Category: Politics

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

Comparing The Republican And Democrat Education Platforms

With the release of the Democratic Party’s 2024 platform for the start of their convention today, this week we take a look at how the Democrats’ platform compares with the Republicans’ on education.

The Democratic Platform: Education comes as part of the third chapter, “Lowering Costs;” the section addresses positions spanning through the education system from pre-K to post-secondary. Among the priorities are free, universal preschool for four year-olds; more affordable post- secondary education, including investments in career and technical education, free trade school and community college, and expanded Pell Grants; and increased investments in teachers.

“Help students learn.” The platform highlights actions the Biden administration took in the wake of the pandemic through the passage of the American Rescue Plan. It then highlights the Biden administration’s support of approaches that are “proven to help students learn,” including a longer school day and year; efforts to reduce chronic absenteeism; tutoring; literacy programs; and “helping schools to lift student achievement, rather than punishing them based on state standardized tests.”

Left undefined was how student achievement would be measured to indicate if improvements could be seen. Though the document expresses support for measures that help students learn, how can we know that the learning loss as a result of Covid-19 is being effectively addressed in the absence of standardized testing data?

The Republican Platform: The full 2024 Republican Party Platform was adopted at the Republican National Convention last month. Chapter 7, “Cultivate Great K-12 Schools Leading to Great Jobs and Great Lives for Young People,” outlines the platform as it pertains to education.

The chapter lists nine aspirations for education under Republican leadership: “Great Principals and Great Teachers,” which touches on schools focusing on “Excellence and Parental Rights” as well as ending teacher tenure in favor of merit pay; “Universal School Choice”; “Prepare Students for Jobs and Careers”; “Safe, Secure, and Drug-Free Schools”; “Restore Parental Rights”; Knowledge and Skills, Not CRT and Gender Indoctrination”; “Promote Love of Country with Authentic Civics Education”; “Freedom to Pray”; and “Return Education to the States.”

Republicans focus on social issues. A major focus of the K-12 education platform is on social issues, including “expos[ing] politicized education models” in favor of career training programs, and “defund[ing] schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children using Federal Taxpayer Dollars.” One of the twenty points included in the preamble of the platform is to “cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.”

Missing from the Republican document is any mention of improving student achievement or overcoming the learning loss students suffered during the Covid-19 pandemic.

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

Afghanistan: The Watershed Moment For Biden Job Approval

In the leadup to Iran’s first-ever direct attack on Israel, President Biden said that US support for Israel was “iron clad.” But as Israel is ready to move forward to defeat Hamas in Rafah, the last stronghold of Hamas, the President is threatening to halt weapons shipments if they proceed. This announcement comes as US citizens are being held hostage.

Our latest numbers for Winning the Issues (April 27-29) showed that even before this week’s announcement, the president’s job approval on foreign policy (35-55 approve-disapprove) was struggling at the same scale as his overall job approval (38-55) and economic job approval (37-56). Disapproval with his handling of foreign policy is not limited to Republicans; independents disapprove of by more than 2:1 (26-63).

The impact of the administration’s decision may impede Israel’s ability to defeat Hamas, with parallels being drawn with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. From our trending of Biden job approval, the Afghanistan withdrawal was a watershed moment. As shown in the trend chart, this was the moment in which his job approval took a hit from which it has never recovered.

His job approval went from 52-40 in July 2021 — prior to the Afghanistan withdrawal — to 46-44 in September 2021. His job approval was declining prior to Afghanistan, but was still in positive territory. But from that point forward, his job approval deteriorated. Other factors like skyrocketing inflation locked in the disapproval in the months after that, with disapproval going over 50% in May 2022. However, the breaking point in his job approval can be traced back to Afghanistan.

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “If we need to stand alone, we will stand alone.” History will judge the impact of the administration’s decision, but it is likely to further embolden our adversaries and cause allies to question the depth of America’s resolve.

Posted on

What’s The Matter With Congress?

Congressional job approval is at historic lows with Gallup’s latest rating at a dismal 15-81 approve- disapprove. A recent survey of Congressional staff by the Congressional Management Foundation revealed significant frustration on Capitol Hill, but also a few bright spots.

1.) The desire for bipartisanship still exists. There was broad agreement among staff respondents that it is necessary for Senators and Representatives to collaborate across party lines to best meet the needs of the nation (97% agreed). About two-thirds (65%) strongly agreed. This agreement was bipartisan, with 98% of Republicans and 96% of Democrats agreeing. There is also agreement that it is necessary for staffers to collaborate across party lines for Congress to function effectively, with 98% agreeing with this statement (67% strongly agreed). Similar to views about Members, this view about staff was shared by Republicans (96% agreed) and Democrats (98% agreed).

