Resurgent Republic

Post: RR Special State of the Union Response

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:24:00 -0500

President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address yesterday. The prime-time event provided an opportunity for the president to emerge from the self-described "buzz saw" that his Administration walked into during its first year, characterized by increasing opposition to health care reform, growing disapproval of his signature economic initiative, heightened national security concerns, three consecutive statewide political defeats -- and ultimately the loss of Independent voters. Resurgent Republic Advisory Board Members Governor Haley Barbour, George Allen, Gary Andres, Daron Shaw, Jim Gimpel and Bill Connelly critique President Obama's performance.

The Honorable Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi and Chairman of the Republican Governors Association

“Although President Obama’s speech was all over the map, one would have thought the elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts hadn’t happened. The President is still pushing a government-run healthcare system that would drive up the cost of health insurance premiums, and a cap and trade tax that would drive up energy costs.

Any mention of the war on terror and our nation’s security clearly was an afterthought, made after an hour of his trying to convince viewers that job creation really will be his top priority in the future.

While he sounds reasonable, the more you learn about his proposals the more clearly you see how far left they really are. It’s the same old liberal playbook: Fake to the middle and run hard left.”

The Honorable George Allen, former Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee:

"If the president truly wants to invigorate job opportunities for Americans and make our nation safer, then he should get the Congress to:

1. Stop the pending tax increases. Indeed, reducing tax burdens will make America more competitive internationally.

2. Cut profligate spending and dangerous debt.

3. Create more jobs and affordable energy to power our country by unleashing the creative and clean use of our plentiful American coal, as well as oil and gas resources.

4. Empower families with personal, portable and quality health care choices rather than dictates, taxes and mandates.

5. Stop costly, counter-productive job-killing regulations emanating from their Environmental Protection Agency bureaucracy.

6. Embrace the principles of personal freedom and opportunity rather than dictates from and dependency on the federal government.

7. Focus on defeating vile terrorists rather than defending them.

Unfortunately for our fellow Americans, it appears that the president and the ruling majority in Congress remain disconnected from the real concerns and aspirations of working American families and business owners. We will Fight On!"

Gary Andres, Ph.D. Research Fellow, American University, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies:

“The president's first State of the Union address was a huge missed opportunity and a window on Mr. Obama's mind. It was a missed opportunity at two levels. First, it was not very creative. I didn't hear many new ideas or innovative solutions. It included a lot of predictable material -- pass health care, cap and trade and send me a jobs bill. All of these initiatives have been tried and proven either divisive or ineffective. How about some creative new ways to tackle these problems?

Second, it didn't really address independent voter concerns: His approach to governing has been too partisan. This would have been an opportunity to insist on a bipartisan approach to at least some of his agenda. But again, President Obama's speeches really are just words, with no concrete way to implement his ideas. Part of this is due to his lack of experience with the legislative process.

Finally, the State of the Union also provided a window on his governing style. He said before the speech that he'd rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two term president. To me that translates to "I'm an ideologue, not a problem solver." He signaled last night he will continue to forge ahead on controversial policies, like his approach to health care and cap and trade, regardless of what Americans think. It's becoming very clear that this is a president who deeply believes "he" always knows best. It's arrogance and narcissism all rolled into one.

Our polls have shown Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies. If he continues the approach he took last night, his personal popularity will start to match the distain we find for many of his legislative ideas.”

Daron Shaw, Ph.D. Professor, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Government:

"I'm usually somewhat disappointed by State of the Union addresses; they tend to be too long and rhetorically uninteresting. As expected, President Obama's first SOTU was too long. The foreign policy section was especially yawn-inducing. Moreover, the initial narrative offered by the president was confusing to the point of incoherence: the administration's tax cuts, made possible by the stimulus package, helped reduce the number of jobs lost.

The rhetoric, however, was quite interesting. It was confrontational and defiant. In particular, the president hammered the Senate, the Bush administration, banks, lobbyists, and, somewhat stunningly given their ceremonial presence in the chamber, the Supreme Court. A colleague of mine pointed out Wednesday morning that the SOTU response should be given by the Congress, not the opposition party; after the president's speech I would love to hear such an institutional reaction to many of the charges leveled by the chief executive.

In political terms, my guess is that the speech will work well enough. Most Americans are not interested enough in politics to pay much attention to the SOTU address, and so it's unlikely the president's approval numbers will move much. The disconnect between spending proposals and deficit reduction may also prove problematic next fall. But the president did provide Democrats with some talking points and direction. In fact, despite bemoaning the existence of the permanent campaign, the president kick-started the 2010 election campaign."

James G. Gimpel, Ph.D. Professor of Government, University of Maryland, Department of Government and Politics:

"On display was the president’s usual portentous and disdainful self, at times sprinkled with a false deference that seemed strained and obligatory. Some characterize it as an 'I know better than you' attitude, or a 'you haven’t thought about it as much as I have' posture, that belies efforts to reach out beyond a hard core liberal base.

Evidence that the president isn’t serious about working across the aisle includes the traditional Democratic dogma that Washington is the solution to all of the nation’s problems, or should be.

The president displayed a disrespectful attitude toward the Supreme Court which was particularly embarrassing given that he apparently misunderstands the nature of the ruling. No laws restricting contributions by foreign corporations were struck down.

The emphasis and intention to spend massive sums on rail construction is misplaced.

The protest of the reflexive partisanship that has come to characterize so much of politics in Washington is truly an expedient complaint now that Democrats occupy the White House and their agenda has been hindered. Certainly none of the president’s counselors would have been grumbling about partisanship standing in the way of policymaking two or three years ago."

William F. Connelly, Jr. Ph.D. John K. Boardman Politics Professor, Washington and Lee University:

"President Obama began his speech with the words 'Our Constitution.' He then immediately left the Constitution in the dust. President Obama is right that a 'deficit of trust' has been 'growing for years,' yet he fails to appreciate that this deficit of trust has grown as the cost and size of government has grown – especially as Democrats during the first year of his presidency have sought to grow the government by leaps and bounds. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, in the Republican response, offered the solution to the growing deficit of trust: limited government. The Founders’ Constitution provides for limited, not activist, nor overweening government.

President Obama lamented the deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works, yet grinning behind him sat two important reasons for voters’ doubts: Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Republican opposition cannot explain the inability of Congressional Democrats to act since, as the President noted, Democrats enjoy the largest congressional majorities in decades.

President Obama called for restoring leadership. Indeed, Americans want presidents to tame the beast that is Congress. Instead, during his first year in office President Obama allowed Congressional Democrats to run him – especially on health care reform. He insisted 'I will not walk away' from health care reform. Yet he has failed to provide leadership, deferring instead to the liberal wing of his party on Capitol Hill.

President Obama called for an end to politics and the 'perpetual campaign.' And he announced he would immediately fly to Florida and New Hampshire on his latest campaign swing. His denouncing the special interests seemed ironic at best given Democrats’ closed door meetings with labor unions and drug companies on healthcare reform. President Obama also sought to renew his post-partisan promise, but surely by now he must know actions speak louder than words. Trying to pass a liberal wish list of policy proposals over the past year relying on Democrats’ supermajorities in Congress while allowing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to exclude Republicans is no way to move beyond the partisanship in Washington.

Finally, President Obama taunted Republicans repeatedly ('let me know, let me know, let me know') to provide alternatives to his party’s big government solutions to everything from health care reform to the environment to student loans. Minutes later, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell provided the alternative citing Thomas Jefferson: limit government, don’t grow the government."

Post: CNN Poll: Most Americans applaud Democrats' loss of supermajority

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:17:00 -0500

CNN released a new poll yesterday, demonstrating most Americans support the Democrats' loss of their supermajority in the Senate caused by Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts last week.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday finds that 7 in 10 Americans believe that the Democrats' loss of their 60 seat supermajority in the Senate is a positive move for the country.

The results comport with other surveys showing many voters do not support unified Democratic Party control in Washington. While the Massachusetts Senate election did not produce divided government, it did restore the possibility of a procedural balancing tool -- the Republican filibuster.

Resurgent Republic polls and other surveys consistently have shown voters would rather have divided government -- to serve as a check on President Obama -- rather than unified control by one party to help the president enact his agenda.

Restoring the opportunitiy for Republicans to use the filibuster is a move in that direction and clearly supported by a large percentage of Americans.

The poll also demonstrates some significant movement in Republican brand appeal, with GOP numbers increasng and Democrats' favorability eroding since last fall.

According to the poll, 46 percent of the public has a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, with 44 percent viewing the Republican Party in a positive light. That's a change from October, when 53 percent had a favorable opinion of Democrats and 36 percent saw the GOP in a positive light.

Read the full results of the CNN poll here.

Post: Rebellion of the Center

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:23:00 -0500

The Republican upset in the Massachusetts Senate race ignited a fury of finger pointing between Democrats in the Bay State and Washington. National Democrats quickly labeled the state campaign as disorganized and slow to raise the warning flag. Given President Barack Obama’s public opinion drop during his first year, shouldn’t the White House and Democratic Congress been able to predict the tough road ahead, that a rebellion of the center was underway?

Today President Obama’s job approval rating hovers around 50 percent with some surveys dipping into the mid-40’s – a stunning reality check from an 80 percent approval last January. Of course it is common for presidents to face a leveling off during their first year, but Barack Obama’s transition from candidate to president has been seemingly lost in translation, along with the key swing voters he handily won during the campaign.

The drop in job approval has been largely influenced by his handling of the economy and health care. In the most recent ABC/Washington Post survey, President Obama receives double-digit disapproval margins on the economy, 60 to 47 percent, and health care, 57 to 44 percent. And his anticipated deficit reduction rhetoric at next week’s State of the Union will be met with a frosty 38 percent approval rating.

President Obama’s first year struggles have damaged his image crafted during the 2008 campaign, as a harbinger of hope and change. In a new CBS News survey, a solid majority believes that he has not brought real change to Washington, 59 to 35 percent overall and 64 to 28 percent among Independents. Three out of four Americans also believe he has kept only some or hardly any of his campaign promises, potential evidence that debates over C-SPAN and transparency resonate outside the beltway.

