Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktOne of the continuing disconnects for me–since about 2004 or so–is what I hear from my Republican relatives and what I hear from the national Republican party and politicians. It turns out that I’m not alone, and while Steve Benen and Greg Sargent have both posted on this before, now I’m an administrator and can write my own post about it! Plus, while we don’t always agree, I do have respect for the opinions–and how they’ve been formed–of the folks on the other side of the aisle from me who post on this blog. So I’d like you to try to help me understand why the GOP seems to not be listening to their voters.
I mention this in part to show just how mainstream the American Jobs Act is, but also to note the chasm between Republican voters and Republican policymakers. With 63% of the GOP’s rank-and-file supporting, for example, aid to states to protect teachers’ and first responders’ jobs, it’s tempting to think at least some GOP lawmakers in Washington would support the idea. But in reality, that’s just not the case — literally zero Republicans on Capitol Hill are willing to even allow a vote on a popular jobs idea, during a jobs crisis, that even their own party’s voters strongly support.
Filed under: GOP, Polling | Tagged: American Jobs Act |
All Things in Moderation 
It's a very good question michi and one I've asked many times. The standard retort seems to be that people in general like things that personally benefit them, but I don't think that's quite true. I believe the American people are more discerning than that. It'll be interesting to see what kind of answers you get. And GOP leaders who say "the American people oppose", gawd how many times have we heard that one, don't really seem to care what the American people think, IMO.
LikeLike
don't really seem to care what the American people thinkAnd I wonder, between the Tea Party and OWS, how much longer they'll be able to do that?
LikeLike
We'll see, they just passed another free trade agreement that most people weren't too happy with. It'll be interesting to see what kind of awareness the OWS protests ignite. I think if it continues, and a broader spectrum of Americans join, they'll be hard to ignore going into an election year.
LikeLike
Sixty three percent of the GOP rank and file may support funds for teachers and first responders, but, as far as I know, that doesn't mean that there sixty three percent support for that in a particular district. Even if there is sixty three percent support for that nationwide, if fifty three percent of the likely voters in your own particular district oppose that, then the course of action for the congressman or congresswoman representing that districts seems clear.
LikeLike
Maybe because the actual amounts weren't included? Asking someone whether they want to spend more money on roads and asking them if they want to spend $100 billion more on roads are really two different questions.
LikeLike
I'm on break from my endless meeting so the first thing I do is come here. I'll give it a shot, Michi. First, I don't generally trust questions from pollster that show how "mainstream" or "popular" this or that idea is. If you asked, "Do you support the increased Hederal funding of teachers in this Country even if it meant that it would only last for a year and after which the local community would be forced to raise taxes to support them and your taxes will have to go up to support this 1 year effort since our current deficit is over a trillion dollars and our national debt is over 14 trillion dollars and the money to pay for this will have to borrowed and repaid with interest, along with all the other debt?"Now that is a more honest framing of the question and I doubt it was asked in that manner.I think McConnell, Cantor and the party in General do
LikeLike
I don't know Nathan, we had a situation here in CA, that Gov Brown campaigned on, to let the voters decide whether to continue the temporary tax increases that passed a couple of years ago. It was a large part of his campaign, the Chamber approved the idea, voters wanted to vote even though it was a fairly regressive tax increase, but the Republicans would not vote to let the voters decide. We only need two Republicans, but they wouldn't bite, even though if the voters approved the temporary extension it would have saved a lot of teachers jobs.
LikeLike
A lot of extensive polling of their voting base and tend to articulate and vote in such a way as to reflect, more or less, what the base wants.In the end, if you think the Party is behaving counter to the voting base, it's generally safe to assume the conventional wisdom of what the base wants is wrong. In this instance, I think the CNN isn't reflective of what the R base wants.
LikeLike
"So I'd like you to try to help me understand why the GOP seems to not be listening to their voters"Because the vast majority will vote for them again regardless. While we tend to view politics as an exercise in making policy choices, the overwhelming majority of voters do not. Why do people vote D or R? For a lot of people that's like asking them why the hate the Yankees. You just do. My grandparents were solid D votes and policy choices had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
LikeLike
Put the words "President Obama has proposed" in front of whatever plan you'd like (cutting payroll taxes, etc.) and you'll see GOP support for that proposal go down dramatically. And you are surprised that a politician lies about the depth of his/her support? "How can you tell a politician is lying? …"
LikeLike
I don't think the majority of likely voting Republicans are that two dimensional.
LikeLike
McWing, I agree that voters are not two dimensional, Democrats or Republicans, but I think sometimes our leaders tend to be. Maybe they don't start out that way, but by the time they're done they generally don't resemble the person we elected and are more interested in self and the club, if you get my drift.