Majorities of staff respondents recognized the importance of civility (76% very important) and bipartisanship (56% very important), but satisfaction with the current state of both is non-existent (1% very satisfied with current state of civility; 0% very satisfied with state of bipartisanship).

2.) The culture of Congress is not meeting the desire for bipartisanship and civility. A majority of respondents disagreed that it is easy for Senators and Representatives to build relationships across party lines (42-58 agree-disagree, with only 11% strongly agreeing with this statement.) Pessimism about building relationships was bipartisan, with 54% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats disagreeing.

With 51% agreeing that it is easy for staffers to build relationships across party lines, (51-49), this indicates a somewhat more positive outlook on staff relationships than Member relationships (42-58). However, staff from both sides felt that there were insufficient incentives for bipartisanship, with 73% disagreeing that there are strong incentives for staffers to collaborate across party lines (27-73 agree-disagree overall). Only 20% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats agreed that incentives for bipartisanship existed.

3.) There are some areas of improvement. In terms of improvements in legislative functionality, the study identified the work of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress as the source. One example was an improvement in satisfaction with access to high quality, nonpartisan expertise in the legislative branch, going from 12% very satisfied in 2022 to 32% in 2023.

4.) Misplaced incentives were seen as a reason for dysfunction. A Republican chief of staff told CMF: “The whole place is broken and the incentive structures no longer match the proper functions of a democratic republic.” A Democratic staffer echoed those same frustrations: “The political incentives are increasingly divorced from policy. Tribalism and cults of personality value symbolic goods for leaders rather than material outcomes for the people.” The study showed the importance of time and resources devoted to policy (97% found it important that Members have adequate time and resources to understand, consider and deliberate policy and legislation.) But only a third of respondents (32%) were satisfied that the needed time and resources existed.

For advocates who are not content with the status quo in Congress, the study seems to highlight three areas for constructive engagement: improving incentives around policy and less on personality; promoting the building of relationships; and celebrating successes to build momentum for more wins. The study shows there is interest in bipartisan cooperation and getting things done, but the day-to-day fires in Congress perpetuate the culture of dysfunction. As we found in 2016 research for Congressional Institute, people thought that positive things may be happening in Congress, but they didn’t hear about it. An independent voter said in our listening sessions, “We really don’t know what’s going on up there. And I’m sure they’ve passed legislation. I just don’t think we’ve heard about it.” It will take changing the current incentive structure to impact the status quo in the way Congress operates.

Posted on

Who Is The Candidate Of Change In 2024?

The 2024 presidential race will be a Biden-Trump rematch, but compared to today’s sour political climate, the 2020 election was a very different time for the country. We were still in the throes of COVID. The economy was central to the election, but the country was still trying to defeat the virus as closures continued and a vaccine wasn’t yet available. Combined with the protests during the summer, the stage was set for a more unifying positive candidate. Biden’s positive brand image (52-46 fav-unfav) made it easier for voters who didn’t like Trump (46-52 fav-unfav) to vote for him. Exit polls showed the economy was the strong suit for Trump, while Biden won among voters who prioritized the virus. Disruptive change wasn’t the priority it had been in 2016.

The contours of the 2024 election appear much closer to 2016 than 2020. In 2016, the country and economy were seen as on the wrong track. Both party nominees had high negatives, but Clinton had the attributes of the political old guard. Exit polls showed that the most important candidate quality in a choice of four was can bring needed change (39%) over other presidential attributes like has the right experience (22%), has good judgment (20%) and cares about people like me (15%). Among voters who identified can bring needed change as their most important candidate quality, Trump won decisively 82-14.

With the negative outlook on the country and economy similar to 2016, voters are looking for change again. In our survey for Winning the Issues (February 24-25), we tested a series of candidate attributes and asked voters whether they applied more to Biden or Trump. On the attribute of can bring needed change, neither Biden nor Trump reached 50%, but Trump had a significant lead over Biden on this attribute (48-33).

Among voters who think the country is headed on the wrong track (67% of the electorate), they see Trump as the candidate of change 60-19. Trump voters view their candidate as the change agent by an overwhelming 93-1, with Republicans at a similar margin of 88-4. In contrast, only 65% of Democrats and 70% of Biden voters see their party’s nominee as the change candidate, with about 1 in 4 Democrats (24%) being undecided. Additionally, the numbers for Biden are very weak among a key part of the Democratic coalition — African-Americans — with only 40% identifying Biden as the change candidate (31-40) and 29% that do not know.