In addition, Americans are also adjusting their views on the proper role of government. In February, Americans believed that government should do more to help the needs of people, 51 to 40 percent. Today more Americans believe that government is doing too many things better left to the private sector and individuals, 48 to 43 percent (NBC/Wall Street Journal survey). This might help explain why Americans also believe the Obama Administration has not done enough to help small businesses, 62 to 28 percent, according to CBS News. No doubt this sentiment will make a jobs pivot much more difficult.

Last month President Obama told Oprah Winfrey that he earned a “good, solid B+” at the conclusion of his first year, but that report might not be an accurate reflection of public opinion, according to CBS News. After his first year, 46 percent believe he has been a good or very good president, down 22 points since inauguration, and 54 percent believe he has been an average or poor president, up 30 points since inauguration. And twice as many Independents believe he has been average or poor, 67 to 32 percent.

So as the Massachusetts post-mortem continues, it is evident that the White House and Democratic Congress failed to understand just how badly they have alienated Independents. The Massachusetts Senate race is the latest narrative of the center's rebellion, and it is likely not the last.

Article: Among Democrats, a Conflicting Consensus on Massachusetts

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:48:00 -0500

Massachusetts delivered more than the proverbial shot across the bow Tuesday in electing its first Republican senator in more than 30 years.

Scott Brown's victory was more like a torpedo into the side of the Democrat majority in Washington.

How President Obama responds in the coming days, especially in a highly anticipated State of the Union address next week, will determine the long-term direction and shape of his presidency.

Read Full Story

Article: Terror Interrogations & the MA Senate Race

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:44:00 -0500

Next to health care, the issue that has dominated the debate in the Massachusetts Senate race is terrorism. Scott Brown, the Republican running ahead in the race for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat today, has campaigned as an unabashed supporter of enhanced interrogation. Brown - who serves as a JAG lawyer in the Army National Guard - has argued that the Christmas Day bomber should be interrogated as an enemy combatant, not given the right to remain silent. And he has said of waterboarding, "I do not believe it is torture. America does not torture ... we used aggressive, enhanced interrogation techniques."

There is a lesson here for Republicans. If an outspoken supporter of waterboarding can run this strongly in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, imagine how the issue will play in the rest of America.

The fact is President Obama has placed our country in grave danger by dismantling the CIA's program to interrogate senior terrorist leaders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. By limiting all terrorist interrogations to the techniques in the Army Field Manual, Obama is actually requiring that captured terrorists receive better treatment in the interrogation room than common criminals being questioned at your local police precinct. Not only has he eliminated lawful interrogation techniques, under his administration the United States is no longer trying to capture the leaders of al Qaeda alive, and bring them in for interrogation so they can tell us their plans for future attacks.

Read Full Story

Article: Brown's Run May Be Model for GOP: Tapping Discord on Health Bills

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:31:00 -0500

National GOP strategists say that the unexpected tightening in the Massachusetts Senate race has demonstrated the potency of the electorate’s antipathy for the Democratic health care legislation, and that Republican Scott Brown’s campaign could become a template for Republican challengers across the country in this year’s midterm elections.

“He’s making health care a front-and-center issue in the most liberal state in the country, and it’s working for him,’’ said Whit Ayres, who cofounded Resurgent Republic, a group of conservative pollsters and strategists formed to shape the national debate. “That’s the major message - that this bill is an albatross around the necks of the Democrats, and if it works this well in Massachusetts, just imagine how well it will work in less liberal states.’’

Brown has portrayed the Democratic health care bills as bloated, tax-stuffed mistakes that would do little to solve Massachusetts’ biggest health care challenge - controlling costs - while forcing its residents to sub sidize insurance for people in other states. He has called for Congress to “go back to the drawing board’’ and come up with a new plan. And he has capitalized on speculation about whether Democrats might try to delay his confirmation if he wins in order to ram the health bill through, stoking concerns about transparency and fairness raised by special deals Democratic leaders made last year to entice fence-sitters to vote for the bill.

Read Full Story

Article: Right Brain, Left Brain

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:41:00 -0500

The top three political strategists in the National Journal's Insiders Poll (12/12/09) have connections with Resurgent Republic. In a Wall Street Journal OpEd, Karl Rove suggested the need for a center-right counter to Democracy Corps. Governor Haley Barbour serves on our Advisory Board, and Ed Gillespie co-founded Resurgent Republic along with Republican pollster Whit Ayres.

Read Full Story

Article: Mellman Memo on Health Care

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:04:00 -0500

MEMORANDUM

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Gary Andres and Whit Ayres

DATE: December 22, 2009

RE: Mark Mellman Memo on Health Care

Politico reported this morning the contents of a memorandum to Democratic senators from pollster Mark Mellman. According to the news story, the memo “offers encouraging news to Democratic senators as they embark on a high-stakes effort to sell health reform to voters following this week’s historic votes.”

While we have the utmost respect for Mark as a pollster, we believe his two main substantive conclusions are erroneous.

Mellman makes two points about existing public polling. First, he argues “these poll questions fail to give any content, any specific meaning to the reform proposals.” He observers that many pollsters simply ask people whether they “favor or oppose a controversial plan that is in constant flux.”

Second, Mellman notes that public poll analyses “often ignore the fact that a chunk of opposition to the current plan comes from those who support reform, but would like to see Congress go further.”

We don’t disagree generally with Mellman’s first assertion. Many polls ask Americans’ views about proposals pending before Congress without going into many of the details. But next he makes an unjustified leap. Mellman goes on to argue that “the individual elements of healthcare reform are popular, and so is the bill when described in detail.”

The CNN survey he cites as evidence that “the public strongly supports the individual components of the health care bill” only outlines the positive elements of the legislation and none of the negative provisions. The survey he refers to fails to test public reaction to cutting Medicare, new taxes on certain health insurance plans, new taxes that kick in before benefits begin, or even the overall price tag of the legislation.

As we’ve argued before, asking voters to evaluate legislation with only the positives or the negatives articulated is dangerous. We believe Mellman falls into this trap by concluding the bill is more popular than suggested by citing a poll presenting only the positive side of the measure.

Indeed, some of the numbers Mellman cites from surveys he did in Louisiana and Maine find 38% and 36% (seniors only) still oppose the legislation even after hearing a litany of positive attributes in the bill. It’s actually surprising that nearly 4 out of ten tested “opposed” the legislation after hearing only the positive side of the argument.

In our most recent Resurgent Republic poll of registered voters over 55 years of age, we tested both positive and negative arguments about elements in the legislation dealing with Medicare, abortion and mammograms. We found large majorities (between 58% and 66% depending on the question) opposing provisions in the current congressional legislation. Indeed, voters 55 and older think health care reform will raise their taxes, increase the deficit, raise their premiums, cause their health care costs to go up, and cause the quality of the health care they receive to go down. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Democrats' reform proposals.

Mellman’s second point – that “public poll analyses often ignore the fact that a chunk of the opposition to the current plan comes from those who support reform, but would like to see Congress go further” – also deserves closer examination. He’s right that some might oppose the current congressional legislation because, for example, it doesn’t propose a single-payer system.

Yet we believe Mellman’s rhetorical argument is a door that swings both ways. True, support might increase among those who currently oppose the bill if it “went further.” But if it did, those who currently support it might also change their minds.

In sum, Mellman makes some valid points about the shortcomings of extant polling, but his conclusions about what these shortcomings mean for the popularity of the health care legislation in Congress do not follow from the data.

Article: Meet the Press

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:51:00 -0500

Ed Gillespie discusses Resurgent Republic's most recent national survey with voters age 55 and older on Meet the Press (12/20/09).

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Article: Democrats on the Health-Care Precipice

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:46:00 -0500

Barack Obama emerged from his meeting with Senate Democrats this week to claim Congress was on the "precipice" of something historic. Believe him. The president is demanding his party unilaterally enact one of the most unpopular and complex pieces of social legislation in history. In the process, he may be sacrificing Democrats' chances at creating a sustainable majority.

Slowly, slowly, the Democratic health agenda is turning into a political suicide pact. Congressional members have been dragged along by momentum, by threat, by bribe, but mostly by the White House's siren song that it would be worse to not pass a bill than it would be to pass one. If that ever were true, it is not today.

Public opinion on ObamaCare is at a low ebb. This week's NBC-WSJ poll: A mere 32% of Americans think it a "good" idea. The Washington Post: Only 35% of independents support it—down 10 points in a month. Resurgent Republic recently queried Americans over the age of 55, aka Those Most Likely to Vote In a Midterm Election. Sixty-one percent believe ObamaCare will increase their health costs; 68% believe it will increase the deficit; 76% believe it will raise their taxes.

Read Full Story

Article: Democrats Should Heed Lieberman, Not Vilify Him

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:51:00 -0500

Washington, D.C. (CNN) -- Winston Churchill once exclaimed, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."

Joe Lieberman knows that exhilaration better than most.

In 2006, the Democratic establishment took a shot at Mr. Lieberman, and it missed.

Now, the Connecticut senator is dictating the terms of a health care package that could determine the political future of the party that tried to end his career.

Predictably, the left wing of the party has decided to attack, with all of its might, their former vice presidential standard bearer. They have called him a traitor, sell-out and worse.

They have attacked his wife's career -- she lobbies for funding to end breast cancer and formerly worked for insurance companies.

Think Progress, a left-wing group, has launched a campaign to get Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein writes Lieberman "seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score."

John McCain, Lieberman's closest friend in the Senate, has called these attacks a "disgrace."

Lieberman says that all he wants to do is keep faith with the president's health care goals. "I am for reform," he says. He wants a new deal that won't include either a public option or an expansion of Medicare to those aged 55.

He also wants a health care reform package that actually bends the cost curve down. While McCain ran as a maverick in last year's presidential campaign, it is Lieberman who is the real McCoy when it comes to who is more "mavericky."

You probably have to stretch back to Teddy Roosevelt to see a comparable shift from Lieberman's status from standard bearer to subversive.

Roosevelt, after serving two terms as president, grew frustrated with his successor's policies -- which he deemed not progressive enough -- and ran a third party candidacy against him. Roosevelt lost, but so did William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson ascended to the White House.

Lieberman, who only nine years ago campaigned as the Democratic vice presidential nominee, last year was seriously considered as a possible Republican vice presidential nominee -- and perhaps would have been a better choice for John McCain than Sarah Palin.

