Making Ideas Matter.
The Winston Group’s David Winston writes in today’s Roll Call about how, through impeachment, Democrats risk undermining voters’ faith in American democracy.
Critics who question the validity of an election without proof ought first to consider the harm an unsubstantiated claim might have on our democratic elections and the faith Americans have placed in them for almost 250 years. This is something both Democrats and Republicans have warned about in the past.
Read the full piece here.
In anticipation of our forthcoming 2020 Democratic Primary debate report, here are the Winston Group analyses of the 2016 primary and general election debates. Take a look, and keep an eye out here for our next report where we will analyze the current Democratic primary debates in anticipation of the 2020 general election.
The Winston Group’s David Winston writes in today’s Roll Call about whether Democrats have succeeded in convincing voters of the necessity of impeachment:
These numbers don’t mean the electorate’s concerns over the impeachment allegations have disappeared. But with the election just over nine months away, Democrats’ argument for it is steadily losing standing with voters at exactly the wrong time for them.
Read the full piece here.
The Winston Group’s David Winston writes in today’s Roll Call about some of the positives of the last month, despite the impeachment process in the background.
In fact, in contrast to the Democrats’ overwrought warnings, the world continued to turn, the sun came up every morning, and more than a few positives have characterized the last 28 days.
Read the full piece here.
Happy New Year! In his first column of 2020, the Winston Group’s David Winston writes about the Democratic Party’s progressive tilt and the need for both Democrats and Republicans to focus on building majority coalitions for the next elections:
Here’s what AOC and her like-minded progressives don’t seem to understand: That kind of rigid thinking doesn’t build winning coalitions. It’s what loses elections. A fact Republicans ought to remember as well.
Read the full piece here.
The 2018 midterm elections, for Republicans, is a story of missed opportunity. Holding the House was a tall order with history against the GOP as the party in power and the large number of Republican retirements But a path to preserving their House majority, even if a difficult one, did exist if the election became all about the economy. It didn’t.
This post-election analysis, based on exit poll data from the National Election Pool, done by Edison Research, and the Winston Group’s Winning the Issues post-election survey, done Election Night, assesses the 2018 campaign that began and ended with the fight for the election narrative.
There is no question that money was a significant disadvantage for Republicans in this election, but this report outlines the opportunities that existed which could have led to a much better result for them, especially in terms of what the electorate heard from both Republicans and Democrats. This report also shows that the election outcome was not the result of an ideological or party identification realignment, but instead a shift in vote preferences. This means that Republicans still have an opportunity to rebuild their majority coalition for 2020.
Read the full analysis here.
The WG’s David Winston discusses how Republicans can sell the tax reform plan after passage:
The 2017 Republican tax cuts will soon become law, but the debate over the GOP’s economic plan to jump-start a growth economy is just beginning. As often happens with tax cut proposals, it can be a tough sell initially for reasons beyond usual voter skepticism.
The Democracy Fund Voter Study Group has released two new reports exploring the views and values motivating the American electorate. As part of the Voter Study Group, the WG’s David Winston used a unique longitudinal dataset of 5,000 voters to explore which issues mattered most in 2016. Read the full report here or take a look at the highlights:
Viewing the electorate through the lens of issue priorities rather than through demographic variables yields valuable insights. Our analysis suggests that the mix of issue priorities revealed more about voter decision-making than demography.
Using voters’ views on the importance of 23 different issues, a cluster analysis produced five distinct groups — the “Democrat/Independent Liberal Elites” (15 percent of the electorate), the “Democratic-Leaning Working Class” (the largest cluster, at 25 percent), the “Moderate Younger Middle-Income” voters (17 percent), the “Conservative Older” voters (21 percent), and the “Conservative Younger” voters (12 percent), with an additional 10 percent unidentified by these clusters because they did not respond to all 23 issue priority questions.
These clusters demonstrated distinct presidential election voting patterns, party preference, and ideological patterns that can provide insight into voters’ decision-making. The conservative, Republican-Leaning clusters appear more cohesive than the two Democratic-Leaning clusters. The “Democrat/Independent Liberal Elites” cluster prioritized issues popular in the media coverage of the election, but not issues that were “very important” to the other Democratic cluster and the country as a whole, such as the economy and jobs. These differences will be consequential for Democrats in the future.
The key issues driving the election, based on what voters found most important, were the economy, health care, jobs, and Social Security. Issues such as climate change, gender, and racial injustice that made up a significant level of the media coverage of the 2016 election were not among the most important issues for most voters. The Rust Belt was key to the election outcome, and the economy was the top issue among Trump voters in that region, and the fifth most important issue among Clinton voters.
Of the four top issues, Trump had the advantage among voters who highly prioritized jobs and the economy while Clinton had an advantage among those who prioritized health care. Neither candidate had an advantage on Social Security. Clinton won a majority of those voters who prioritized 12 of the 23 issues included in the survey, and often by large margins. But Trump won a majority of those who prioritized two of the top three issues, including the most important, the economy.
Voters were not satisfied with the status quo when it came to the economy, and deep economic frustration and desire for change underlied their issue prioritization and political decision-making.
David Winston’s latest for Roll Call reviews the 2016 election and the importance of voter issue priorities:
So what does this analysis show really happened in 2016? Trump won the issues that mattered.
In the future, both political parties need to recognize that the electorate has a clear set of priorities. Issues matter — and going forward, they may matter much more than demographics.
What did voters tell Washington in 2016? They wanted to “rock the boat.” Read through our in-depth 2016 Post Election Analysis to find out how voters defined their choice, and what role deeper concerns over the direction of the country, the economy, and the political system played in that decision.