Among important swing groups, independents see Trump as the candidate of change by almost 2:1 (45-26), although Trump’s lead does not reach 50%. With independents being a group that Biden won by 13 in 2020, this result should concern the Biden team. Among young women 18-44, who the Biden campaign intends to target with an abortion message, only 31% say Biden is the candidate to bring needed change (39-31, 29% don’t know). The same trend is seen among millennial/Gen Z voters (43-33, 24% don’t know).

These numbers don’t represent vote intention, only perceptions on this attribute. But these results indicate a lukewarm view from the President’s own party about his ability to be the change agent the country needs. Given the second-term legislative mandate he seeks, the Biden campaign team should be alarmed.

Posted on

How Do Highly Educated Voters Vote?

One observation that has become commonplace in recent years when talking about changing partisan trends is that the Democratic Party is becoming the party of educated voters, while voters with less education are increasingly voting Republican.

How true is this analysis? To answer this question, we took a look at data from the most recent survey for Winning the Issues (February 24-25). Voters were asked to characterize their typical voting behavior, from voting straight Republican to straight Democrat. Overall, the electorate is pretty evenly split, with 35% saying they vote straight or mostly Republican, 36% saying they vote straight or mostly Democrat, and 25% saying they slightly favor one party over another or that they split their ticket evenly.

Looking at the results by level of education shows a remarkable level of consistency.

  • Those who never attended college (19% of the 2020 Presidential electorate, 16% of the 2022 Congressional electorate) split 33-32 Republican-Democrat, with 28% saying they slightly favor one party or split their ticket evenly.
  • Those who attended college but received no degree (23% of the 2020 Presidential electorate; 27% of the 2022 Congressional electorate) split 37-38, with 21% indicating they split their ticket or only slightly favor one party.
  • Associate’s degree holders (16% of the 2020 Presidential electorate; 15% of the 2022 Congressional electorate) split 32-33, with 31% saying they slightly favor one party or split their ticket evenly. 
  • Bachelor’s degree holders, split 38-38, with 23% slightly favoring one party or splitting their ticket evenly. Voters with a bachelor’s degree accounted for about a quarter of the 2020 Presidential electorate (27%) and the 2022 Congressional electorate (25%).
  • Even voters with a postgraduate education say they only favor Democrats but only by a margin of 5 (32-37, 28% slightly favor one party/split ticket evenly). This group made up 15% of the 2020 Presidential electorate and 19% of the 2022 Congressional electorate. 

There is no education level that characterizes itself as overwhelmingly partisan, though those with graduate degrees have a slightly favor Democrats. Though it can be easy to reduce voting behavior to simple narratives, the data from this survey show that the reality is likely much more nuanced.

Posted on

“It’s the Year of the Independent”: An analysis of the 2022 Midterm Election

2022 Post Election Analysis

In this election, Republicans, Democrats and the media expected a significant Red Wave. Projections of Republicans winning 240 seats were not uncommon, and most had the number at 230 or higher. On election night, it was not clear that Republicans could reach 218, and it wasn’t until over a week later that media entities began calling the House for Republicans.

The obvious question is: Why didn’t a Red Wave materialize? While Republicans did a better job at turning out their base than Democrats, the key was Independents who made up 31% of the electorate, their highest percentage of the electorate 1984 forward. For Republicans, in the last 10 elections with a sitting Democratic President they had won Independents. In this election Republicans lost them.

This in-depth analysis, using Edison exit poll data, and Winning the Issues post-election study, reviews what happened and why.

Read the full analysis here.

Read Report
Posted on

“Split Decision”: An analysis of the 2020 Presidential Election

Going into the 2020 November election, Joe Biden enjoyed a sizable lead, according to most media polling. Democrats believed the country was moving toward the left; and that, as a result, the political environment was also moving significantly in their direction. If they could tie Republican Congressional candidates in swing districts/states to Trump, while the electorate was moving left, Democrats believed they could pick up a significant number of seats in both the House and the Senate.

But while Biden was winning by more than 4% nationally, the general center-right nature of the electorate produced a temporary two seat advantage for Republicans in the Senate and a pickup of 12 seats in the House (14 overall from the 2018 election), and numerous state legislative wins. The “blue wave” had collapsed, and Republicans found themselves in a much stronger position than anyone anticipated.

Ultimately, 2020 was a two-tier election. Biden defeated Trump for the presidency, but results down ballot showed support for center-right ideas and governance. Overall, a split decision. 

This report is based on the Winning the Issues Election post-election survey of 1000 voters at the Congressional level and Edison Research exit polls. 

Read our full analysis here.

Read Report