In 2000, Lieberman supported the Medicare buy-in. Now, the left, and some in the media, are calling him a hypocrite for changing his position on Medicare eligibility. But Lieberman says that times change, and we can't afford that idea anymore. But that explanation, not matter how true, hasn't mollified the liberal blogosphere.

And now, he holds the fate of President Obama's key legislative initiative -- a president he campaigned so hard to defeat -- in the palm of his hands.

That can't be a comforting thought to the White House or to liberal Democrats who still can't figure out what happened to the liberal paradise they thought would be opened to them with the big electoral wins in 2008.

The best thing that the Democrats could do for their own political health is to take Lieberman's advice and dramatically scale back the health care legislation. According to most polls, the support for the president's health care plan has been dropping.

According to a new poll completed by Resurgent Republic, a conservative Republican organization, "voters age 55 and older oppose the health care reforms being debated in Congress by 48 to 39 percent."

These voters think that the proposals will increase their taxes, make their health care costs more expensive, increase their premiums and increase the debt.

Read Full Story

Article: Losing the Real Health Care Debate

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:34:00 -0500

The fractious, divided nature of the Democrats' majority in Congress continues to extend the health care debate - and excite the press, who are enthralled by every "11th hour" compromise. Still, Democrats’ internal squabble over the public option will cause them to miss their fourth (or is it fifth?) artificial deadline this year. It also provides a convenient distraction from the real story: poll after poll shows that, in the court of public opinion, Democrats have lost the debate – and lost badly.

True, 63 percent of the public still believes that the health care system needs major changes or a complete overhaul according to George Washington University’s Battleground poll. But 64 percent think that Obamacare does not address their priorities, the largest of which is the cost of health care.

It’s no surprise that no one outside the Beltway is drinking the health care Kool-Aid. Democrats’ bills are riddled with contradictions and fiscal gimmicks – and the more the public learns about the legislation, the less they like it.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the legislation’s Medicare provisions. For weeks, it has become increasingly clear that if Democrats actually follow through on their plans to cut $400 billion from health care support for the elderly, seniors will see sharp cuts in their benefits and reduced access to doctors and hospitals.

This is unlikely. But if Democrats cave to the pressures to keep up entitlement spending and simply further raise taxes to pay for subsidies for the uninsured, they’ll rob future generations of their dollars, economic vitality and hope for a more prosperous future.

The "doc fix" is a real-time example. Under both the House and Senate legislation, Medicare physician reimbursements are slated for a hit of over 20 percent starting in 2011. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have both advanced over $200 billion in new spending to rescind the cuts, blowing a hole in the budget along the way.

Democrats seem to believe nobody will notice. But the key constituency – those 55 and older – is watching closely. According to a survey released Friday by Resurgent Republic, fully 81 percent oppose the cuts to Medicare in the health legislation, which is the heart of the supposed funding mechanism. And 68 percent expect health care reform to increase the bloated deficit.

Read Full Story

Douglas Holtz-Eakin is former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute

Article: 2010: Exploring The Frustration Of Seniors

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:26:00 -0500

Resurgent Republic, the GOP strategy/polling consortium, has been finding, in surveys, a trend among folks over 55 that quite concerns Democrats -- because they're seeing the same thing. Since April, older whites have not only been venting their frustration at Congress, they've been increasingly receptive to Republican political messaging. Even though seniors in this cohort identify more as Democrats than Republicans (+7), even though President Obama has an approval rating of 53%, Democratic policies are not the beneficiary of their base level of support.

Of these voters, 27% are most concerned about the economy, 18% are worried about health care, and 10% are worried about deficits and spending. A majority of voters within these subgroups favor Republican solutions to Democratic solutions. This holds true particularly for those who say they're almost certain to vote in the midterms in 2010. Among voters over 55, Republicans and Democrats are viewed with equal disfavor -- which is telling, because Democrats have enjoyed a narrow advantage until recently. The driver here is independents, of course, who now favor Republicans in Congress more than Democrats in Congress.

I tend to be wary of partisan polls that test messages, but, as I indicated above, Democrats are finding the same thing: their core message resonates less when tested against Republican messages. On certain isolated questions, voters bend back the curve, quixotically supporting spending increases for specific problems that are defined specifically, but when given the choice between spending to push the economy out of a recession or paring down spending to reduce deficits, they're more likely to tell a pollster they favor the latter. The RR folks are very concerned about the deficit, so they've tested different iterations of deficit messages. Unsurprisingly, voters don't like spending when they're primed to think about its effect on the deficit and debt. BTW: independents hold President Bush more responsible for the condition of the economy than President Obama.

Read Full Story

Article: The Fix

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:16:00 -0500

Resurgent Republic, the conservative polling consortium formed in the wake of the 2008 election, is out with a new poll today surveying 1,000 voters aged 55 or older. The numbers should be interesting for political junkies since older voters usually comprise a disproportionately large segment of the electorate in midterms so what they think about the country and the president matters.

On issues, older voters are generally in tune with the electorate as a whole, naming the economy (27 percent), health care (18 percent) ad government debt/national deficit (10 percent) as the three biggest challenges facing the country. Diving deeper into the numbers, older voters are concerned and skeptical about some of President Obama's domestic policy initiatives but are broadly supportive of his recent decision to send more troops into Afghanistan.

Sixty-eight percent of the sample said they were "very concerned" about the growing national debt and seven in ten voters said they preferred "smaller government." On foreign policy, the numbers were reversed with nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of voters over 55 supportive of putting 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and just 32 percent opposed to that strategy. Given that data, you can expect Republicans running in 2010 to focus their criticism of the Obama administration heavily on the fiscal side while expressing support for his pursuit of the war in Afghanistan.

Resurgent Republic's number one suggestion for GOP messaging targeted at older voters heading into 2010? "More federal spending may be the agenda of the Democratic-controlled Congress, but it does not address your priority of cutting spending and lowering the deficit."

Read Full Story

PollingAnalysis: Older Independents View Republicans in Congress More Favorably than Democrats

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:20:00 -0500

MEMORANDUM

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Ed Gillespie and Whit Ayres

DATE: December 15, 2009

RE: Independents Age 55 and Older Prefer GOP Positions on Fiscal and National Security Issues; Older Independents View Republicans in Congress More Favorably than Democrats

Voters 55 and older are now extremely concerned about the federal government’s current level of spending and debt. Since Resurgent Republic’s first survey in April, we have been noting the extent to which budgetary and fiscal issues have been driving Independents away from Democrats and toward Republicans. That is clearly the case with voters 55 and older, a cohort where Independents look far more like Republicans than Democrats on budgetary and fiscal issues.

On national security, voters 55 and older strongly support President Obama’s decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But they are split on whether his national security policies have made America safer, and they intensely oppose his decisions to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and to try 9-11 terrorists in New York City.

Congressional debates over fiscal issues, health care, and national security have led to Republicans in Congress being rated comparably to Democrats in Congress among all voters 55 and older. Moreover, Independent voters in this age cohort now rate Democrats in Congress significantly more negatively than Republicans.

Resurgent Republic conducted its latest survey Sunday through Wednesday, December 6-9, 2009 with 1000 registered voters 55 and older. We focused on older voters because turnout among this group historically surpasses that of younger voters in non-presidential election years like 2010, and they are the voters most interested in the health-care debate dominating Congress at the moment.

The party balance among voters 55 and older stands remarkably close to that of registered voters overall. Democratic identifiers enjoy a seven-point advantage over Republicans in this sample, at 32 to 25 percent. The Pollster.com average of recent surveys shows a Democratic advantage among all registered and likely voters of five points. President Obama's favorable rating is 53 percent among these voters, almost identical to his 54 percent favorable rating nationally in the Pollster.com average. But the Democratic party ID advantage and President Obama's majority favorable rating does not translate into support for Democratic policies among voters 55 and older.

Among voters 55 and older, the three most important problems facing the country are the economy, health care, and government spending. Twenty-seven percent of these voters say the economy concerns them most, 18 percent say health care, and 10 percent say government spending and the deficit. Republicans and Independents indicate higher levels of concern about government spending and the deficit (20 and 12 percent respectively) than do Democrats (3 percent).

Older voters say Republicans are better able than Democrats to handle the problem they are most concerned about by a narrow margin, with a nearly two-to-one margin among Independents. Overall, voters 55 and older say Republicans are better able to handle the issue they are most concerned about by 34 to 31 percent. The three-point margin for Republicans is remarkably close to the two-point generic ballot preference for Republicans among all registered voters in Pollster.com’s average as of December 11 (43 to 41 percent). Not surprisingly, Republican voters in this sample trust Republicans (75 to 2 percent), and Democratic voters trust Democrats (69 to 3 percent). But tellingly for the 2010 elections, Independents trust Republicans by a 35 to 19 percent margin, 39 to 19 percent among Independents who say they are absolutely certain to vote.

Among voters 55 and older, Republicans in Congress are now rated comparably to Democrats in Congress, with Republicans rated significantly better than Democrats among Independents in this age group. Among all voters this age, the favorable/unfavorable ratings for Republicans in Congress are 46/42 percent, versus 44/45 percent for Democrats. Among Independent voters 55 and older, the ratings are 44/41 percent for Republicans and 36/52 percent for Democrats.

Fiscal Issues

When it comes to how voters think their concerns should be addressed, the findings are encouraging for those advocating policies of less government spending and intervention.

