeable in his brand image, with every voter group in the chart shifting from positive to negative, especially among independents going from 51-45 fav-unfav in 2020 to 29-67 in most recent Winning the Issues survey.

Unlike the last Biden-Trump rematch, Democrats will have to adjust to the new campaign environment as their nominee creates a headwind rather than a tailwind at the Congressional level.

Posted on

Is Biden’s Blue Wall Collapsing Over Inflation?

Surveys show President Biden in deep trouble, but Democrats believe voters are disengaged and they have plenty of time to get their message out. Some are choosing to ignore surveys that show Biden behind, which is similar to Republicans that didn’t believe polls showing anything other than a Red Wave in 2022.

Democrats would be wise to heed the warning signs and take advantage of the time. Inflation is the central problem that haunts the Biden team nationally and in the states, and the White House hasn’t yet found a compelling economic message that voters believe. Our latest look at the presidential ranges shows the President having significant ground to make up. Ranges are based on the Real Clear Politics averages, removing outliers of the highest and lowest poll results for each candidate. This allows us to see the highs and lows for the candidates, and how much room to run each candidate has. As shown in the chart, Biden underperforms Trump nationally and in the Blue Wall States.

What Democrats see as Biden’s Blue Wall is the group of states (MI, PA, WI) that comprised Trump’s 2016 Rust Belt Coalition. Several traditional Democratic voter groups shifted toward Trump from 2012 to 2016, producing the “Rust Belt Surprise.”

Voters that were critical to Trump’s 2016 win were those who said the economy was “not so good.” According to the exit polls in 2012, 23% said economic conditions were excellent/good and 77% said not so good/poor. In 2016, it was 36% excellent/good – 62% not so good/poor. A key group were those voters who said the economy was “not so good.” In the 2012 election, this group made up 45% of the electorate, and Romney should have carried them. Instead, they went for President Obama by a 13-point margin of 42-55. In this election, they made up 41% of the electorate, and Trump carried them by 13 points at 53-40.

The results in the Rust Belt states displayed this shift on an even a larger scale. The largest shift was in Michigan where President Obama had previously won these voters by 18 points. In 2016, Trump won these voters by 26 points, a 44-point swing. It is not simply that he won these voters in this set of states after Romney had lost them; it was the magnitude of the results gained. With inflation being a top voting priority, the possibility is there for this to happen again.

Posted on

Three Things To Know About The New Inflation Report

This week’s new inflation report (3.4%) showed inflation not going in the wrong direction but not getting much better.

2.) Other household items have gone up significantly. Gas has increased over 50% since the beginning of his term (55.5%). Food is up 21.3% and electricity at 28.5%.

3.) The gap between wages and inflation has widened since last month. The cumulative inflation rate (19.9%) versus the cumulative increase in wages (14.1%) is 5.8%, compared to 5.2% in last month’s report.

After the new inflation numbers were released, the White House claimed that there were many inflationary factors in the economy in play when President Biden took office. Yet after the CARES Act was signed on March 27, 2020, inflation was less than 2% for 11 consecutive months, which extended into Biden’s term. In February 2021, it was at 1.7%. After President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law in March 2021, inflation jumped from 2.6% to 4.2% in April which started the current 37 month streak of inflation being over 3%.

Some Democratic strategists have advised the President to show more empathy on economic issues, but given the results of these inflation reports, voters are seeking relief from price increases rather than empathy alone.