Two-thirds of voters 55 and older are very concerned about the current level of spending and debt. Overall, 68 percent of these voters are very concerned about current spending and debt, a figure that climbs to 90 percent when including voters who are somewhat concerned about spending and debt. By party, 93 percent of Republicans are very concerned (5 percent somewhat concerned), 71 percent of Independents are very concerned (21 percent somewhat concerned), and almost half of Democrats are very concerned (47 percent, with an additional 36 percent somewhat concerned).
A majority of older voters prefers spending less to reduce the budget deficit rather than spending more to help the economy recover. Fifty-one percent want to spend less, versus 40 percent who want to spend more. Democrats want to spend more by 62 to 28 percent, while Republicans and Independents want to spend less by large margins, 76 to 20 percent and 54 to 35 percent respectively. At this point, older voters clearly want their national leaders to focus on controlling spending rather than adding to the deficit or increasing the debt.
Majorities of voters 55 and older reject greater government involvement in the economy. We noted in April that all registered voters preferred smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes to larger government with more services and higher taxes by a 69 to 21 percent margin. Today, voters 55 and older say they prefer smaller government by a 70 to 20 percent margin, including a 75 to 14 percent margin among Independents. Similarly, by a 53 to 43 percent margin, older voters think “government is trying to do more things than it can do well, things that should be left to the private sector and individuals,” rather than “government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people.” Democrats think government should do more by 70 to 26 percent, but Republicans (by 76 to 22 percent) and Independents (by 61 to 34 percent) think government is trying to do more things than it can do well.
Strong majorities of these voters agree with conservative statements regarding federal spending and debt, including the statement that the deficit must be addressed now. Independents 55 and older are far closer to Republicans on these statements, with Democrats isolated in choosing the more liberal argument.

These voters agree that “the nation’s high level of debt is a serious burden that will limit economic growth in this country for our children and grandchildren, and must be addressed now” by a 63 to 31 percent margin, including an 84 to 13 percent margin among Republicans and a 65 to 29 percent margin among Independents. Democrats think that “the nation’s high level of debt is a temporary response to an economic crisis, and can only be addressed after the economy turns around” by a 48 to 44 percent margin.

Even when presented with the rationale for higher spending at the beginning of 2009 – that the federal budget brought us back from the brink of a depression and was the right thing to do for the good of the country – voters 55 and older think that “the federal budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much” by a 60 to 35 percent margin, including a 65 to 31 percent margin among Independents and an 84 to 15 percent margin among Republicans. Democrats think that “the federal budget brought us back from the brink of a depression” by a 57 to 37 percent margin.

These voters think that “the stimulus spending is not working, and unspent funds should be returned to reduce the deficit” rather than “the stimulus spending is working and should continue to be spent as originally authorized” by a 57 to 36 percent margin, including an 82 to 14 percent margin among Republicans and a 62 to 32 percent margin among Independents. Democrats think the stimulus is working by a margin of 58 to 32 percent.

Voters 55 and older think that “federal spending creates mainly government jobs, and makes it harder to generate more desirable private sector jobs,” rather than “federal spending is creating many government and private sector jobs, and avoiding numerous layoffs in state and local governments,” by 53 to 34 percent, including 76 to 16 percent among Republicans and 59 to 28 percent among Independents. Democrats once again stand isolated in thinking that federal spending is creating more jobs by a 57 to 28 percent margin.
Independents do agree with Democrats that the Bush Administration is more responsible for the current state of the economy than the Obama Administration. These voters still blame the Bush Administration more than the Obama Administration for the economy, by a 47 to 34 percent margin. This margin is 42 to 35 percent among Independents and 82 to 11 percent among Democrats, with Republicans blaming the Obama Administration by a 62 to 13 percent margin. This is a number that warrants watching over the course of 2010.

National Security Issues

Voters 55 and older approve of President Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. These voters approve of the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan by a 62 to 32 percent margin, including 76 to 19 percent among Republicans, 61 to 32 percent among Independents, and 52 to 43 percent among Democrats.
By a 2-to-1 ratio, these voters disapprove of President Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo. These voters believe that “holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay helps protect America by keeping terrorists in custody who would kill Americans overseas” by a 62 to 29 percent margin over the statement that “holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay weakens America’s moral authority and isn’t in keeping with our values.” Republicans and Independents overwhelmingly agree with the first statement by 87 to 9 percent and 64 to 28 percent respectively. Democrats narrowly prefer the second statement by 45 to 41 percent.
Voters 55 and older also disagree with the President’s decision to try suspected 9-11 terrorists in New York City. Given the following statements about trials for terror suspects:

Congressman A says putting suspected 9-11 terrorists on trial in New York City instead of a military tribunal is a good idea, because it shows that America provides the same rights to everyone, including those suspected of the worst crimes, and a visible, open trial will prove to the world any convictions are deserved.

Congressman B says putting suspected 9-11 terrorists on trial in New York City instead of a military tribunal is a bad idea, because it elevates New York City as a terrorism target, will expose confidential intelligence-gathering methods, and gives terrorists captured on the battlefield the same rights as American citizens.

Fifty-nine percent of voters 55 and older agree with Congressman B that suspected 9-11 terrorists should be subject to a military tribunal instead of a visible, open trial in New York City (34 percent agree with Congressman A), including an 82 to 15 percent margin among Republicans and a 65 to 30 percent margin among Independents. Democrats 55 and older agree with Congressman A, however, by a 54 to 36 percent margin, showing the Democratic base to be at odds with Independents and the older electorate as a whole.
Voters 55 and older split on whether President Obama’s national security and foreign relations policies have made America safer or less safe. Thirty-three percent say less safe, 30 percent say safer, with 31 percent saying the policies have had no effect. Those results, however, mask a double-digit margin among Independents saying those policies have made America less safe, 38 to 25 percent.

The following messages will resonate strongly with voters age 55 and older

More federal spending may be the agenda of the Democratic-controlled Congress, but it does not address your priority of cutting spending and lowering the deficit.
More federal spending is far more likely to increase deficits and debt than create good private sector jobs.
The Federal government is trying to do more things than it can do well, and the result will be a larger government, more spending, and higher taxes.
Congress cannot wait any longer to address the high level of debt that awaits our children and grandchildren.
President Obama made the right decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, but closing Guantanamo Bay and providing 9/11 terrorists an open trial in New York City weakens our national security.

When these findings on federal debt and spending and national security issues are combined with findings about health-care policies tested in the same survey, on question after question, Republicans and Independents 55 and over stand on one side of the policy divide with Democrats standing on the other. Given the outsized role older voters play in non-presidential year elections, that pattern, should it persist, does not bode well for Democratic prospects in the 2010 elections.

Methodology

This survey consists of 1000 registered voters age 55 and older, chosen randomly from throughout the country through random-digit dialing targeted toward respondents 55 and older, using live interviewers. Calls were conducted December 6-9, 2009. Calling quotas were established by state, age, race, and gender using Census Bureau data for adults 55 and older. Seventy-eight percent of the sample is white, 10 percent African-American, 7 percent Hispanic, and 4 percent other or refused. Females constitute 54 percent and males 46 percent. The sample is seven points more Democratic than Republican: 25 percent Republican, 41 percent Independent, and 32 percent Democrat. The margin of error for the full sample is 3.1 percent.

Article: Those Most Likely to Vote in 2010 at Odds with Democrats’ Health Care Agenda

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:21:00 -0500

As published by Real Clear Politics

Given the disproportionate share of voters age 55 and older likely to comprise the electorate in next year’s mid-term, passage of health care reform legislation would pose a serious risk to Democratic majorities in the House and Senate according to a new survey released today by Resurgent Republic, a non-profit conservative organization that gauges public opinion toward government policy proposals.

The nationwide survey of 1000 voters age 55 and older had a sample in which Democrats enjoyed a seven percentage-point advantage over Republicans (32%-25%) and President Obama enjoyed a favorable rating of 53%. These numbers are similar to recent surveys of voters of all ages. However, voters 55 and older opposed health care reform being debated by Congress by 48-39%, with intensity running strongly against the legislation’s proponents (40% strongly opposed versus 25% strongly support). This opposition correlated with pluralities now holding a favorable view of Republicans in Congress (46% favorable-42% unfavorable) and an unfavorable view of Democrats in Congress (44% favorable-45% unfavorable), despite the partisan identification of the sample favoring Democrats.

Perhaps more important politically, Independents 55 and older now oppose health care reform by a 52% to 33% margin, view Republicans in Congress favorably (44% to 41%) and view Democrats in Congress unfavorably (52% to 31%).

These voters over 55 rejected every key element of the Obama Administration’s arguments in favor of their reform effort, specifically concluding that enactment of health care reform now being debated in Congress would increase rather than decrease their health care costs (61%-14%), insurance and Medicare premiums (61%-13%), the federal deficit (68%-7%) and taxes (76%-3%) and would decrease rather than increase the quality of their health care (41%-22%).

Independent voters sided more with Republican respondents than with Democrats on each of these perceptions, believing that health care reform would increase their health care costs by a margin of 66%-12%, insurance and Medicare premiums by 67%-10%, the federal deficit by 77%-5% and taxes by 80% to 2%. In addition, Independents believed passage of the Democrats’ health care reform legislation would decrease the quality of their health care by a three-to-one margin, 48% to 16%.

Older voters also rejected the central argument that enacting health care reform legislation would help the economy, with 45% saying it would hurt the economy and only 27% saying it would help. Eighteen percent said it would make no difference.

And when it came to specific proposals to pay for health care reform, opposition to financing provisions under consideration by Congress swamped support:

81% opposed cutting Medicare by $400 billion versus 11% who supported it.
63% opposed taxing Cadillac health care plans versus 24% who supported it.
63% opposed increasing Medicare payroll taxes versus 27% who supported it.
60% opposed cutting or eliminating Medicare Advantage versus 14% who supported it.

The only proposed financing provision that enjoyed majority support was taxing elective cosmetic surgery (52% in favor, 40% opposed).

On the controversial issue of including abortion coverage in publicly subsidized insurance, voters 55-and-older overwhelmingly side with the argument “abortions should not be allowed in a government-run health insurance plan, and abortions should not be covered by an insurance plan that receives federal subsidies, because it means taxpayers who object to abortion are forced to subsidize abortion” (58%) over those who agree with the argument “abortion should be allowed in a government-run health insurance plan, and abortion should be covered in federally-subsidized plans if patients pay for it themselves, because if abortion is legal it should be covered under government health plans” (34%).

The findings in this survey are significant because older voters are much more likely to vote in the mid-term elections than younger voters.

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid seem to have concluded that failing to pass health care reform legislation will hurt them more at the polls than passing it—that they’re less “damned if they do” than “damned if they don’t.” Today’s Resurgent Republic poll is strong evidence that they’re wrong.

Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and counselor to President Bush, and Whit Ayres, a respected professional pollster with a long track record of analyzing public opinion, are the original board members of Resurgent Republic.

PollingAnalysis: Older Voters Strongly Reject Democrats' Health Care Reform

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:17:00 -0500

MEMORANDUM

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Ed Gillespie and Whit Ayres

DATE: December 11, 2009

RE: Voters Age 55 and Older Strongly Reject Democrats' Health Care Reform Plans

With their health care reform proposals, Democrats in Congress are digging an enormous political hole with voters age 55 and older, a demographic group that plays an outsized role in non-presidential year elections. Voters age 55 and older think health care reform will raise their taxes, increase the deficit, raise their premiums, cause their health care costs to go up, and cause the quality of the health care they receive to go down. Simply put, these voters reject every central argument made by Democrats in support of their legislation.

That conclusion is clear in Resurgent Republic's latest survey of 1000 registered voters age 55 and older conducted Sunday through Wednesday, December 6-9, 2009. Resurgent Republic focused on this group because they are the greatest consumers of health care, and thus have the greatest stake in health care reform. Moreover, turnout among this group historically surpasses that of younger voters in non-presidential election years like 2010.

The party balance among voters age 55 and older stands remarkably close to that of registered voters overall. Democratic identifiers enjoy a seven-point advantage over Republicans in this sample, at 32 to 25 percent. The Pollster.com average of recent surveys shows a Democratic advantage among all registered and likely voters of six points. President Obama's favorable rating is 53 percent among these voters, almost identical to his 54 percent favorable rating nationally in the Pollster.com average. But the Democratic party ID advantage and President Obama's majority favorable rating does not translate into support for Democratic health care proposals among voters age 55 and older—reflecting strong opposition from Independent voters as well as Republicans.

Voters age 55 and older overwhelmingly view health care costs as their greatest financial concern. 40 percent say paying for health care costs is their greatest financial concern, far more than those who cite paying for retirement (17 percent), paying their taxes (14 percent), paying their mortgage or rent (9 percent), or losing a job (5 percent). Paying for health care costs ranks first for all three partisan groups, Republicans (34 percent), Independents (42 percent), and Democrats (43 percent).
Consequently voters age 55 and older think "lowering the costs of health care" should be the top health care priority for the country, but they think President Obama's top priority is "covering more of the uninsured." When asked which health care priority the country should focus on first, 45 percent say lowering costs, 28 percent say covering the uninsured, and 18 percent say improving the quality of health care. But when asked about the President's top priority, 43 percent say it is covering the uninsured, 32 percent think it is lowering costs, and 14 percent say improving quality.
Voters age 55 and older oppose "the health care reforms being debated in Congress" by 48 to 39 percent. Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed at 83 to 9 percent, as are a majority of Independents at 52 to 33 percent. Only Democratic voters in this survey support the reforms, 70 to 16 percent. Opposition among voters age 55 and older tracks the latest Pollster.com average where voters of all ages oppose the health care reform plan by 52 to 39 percent.
The reason for their opposition is readily apparent: voters age 55 and older think health care reform will raise their taxes, increase the deficit, raise their premiums, cause their health care costs to go up, and cause the quality of the health care they receive to go down.

By 76 to 3 percent, voters age 55 and older think "the health care reforms being debated in Congress" will increase rather than decrease their taxes. 89 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Independents think reform will increase their taxes. But surprisingly, even 62 percent of Democrats think their taxes will go up as a result of health care reform.

68 percent think health care reform will increase the federal deficit. Only 7 percent think the deficit will go down, and 15 percent say reform will have no effect on the deficit. 84 percent of Republicans, 77 percent of Independents, and 46 percent of Democrats think the deficit will go up.

61 percent think health care reform will increase their health insurance or Medicare premiums, and only 13 percent think reform will lower their premiums. 70 percent of Republicans, 67 percent of Independents, and 46 percent of Democrats think reform will raise their premiums.

61 percent think reform will increase their health care costs. 78 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of Independents, and 43 percent of Democrats think their health care costs will go up as a result of reform.

41 percent think health care reform will decrease the quality of health care they receive, 22 percent think it will increase quality, and 30 percent think it will have no effect. Republicans think it will decrease rather than increase their quality of care by 61 to 17 percent, as do Independents by 48 to 16 percent. Only Democrats think it will increase their quality of care by 33 to 15 percent, while 41 percent say reform will have no effect on quality.
Voters age 55 and older overwhelmingly oppose the primary funding mechanisms for health care reform in the Senate plan: cutting Medicare spending, taxing Cadillac health plans, increasing Medicare payroll taxes, and cutting Medicare Advantage. Taxing elective cosmetic surgery is the only funding provision that receives majority support.

81 percent oppose cutting Medicare by $400 billion, and only 11 percent support the Medicare cuts "to fund health care reform." Opposition stands at 92 percent among Republicans, 79 percent among Independents, and 76 percent among Democrats.

Even when presented with the rationale for Medicare cuts, voters age 55 and older are still opposed.

Congressman A says cutting Medicare spending by $400 billion is a good idea. It will cut out waste, require doctors and hospitals to charge less, and strengthen Medicare for the future.

Congressman B says cutting Medicare spending by $400 billion is a bad idea. It will severely cut Medicare Advantage, cause rural hospitals to close, and make it harder for seniors to find doctors willing to treat them.

67 percent of voters age 55 and older agree with Congressman B, while only 24 percent agree with Congressman A. Not only is the margin great for Congressman B's argument, but intensity overwhelmingly favors Congressman B. 51 percent strongly agree with B, while only 13 percent strongly agree with A. Republicans prefer B's argument over A's by 80 to 15 percent, Independents prefer B by 69 to 21 percent, and even Democrats prefer B by 54 to 36 percent.

63 percent oppose "taxing employer-provided health care benefits that are worth over $8,500 a year for individuals or over $23,000 a year for a family." Opposition extends to 76 percent among Republicans, 67 percent among Independents, and 47 percent among Democrats.

63 percent oppose "increasing Medicare payroll taxes." Opposition by party is 78 percent among Republicans, 64 percent among Independents, and 49 percent among Democrats.

60 percent oppose "cutting or eliminating Medicare Advantage," the program that enrolls about 23 percent of seniors. 68 percent of Republicans are opposed to cutting funding for the program, as are 61 percent of Independents and 53 percent of Democrats.

A slim majority supports "taxing elective cosmetic surgery," 52 to 40 percent. Republicans oppose the cosmetic surgery tax by 49 to 39 percent, while Independents support it 52 to 42 percent, as do Democrats by 61 to 32 percent.
Voters age 55 and older reject one of the critical rationales behind health care reform, that it will help the economy. By a margin of 45 to 27 percent, they think the health care reforms being debated in Congress will hurt rather than help the economy (18 percent say it will have no effect, and 10 percent are unsure). Republicans overwhelmingly think it will hurt (77 to 5 percent), while a majority of Democrats think it will help (54 to 14 percent). But the swing group of Independents says health care reform will hurt the economy by a margin of three-to-one: 51 to 17 percent.
Voters age 55 and older support the abortion restrictions in the House bill.

Congressman A says abortion should be allowed in a government-run health insurance plan, and abortion should be covered in federally-subsidized plans if patients pay for it themselves, because if abortion is legal it should be covered under government health plans.

Congressman B says abortions should not be allowed in a government-run health insurance plan, and abortions should not be covered by an insurance plan that receives federal subsidies, because it means taxpayers who object to abortion are forced to subsidize abortion.

58 percent of voters age 55 and older agree with Congressman B, the House bill, while 34 percent agree with Congressman A, the Senate bill. Republicans prefer B over A by 78 to 16 percent, as do Independents by 59 to 31 percent. Democrats prefer A over B by 51 to 40 percent.
Voters age 55 and older from all three partisan groups are skeptical about the government task force recommendation that women should delay regular mammograms until age 50.

Congressman A says when a government task force recommends that women delay getting mammograms until age 50, we should follow their advice to reduce costs and eliminate unnecessary tests and radiation exposure.

Congressman B says when a government task force recommends that women delay getting mammograms until age 50, we should treat their advice skeptically because they could be more concerned about saving the government money than improving women's health.

By 63 to 26 percent, voters age 55 and older agree with Congressman B. Republicans prefer B's argument by 72 to 20 percent, Independents do so by 65 to 24 percent, and Democrats agree by 54 to 32 percent.

Opponents of the health care reforms being debated in Congress will find overwhelming agreement among voters age 55 and older on four messages:

The health care reform plans do not address your fundamental concern of lowering the cost of health care. Indeed, these plans do exactly the opposite by raising your health care costs.
Not only will these reform plans cause your health care costs to go up, they will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, raise your premiums, and hurt the quality of health care you receive.
The funding mechanisms envisioned to pay the cost of reform will harm Medicare and devastate Medicare Advantage.
Passing health care reform will harm our economy at a time when we need to focus on creating jobs.

Methodology

This survey consists of 1000 registered voters age 55 and older, chosen randomly from throughout the country through random-digit dialing targeted toward respondents 55 and older, using live interviewers. Calls were conducted December 6-9, 2009. Calling quotas were established by state, age, race, and gender using Census Bureau data for adults 55 and older. 78 percent of the sample is white, 10 percent African-American, 7 percent Hispanic, and 4 percent other or refused. Females constitute 54 percent and males 46 percent. The sample is seven points more Democratic than Republican: 25 percent Republican, 41 percent Independent, and 32 percent Democrat. The margin of error for the full sample is 3.1 percent.

Article: A Party Divided

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:35:00 -0500

Drenched in crocodile tears, many in the pundit class now portray the GOP as hopelessly divided by fringe groups and internal dissensions.

Democratic leaders like Virginia governor Tim Kaine eagerly fan these flames. According to Politico, he told the American Democracy Conference last week that the tea party movement and insurgent conservative candidates are "devouring" the GOP. Kaine said these divisions are "corrosive" and will prove "deadly" to the Republican party in years ahead.

Similar narratives populate left-wing commentaries about Republicans such as Sarah Palin. Writing in the New York Times, Frank Rich notes that the former Alaska governor and her "Hitler-fixated" followers will doom the Republicans in 2012.

If hyperbole sold subscriptions, Rich might single-handedly save the newspaper industry.

Read Full Story

Article: Lessons from Virginia for the GOP

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:59:00 -0500

After losing Virginia's governorship for the first time in eight years, some Democrats are trying to console themselves that Virginia is at its core a "red" state. This ignores not only that they won back-to-back governorships but also that Democrats defeated a sitting senator in 2006, took control of the state Senate in 2007 and won an open Republican Senate seat and three House seats in 2008 while carrying Virginia's electoral college votes for the first time since 1964.

Some in the White House are trying to deflect blame for the defeat by saying that Sen. Creigh Deeds lost because he didn't embrace the president and his policies. This ignores how much the Obama administration's support for cap-and-trade, organized labor's agenda, government-run health care and rampant spending hurt the Democratic nominee with independent voters.

Read Full Story

Article: The Democrats' Debt Dilemma

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:51:00 -0400

Democrats face a growing political crisis with federal spending and debt, a self-inflicted quandary they created in some obvious and non-obvious ways.

Enacting a massive stimulus bill that failed to produce economic growth and tax revenue contributed to this predicament. Not a lot of bang for the bucks.

But President Obama and his allies in Congress now face another, less foreseen dilemma. Ironically, it was Obama and his party that stoked these fiscal concerns over the last eight years. As a result, worries about spending and debt are now a bipartisan pastime. It wasn't always that way.

Twenty years ago Democrats in Washington rarely fretted about budgetary largess. True, some liberals railed against too much defense spending. But Republicans routinely expressed more worries about spending, debt and deficits. "To the extent that the level of federal debt was an issue in politics, Republicans, not Democrats, talked about it," Tony Blankley, who worked in the Reagan Administration and for Speaker Newt Gingrich, told me.

George W. Bush and his political opponents in Washington changed all that. During the eight years of his presidency, Democrats discovered a new issue: bludgeoning Republicans for "fiscal irresponsibility." A new line of attack was born. A Medicare bill that wasn't paid for, tax cuts that added to the deficit, and massive spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were all examples of Republican fiscal profligacy. Democrats reminded Americans about this fiscal recklessness every day. Attacking federal spending and raising concerns about debt became part of the anti-Bush arsenal.

Read Full Story

Article: Polling on the Public Plan

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:46:00 -0400

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Gary Andres and Whit Ayres

DATE: October 21, 2009

RE: Polling on the Public Plan

Earlier this week, The Washington Post ran a story with a headline aimed at bolstering the sagging fortunes of the so-called “public option.”

“Public Option Gains Support: Clear Majority Now Backs Plan,” according to the headline writers. We say: “Doubtful."

Resurgent Republic Advisory Board Member Ed Goeas of The Tarrance Group writes this insightful critique of some sampling and other methodological issues associated with the Post survey. Ed also raises the issue of question wording, which we believe deserves an even more thorough discussion.

Polling on health care reform in general and the public option specifically is challenging due to low levels of citizen information about the various proposals. As a result, question wording and the type of information introduced in preambles to questions has a major impact on results.

The influence of question wording in surveys about the public option has generated a substantial amount of debate among professional pollsters and survey researchers this year. Whit Ayers wrote this response to a Mark Mellman piece in the Hill earlier this year. Mellman argued in his article that the public was now squarely behind the public plan option.

In late August, ABC News polling director Gary Langer wrote this piece highlighting why different question wording and follow-ups produce results all over the map.

Underscoring this point, Langer explains:

Public opinion on health care reform long has been highly malleable – as we reported back in June, it’s an issue on which pushback works. Given that reality, the variability of polling data this summer and the lack of specifics in reform itself, “settled” is about the last thing I’d call public opinion on this issue.
While we found 62 percent in favor of a public option in June, that dived to 37 percent if it would put many private insurers out of business because they couldn’t compete, as critics charge.

Langer compares eight polls, each of which asks the question in a slightly different way and finds different levels of “support” for the public option.

Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com finds more question wording impact in Kaiser surveys.

“Malleable" is also the word the analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation chose to describe views on the public option as measured by a series of questions on their July tracking poll. After finding 59% in favor of "creating a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans," the Kaiser pollsters followed up with "arguments commonly heard in the debate" and asked respondents if they would "still favor" or "still oppose" the plan as described. They found that one-sided arguments pro and con could push support for such a plan as low as 35% or as high as 72%.

Bottom line: When Americans are asked a one-sided question about whether they support a public option that competes with private insurance, it’s not surprising a majority says “yes.” It’s just another “choice,” “more competition,” and it’s perceived as a way to make health care more affordable. Why wouldn’t a proposal like that generate wide support? Just like “world peace” or “ending poverty.”

Citizens need more information to render meaningful opinions. That’s why in our Resurgent Republic Health Care poll we provided voters real world arguments about proposals – the up sides and the down sides – before asking for a response. One example is to provide realistic costs and benefits. Asking the questions this way yields conclusions different and richer than does the narrow and one-side methodology employed by the Post. We have no doubt that public attitudes about a public health insurance plan could change. But that all depends on the information presented. As is evidenced from the three questions in the Resurgent Republic health care poll, providing voters with more background and arguments produces mixed results for the public plan option.

Article: Groups Flourish in Opposition

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:30:00 -0400

It wouldn’t seem that conservatives have much to be happy about these days, with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress. But in one sense, these are the best of times for conservative activists, who have found that the specter of government-managed health insurance, restrictions on carbon emissions and higher taxes are riling the faithful.

“If you can’t double the size of your organization this year, you are doing something wrong,” says Richard Viguerie, a pioneer of the conservative movement and direct mail fundraising in the 1980s.

The Democratic agenda — or the agenda as interpreted by Viguerie and other conservative activists and talk-radio hosts — has provided a rallying cry for such formerly obscure groups as Americans for Limited Government, which has ties to the Libertarian Party and the term limits movement, and Americans for Prosperity, which grew out of the now-defunct think tank backed by industry called Citizens for a Sound Economy.

It has also sparked some conservative entrepreneurship in the form of new activist groups, such as Resurgent Republic, which Ed Gillespie, a former national GOP chairman and counselor to President George W. Bush , started last spring to help conservative politicians track public opinion.

Bob Adams, who founded the new League of American Voters, which was formed this summer to oppose the health care overhaul, says he managed to raise $1.5 million in just a few weeks of operation. “It’s really amazing,” he says. “We have received stacks and stacks of letters. They’re all sending money.”

Ad hoc coalitions are in vogue too, from the Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights, spearheaded by former American Medical Association President Donald Palmisano, to the Health Coalition on Liability and Access, which represents physicians’ groups pushing for limits on medical malpractice lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the debate over how best to deal with global warming — or whether to deal with it at all — has sparked similar enthusiasm among conservative and business activists. Coal companies have formed the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, for example, while the industry-backed Consumer Energy Alliance has started the Secure Our Fuels campaign to rally conservatives against efforts to restrict carbon emissions.

Overall, liberals have dismissed the organizing as AstroTurf advocacy — meaning it has artificial grass roots. The new groups, they say, are nothing more than a few business- backed activists pretending to speak for broader constituencies. Because IRS rules protect the groups’ membership and fundraising information, the truth is not clear.

What’s happening, either way, is a fundamental reorganization of the advocacy arena, says Michael Heaney, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who specializes in interest group lobbying. “Organizing in support of something and organizing against are fundamentally different political tasks,” he says. “Democratic and progressive interests are reorganizing to be supporters of reform, and conservatives to be opponents.”

Article: GOP: Don't Just be the 'Party of No'

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:24:00 -0400

Paying for health care costs has become the No. 1 financial concern of American voters today (see the Resurgent Republic website at www.resurgentrepublic.com). Consequently, efforts to control health care costs enjoy majority support. Americans support initiatives such as greater use of information technology, more emphasis on preventive care, and medical malpractice reform to reduce defensive medicine.

Americans also support ensuring greater access to health insurance to help pay for health care costs. Requiring health insurance companies to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions and forbidding companies from canceling policies garner overwhelming support.

Republicans have every incentive to support health care reform with these provisions. They should not be just the “party of no.” Come campaign time, voters need to know what health care reforms Republicans have supported.

Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress are unlikely to have the opportunity to vote on a bill with those limited options. Democratic proposals being advanced on Capitol Hill are far more expansive and expensive.

There is no political downside for Republicans to oppose health care bills that will raise insurance premiums, hike taxes or expand the mountain of federal debt.

Read Full Story

Article: Dems Should Focus on the Color Purple

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:09:00 -0400

Blue-state Democrats are showing little awareness that their party has a problem.

In June 1953, cartoonist Walt Kelly had one of his characters say the immortal words, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Congressional Democrats would be wise to take this line to heart.

Some Capitol Hill Democrats are accusing President Obama of pushing too hard; others argue that he has not provided enough leadership or pushed hard enough. Although Obama has indeed made some critical miscalculations and missteps this year, the Democratic Congress has significantly damaged itself. And its members -- not Obama -- will be the ones on the ballot in November 2010.

Republicans have finally come up with an organization to do the public opinion and message testing that Stan Greenberg and James Carville's Democracy Corps has long done for Democrats. The consortium, dubbed Resurgent Republic, produced a report last week based on focus groups conducted last month among independent voters in Florida, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia by five prominent GOP pollsters. The report, written by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and a sixth top poller, Whit Ayres, found a reservoir of goodwill among independents toward Obama -- if not his policies -- but those warm feelings did not extend to Congress.

I am becoming convinced, based on this and other research, that although many independent voters are disappointed in specific things that Obama has done, they still hope that he will do well and believe that he might. To be sure, red America has already given Obama the thumbs down. And blue America just wishes he would be more liberal. But it's purple America, the independents who voted for Democrats in the 2006 midterm election by an 18-point margin, that makes the biggest difference right now. Most House Democrats live in blue America and show little awareness that their party has a problem. However, the Democrats' majority is built on a layer of 54 seats that the party picked up in 2006 and 2008 that are largely in purple -- or even red -- America. Democrats ought to keep in mind that 84 of their current House members represent districts won by President Bush in 2004 or John McCain in 2008.

Read Full Story

Article: What Independent Voters Want in 2010

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:12:00 -0400

Former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie and respected pollster Whit Ayers have joined forces to launch Resurgent Republic, what Ayers describes the “Democracy Corps” of the right. Founded by James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, Democracy Corps—likeResurgent Republic—conducts focus groups, cites trends, analyzes polls, and performs other publicly available research that aims to shape the public debate about the role of government in our lives.

Speaking at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast at the St. Regis in Washington, Ayers and Gillespie explained their findings from a series of five nationwide focus groups they conducted this spring and summer. Surveying independent voters—like younger voters, Hispanic men and women, small business owners, and others—Ayers and Gillespie found that the independents who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are “closer to Republicans than Democrats” on fiscal issues and health care. One Ohio woman, they recall, expressed her concern that “We don’t know where the money is going and where it is coming from,” speaking about the recent unprecedented levels of spending inWashington. Critical of the bailouts, seeing “cash for clunkers” another example of government inefficiency, and skeptical about health care reform, the independent voters think that too much legislation is being pushed through congress too soon.

The bottom line, as Ayers explained, was that these voters, who supported Barack Obama in 2008, are very undecided about how to vote in the 2010 congressional elections. “They still like Barack Obama, they want him to succeed—but are discomforted by degree of debt, by the proportion of spending, by what they see as mortgaging our children’s future,” Ayers said. Gillespie added that these independent voters believe that we will “leave to our children and grandchildren a country less prosperous, with less opportunity than what our parents and grandparents left for us.” When they conducted the survey, two Hispanic women, Gillespie recalled, were in tears over this concern. While their emotions are not directed toward Obama, Ayers and Gillespie note that the independents view Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democratic leaders in Congress, in a “harshly negative light.”

If these trends continue, Ayers and Gillespie think, the Republicans will have a very good year in 2010. When these same independents voted Democrat in 2008, it was because they wanted change, specifically in the form of less government spending, and they thought that they would get such change by voting Democrat rather than Republican. Now that Obama’s policies “will double debt in the next five years and triple it in the next ten years,” Gillespie says, the independents are seriously reconsidering how to cast their ballot in 2010.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/09/what_independent_voters_want_i.asp

PollingAnalysis: Voters Find Serious Vulnerabilities in Democratic Health Care Proposals

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:22:00 -0400

Overview

President Obama’s push for health care reform is in trouble on Capitol Hill, and the latest Resurgent Republic survey indicates why. As was seen in last month’s survey on issues involving enhanced interrogation techniques, on critical aspects of the Democrats’ health care proposals, Democratic voters are on one side while Independents side with Republicans on the other. This split is especially true of perceptions involving budgetary impact, taxes and the threat to private coverage.

There are four important takeaways from this survey for those who oppose greater federal control over our nation’s health care system in general, and a “public option” in particular:

Concern about runaway federal spending and mounting federal debt is the Achilles heel of the Obama health care plan. Its opponents should place these fiscal concerns at the center of their argument.
Proponents of the Obama plan can’t “get healthy” on the debt side of the argument by offsetting the cost of the plan with higher taxes on existing private health insurance benefits. New taxes on health care benefits runs smack into a principal concern over rising health care costs.
There is a significant gap between those who say they prefer a system where most Americans get their health care coverage through private insurance and opposition to a public insurance plan, especially among critical Independent voters. Emphasizing how the public plan option would result in those with private insurance being moved into a government program is fertile ground for opponents.
Concerns over diminished quality of care and/or control by government bureaucrats seem to have less impact in the current environment than in 1993, when a major overhaul of our health care system was last debated. Indeed, “government bureaucrats” are scarcely less appealing than “insurance bureaucrats,” and arguments over wait time and denial of treatment are much less resonant than cost arguments. Opponents of “ObamaCare” would be wrong to think that the central arguments that defeated “ClintonCare” would prevail again today.

In addition to the above four takeaways, there is a caveat: Concern about rising health care costs outstrips every other economic concern today. Health care costs rank first on the list of greatest financial concerns (19%), ahead of paying for retirement (16%) or the mortgage (13%), losing a job (12%), education costs (11%) or taxes (8%).

So while this survey focused on arguments for and against proposals being put forward by President Obama and the majority in Congress, opposition to these reform proposals should not be mistaken for opposition to reform. This survey was conducted in a stark “for or against” format. Augmenting the “against” arguments with positive alternative proposals focused on controlling rising health care costs would most likely result in greater opposition to the Obama Administration approach.

We now look at the data underlying the conclusions above.

Fiscal Concerns

Voters overwhelmingly agree (58%) with the statement “reforming health care is important, but it should be done without raising taxes or increasing the deficit,” with 41% in strong agreement. A majority of Republicans (75%) and Independents (62%) are on one side in agreement, while only 38% of Democrats agreed (versus 57% of Democrats who agreed instead that “reforming health care is so important that the government should invest new resources to make sure it is done right”).

The electorate splits evenly on the need to address a health care crisis now by controlling costs, covering the uninsured and improving the quality of care (47% agreeing) versus an “enough is enough” argument against acting now because the federal government has already spent billions to take over banks and auto companies and threatens to bankrupt the country (49% agreeing). But while that split is within the margin of error, Independents side with the “enough is enough” argument by 12 points (52-40).

A similar even split (47-48) occurs when the “address the health care crisis now” argument is pitted against opposition on the basis that “now is not the right time with the country facing the most serious recession in modern times.” But this argument resonates slightly less with Independents than the preceding one, as they agree “now is not the right time” by an eight-point margin (50-42).

Taxes

Raising taxes to ensure everyone has health insurance is a non-starter with voters. By a 13-point margin of 52-39, respondents preferred a health care reform plan that does not provide health insurance to all Americans but keeps taxes at current levels over a reform plan that raises taxes in order to provide health insurance to all Americans. Republicans preferred the plan with taxes at current levels by a whopping 60 percentage points, while Independents were close to the mean with a 16-point preference. However, Democrats favored a plan that raises taxes by a 27- point margin.

Voters reject paying taxes on health care benefits in general (71-22), paying taxes on employer-provided health benefits above $13,000 (69-25), and eliminating tax deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest for people who make over $250,000 per year (55-38). In every instance, a clear majority of Republicans and Independents were opposed, joined by a majority of Democrats on the first two.

Quality of Care

Arguments that a public plan will expand coverage, control costs and improve quality trump arguments that more government involvement will create long wait times, deny needed treatments and hinder quality by five percentage points (49-44), but again Independents (37-49) are more aligned with Republicans (28-69) than Democrats (74-20).

The prospect that a public plan would lead to health care similar to that in “Europe and Canada, with fewer covered procedures, long wait times for surgery and more government bureaucracy” is less resonant than the prospect that it would “allow citizens to have one more choice for health insurance and will force private plans to stay competitive on costs and services.” Only 43% agreed with the former, while 53% agreed with the latter. Republicans (66-32) and Democrats (20-77) were predictably polarized, while Independents split evenly (47-46).

The public splits evenly when asked whether they agree if “private sector health care leaves too many important decisions in the hands of insurance company bureaucrats instead of doctors and patients” (44% agree) or “government-run health care would leave too many important decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats instead of doctors and patients” (45% agree). But on this contrast, Republicans and Independents are more concerned by decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats than insurance company bureaucrats by margins of 63-31 and 46-36, respectively. Democrats, by contrast, are more concerned by decisions in the hands of insurance company bureaucrats than government bureaucrats by a margin of 59-29.

Independents, however, are closer to Democrats than Republicans in agreeing that “greedy insurance companies and drug companies” charge “way too much for the services they provide,” and “if the government regulated what they could charge, health care costs would be a lot more reasonable.” By an overall margin of 55-39, voters agreed with that statement versus agreeing with a statement that such “regulation of health care prices will lead to less innovative treatments, lower quality health care and fewer health care providers.” Democrats split 75-21 between the two statements, Independents 51-38 and Republicans 32-63.

Private Versus Public Insurance

Asked whether they would prefer a system where most Americans get their health care coverage through the federal government or a private insurance company, voters favored a predominantly private insurance system by almost exactly two-to-one, 60-31. The Republican margin was almost exactly 8:1 (87-11), and Independents 2½:1 (61-24). Democrats diverged, favoring a system where most Americans get their coverage through the federal government by 15 points (37-52).

This explains important splits in two subsequent policy-related questions. Forty-seven percent (47%) agreed with the statement “Americans need a public health insurance plan administered by the Federal Government to expand choices and control costs by competing with private insurance companies” versus 45% who agreed with the statement “a government-run health insurance plan will use taxpayer subsidies to undercut private insurance rates, and force private companies out of business, resulting in everyone going into a government-run plan.”

But when you break this essential tie into partisan IDs, a majority of Independents (51%) agree with the undercutting argument, more in line with the vast majority of Republicans (67%) than the mere 23% of Democrats.

While a plurality in the survey (49%) agreed that “to increase the number of people with health insurance coverage, the federal government should require all employers to provide health insurance for their employees, or pay to support a public plan that would cover their employees” versus the 43% who agreed “if the federal government requires all employers to provide health insurance for their employees or pay to support a public plan, employers will likely drop their coverage and shift their employees into a public plan.” That plurality, however, is driven by the overwhelming agreement of Democrats (66-27). Independents (39-50) and Republicans (36-55) were more likely to agree with the private-to-public shift argument.

There is an inconsistent gap between the strong preference for a system where most Americans get their health coverage through private insurance and the pluralities favoring the employer mandate/tax and the public insurance plan. If the public better understood the private-to-public shift that would result from these two policies, support for them would likely drop significantly.

This is especially true when you consider that 68% of respondents have employer-provided or individual health insurance, versus 22% who are in a government program. Of the 68% privately covered, 90% are satisfied with the quality of their care. Yet 46% of the 68% privately insured today agreed with the employer mandate/tax argument, and 44% of them agreed with the public insurance option argument.

Were they to understand the impact both policies could have on their own insurance, that support would drop. The prominent concern about paying for health care costs cited up front indicates that a greater understanding of how a public option would likely result in higher costs to those with individual or employer-provided coverage would also move voters away from supporting it.

One final note about seniors, who tend to follow any debate about health care closely. They are the age group that is most satisfied with their current health care and most concerned about health care costs. That suggests that proposals to cut $300 to $400 billion from Medicare funding will run into a firestorm of criticism from seniors.

Critics of the public option and employer mandates would do well to hammer away on three vulnerabilities: 1) These proposals will cost too much in higher taxes and federal deficits. 2) These proposals will raise the cost of health care for those with private insurance. 3) These proposals will make it very likely that if you have private insurance, you will end up in a government program.

Combining these critiques with a positive message focused on addressing cost concerns (i.e., 55% in this survey agreed that “frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits…significantly drive up the cost of health care”) and making health care more affordable could help lead to passage of a bipartisan health care reform bill in this Congress.

Methodology

This survey consists of 1000 registered voters chosen randomly from throughout the country through random-digit dialing of both landline and cell phones. Calls were conducted June 15-18, 2009. Calling quotas were established by state, urban area, age, race, and gender. The sample is 6 points more Democratic than Republican: 32 percent Republican, 26 percent Independent, and 38 percent Democrat. The margin of error is 3.1 percent.

PollingAnalysis: Public, Political Left At Odds Over Interrogation

Sat, 16 May 2009 01:00:00 -0400

Overview

On May 11-14, 2009, Resurgent Republic conducted an extensive survey of registered voters regarding the current debate over harsh interrogations of high-value al-Qaeda detainees. The survey began with a question defining the terms: “Defenders call harsh interrogations ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ and critics call them ‘torture.’” American voters believe “harsh interrogation of detainees” was justified by a 19-point margin, 53 to 34 percent. That is almost identical to a Gallup Poll of adults on April 24-25 that found Americans believe “harsh interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects” were justified by 55 to 36 percent.

There is a sharp partisan divide in the responses, with Republicans believing that harsh techniques were justified by 82 to 10 percent, but Democrats believing harsh techniques were not justified by 57 to 27 percent. Independents, who constitute 30 percent of the respondents, are much closer to Republicans on this issue, believing harsh techniques were justified by 53 to 31 percent.

After hearing a series of common arguments both in favor of and in opposition to those interrogation techniques, as well as descriptions of the techniques themselves, respondents still believe the harsh methods were justified, this time by a 20-point margin, 56 to 36 percent.

In a recent press conference, President Obama said the key question in this debate is whether harsh interrogations made America safer. By a margin of 52 to 39 percent, American voters think harsh interrogations have made us safer. Democrats think harsh techniques have not made us safer by 55 to 36 percent. But Republicans think they have made us safer by 71 to 23 percent, and Independents agree by 51 to 39 percent.

The survey summarized the overall argument on both sides as:

Congressman A says America should never use harsh interrogation techniques on detainees, because they are torture. Those techniques undermine our values, hurt our standing in the world, endanger American troops who might be taken prisoner, and yield little or no useful information that could not be obtained by other means.

Congressman B says that, while harsh interrogation techniques of detainees should be used only rarely, they may be necessary in exceptional situations to protect the country. Those techniques are justified when they are the only way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11.

American voters agree with the second argument in favor of limited use of harsh interrogations over prohibiting harsh interrogations by 61 to 34 percent. Once again, Democrats are on one side of the divide, thinking that harsh interrogations should be prohibited, by 49 to 46 percent. But Republicans (80 to 18 percent) and Independents (60 to 35 percent) are on the other side of the divide, overwhelmingly thinking that harsh interrogations may be necessary in extraordinary circumstances.

On three different questions, voters consistently agree that harsh interrogation techniques were effective at gaining useful information. For example:

Congressman A says harsh interrogation of detainees is not effective. It yields little useful information that could not have been obtained by traditional interrogation methods. Harsh interrogation makes detainees lie to stop the harsh treatment. While traditional methods might take more time, they are more effective in the long run.

Congressman B says harsh interrogation techniques of detainees is effective. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the master mind of 9/11, refused to talk to interrogators under traditional interrogation methods, and disclosed information about planned attacks only after being waterboarded many times. American lives were saved by using these enhanced techniques.

By a margin of 55 to 39 percent, voters overall think harsh techniques are effective. Democrats agree with the first statement that harsh techniques are not effective, by 57 to
36 percent. But Republicans think they are effective by 76 to 22 percent, as do Independents by 56 to 35 percent.

On each of the following issues, questions presented strong arguments on either side of this debate. Highlights of public perceptions include:

Voters think the Obama Administration has tied the hands of the CIA in fighting terrorism by limiting interrogators to the Army Field Manual (51 to 42 percent).
Voters believe the Obama Administration made a serious mistake in releasing memos from the Bush Justice Department on harsh interrogation techniques (54 to 41 percent), and they strongly oppose criminal investigations of those responsible for authorizing or conducting those interrogations (62 to 32 percent).
Voters believe Congressional leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi were thoroughly briefed on those techniques at the time, and are only now objecting because of politics (57 to 29 percent).
When asked about specific techniques, large majorities believe prolonged standing, confinement in cramped spaces, and diet alteration are justified. A majority believes “making detainees remain naked during interrogation by interviewers of the same gender, as long as there is no threat of sexual abuse” is not justified. By a narrow margin (50 to 46 percent), voters overall believe waterboarding is not justified. Republicans believe waterboarding is justified (75 to 20 percent), as do Independents by a narrow margin (49 to 46 percent). But Democrats think waterboarding is not justified (80 to 18 percent).

In driving this debate, the political left is driving a sharp divide between Democrats on the one hand and Republicans and Independents on the other. Democrats believe that harsh interrogation techniques amount to torture that should have never been used and warrant investigation. Republicans and Independents believe that the techniques were justified and helped save American lives, and those who authorized and implemented them should not be investigated.

The next Resurgent Republic survey will focus on evaluations of America’s health-care system, and preferences for health-care reform.

Methodology

This survey consists of 1000 registered voters chosen randomly from throughout the country through random-digit dialing of both landline and cell phones. The sample was minimally weighted by age, race, and region to reflect 2008 voter turnout. The sample is 6 points more Democratic than Republican: 30 percent Republican, 30 percent Independent, and 36 percent Democrat. The margin of error is 3.1 percent.

PollingAnalysis: Independents Side with Republicans on Obama Budget and More

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:00:00 -0400

Overview

This first Resurgent Republic survey of 1000 registered voters, conducted April 13-16, 2009, shows that President Obama remains quite popular, with 61 percent approving of his job performance and 32 percent disapproving so far. That is comparable to President George W. Bush’s job approval of 62 to 29 percent in the Gallup Poll on April 20-22 of his first year in office. President Obama’s job approval is somewhat higher than both President Clinton’s (55 percent) and the first President Bush’s (58 percent) in April of their first year, but lower than President Reagan’s in April after the attempt on his life (67 percent).

A wide partisan gap of 67 points exists in President Obama’s job approval, with 92 percent of Democrats approving versus only 25 percent of Republicans. Independents fall exactly between Democrats and Republicans on this measure, with 59 percent approving of the President’s job performance. Independent support for the President is a key indicator to monitor.

This survey verifies that America remains a center-right country. Voters prefer a smaller government with lower taxes over a larger government with higher taxes by a three-to-one margin. By a two-to-one margin, they think government should promote opportunity by fostering job growth, encouraging entrepreneurs, and allowing people to keep more of what they earn, rather than promote fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth, and making sure that economic outcomes are more equal.

Not surprisingly, concerns about the economy eclipse all others right now, with 57 percent citing it as the most important issue facing the United States. A majority of voters opposes President Obama’s proposed $3.6 trillion budget with its $1.4 trillion deficit, even as they believe he is responding to problems he inherited. They are deeply skeptical about the amount of money Mr. Obama proposes for the government to spend, tax, and borrow for bailouts and other spending programs that produce few private sector jobs.Independents, who hold the balance of power in this electorate, are closer to Republicans than to Democrats on these fiscal issues. Moreover, 84 percent of voters think the maximum federal income tax rate should be below its current rate of 35 percent, with more than two-thirds believing the maximum rate should be 20 percent or lower.

Republicans are on favorable ground resisting the amount of spending, taxing, and borrowing in the President’s proposed budget and will draw independents away from Mr. Obama’s camp by doing so.

As is often the case however, the more liberal argument fares better when it comes to specific spending proposals. Mention of education, energy, and health care “investment” to bring the country out of recession is more resonant than the argument that this Administration is taking advantage of the recession to make massive increases in government spending that will hurt our economy in the future by nearly tripling our debt.

On the debate over climate change, a substantial majority of American voters, including an overwhelming majority of independents, thinks climate change is happening and human activity is a significant cause. However, they think addressing the problem with any proposal that could raise energy prices during a severe recession is a bad idea. Recognizing that climate change is a problem is important, but voters want a solution that strengthens rather than hurts the economy. Cap-and-trade advocates have made significant progress on the “green jobs” argument. Those opposed to cap-and-trade will need to make a more persuasive case that such policies will shift more jobs abroad than they will create at home, and that the onus of the cost will fall on consumers rather than companies. Voters are dead set against a bait-and-switch strategy that would justify higher prices for gasoline and electricity to pay for health care reform.

An overwhelming majority of American voters supports President Obama’s decision to send 17,000 additional troops and 4,000 more trainers to Afghanistan, even though 41 percent of Democrats are opposed. Sixty-three percent of independents and 71 percent of Republicans back President Obama on this issue.

On the other hand, a strong majority believes the Guantanamo Bay prison helps protect America rather than undermines our moral authority. Independents are, again, much more like Republicans than Democrats on this issue. As is seen repeatedly in public opinion research, national security remains the Republicans’ strongest relative advantage over the Democrats and a major issue on which independents and Republicans hold similar views.

One social issue tested was the proposal to repeal conscience clause regulations that allow health care providers and workers to refrain from engaging in practices that are legal but personally morally objectionable, including abortion. Overwhelmingly (61 percent), voters believe “health care workers should not be required to perform procedures they oppose on moral grounds, such as abortions.”

President Obama is personally popular, enjoying a 61 to 32 percent favorable-unfavorable rating that is driven by an identical rating among independents. Congressional Democrats and Republicans fare less well however, particularly among independents, with “Democrats in Congress” having a 45 to 42 percent favorable-unfavorable rating (39 to 45 percent among independents), and “Republicans in Congress” having a 37 to 47 percent favorable-unfavorable rating (32 to 47 percent among independents).

Republicans have far more to work with in the current environment than many suspect. The key to rebuilding a majority coalition is regaining the support of independents. Particularly on the overall philosophy of government and on national security, Republicans show signs of gaining ground.