LikeLike
Troll:I think that for the purposes of a poll, which asks numerous questions in a short amount of time, our biases play a large role in what our responses are. If you put something that has a negative connotation in front of an otherwise reasonable proposition, then the respondent is likelier to respond negatively. You could just as well put "President George W. Bush proposed" in front of something (e.g., single payer health care) and get a stronger negative reaction from Ds.All this is to say that I think policy polls are not very informative because they are very susceptible to both word choice and question order. And that the poll questions are asked in a manner that is not conducive to contemplation before answering.
LikeLike
" So I'd like you to try to help me understand why the GOP seems to not be listening to their voters"They are listening to some of their voters, but once in Washington, they also end up listening to pundits, the media, their colleagues, special interests, lobbyists . . . it becomes . . . complicated. They've always *not* listened to some of their voters. I'm not sure Republicans were voting for wage and price controls, or the EPA, or OSHA, when they voted for Nixon. Or amnesty for illegal aliens when they voted for Reagan. Or No Child Left Behind or Medicare Part D when they voted for Bush. Or, for Democrats, Welfare Reform when they voted for Clinton. Or any number of things when they voted for Obama.Not everything Obama does gets the support of 50% or more of Democrats. Eventually, politicians have to make a decision, and that decision will often tend to be to not fight the GOP, the majority (or minority) leader, the whips, or all their colleagues. They've got a lot more people to answer to than just their voters.
LikeLike
"but the Republicans would not vote to let the voters decide". . . because they would have decided wrong! Politicians of both stripes rarely respect the wisdom of the people, even if they give it lip service whilst eating pancakes and making stump speeches.
LikeLike
People generally tend to favor some form of legalized or prescription marijuana. The government? Not so much! So, the people are wrong, and, whether or not it's Democrats or Republicans in charge, potheads and medical marijuana dispensaries are going to be prosecuted with extreme prejudice. Because we don't know what's best for ourselves. We have to be protected from the nausea-calming effects of THC. And even the dangers of industrial hemp, which is a great fiber and you can't get stoned from smoking it, but . . . it might confuse somebody, so (for all practical purposes) it's illegal, too!
LikeLike
Politicians of both stripes rarely respect the wisdom of the peopleThat's kind of my point (leaving out the Dems for the moment, because I'm asking the question about Republicans). Why?And I think that lms is correct here: Maybe they don't start out that way, but by the time they're done they generally don't resemble the person we elected and are more interested in self and the club, if you get my drift.When and why does that happen?
LikeLike
Quick final thought. There are two things politicians desire, there own reelection and accurate polling. They almost always act in ways they think (and the polling they respect tells them) is the most likeliest to get them re-elected.
LikeLike
"When and why does that happen?"When: after election night, or at least after the first "discussion" of senior members with freshmen. Why? Well, I think we're tribal creatures, and our tribes vary, but our most significant tribal affiliation is going to be with the people we surround ourselves with. A certain groupthink comes on . . . and it becomes a tribal game. Why do they say "the American people want" x when that's not what the polls say? Because politicians are an elite group of election winning winners, and they know what the American people want, even if the pollsters don't. There, is that so hard? 😉
LikeLike
Not to be too glib, I just think there are lot of forces that influence politicians, and what a segment of voters say they want in any given poll is probably going to be very small. Sure, voters elect them, but so does the party organization. The national GOP does a lot of defend their seat and help them get re-elected. Do they really want to be starting fights with the national GOP? House leaders? Etc.? How are they going to do anybody any good if they get sent back to the farm after only 2 years? Or 6 years? And do you really want to make enemies out of Senator X and Y and have to deal with them, day in, and day out, for the next several years?
LikeLike
"most likeliest to get them re-elected"the best way for them to get re-elected is to win their first election. after that, historically, re-election is basically in the bag. Even in 2010, a bad year for incumbents, the re-election rate was 85%. 397 incumbent House members ran for re-election. 339 were re-elected, with an average of 63 percent of the vote. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
LikeLike
"the best way for them to get re-elected is to win their first election. after that, historically, re-election is basically in the bag."The power of incumbency is in part the support of the national party infrastructure. So, if you went against the interests of your party, or important politicians in your national organization, you could really hurt yourself, I would think. And if you started a battle with leadership, you could really hurt your chances of getting your name on a successful piece of legislation. I think that's what influences the behavior of a lot of politicians that mystifies folks watching their behavior versus the polls versus what their constituents are saying.
LikeLike
I agree in part. but they've make it almost impossible to knock of incumbents in non-swing districts, which is all about about 50 or so. For your consideration, I give you Jim Moran. http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-11/politics/moran.jews_1_reston-connection-congressman-moran-jewish-groups?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICSHe's my member of Congress. Blamed the Iraq war on "the jews". very embarrassing for the democratic party. he wins with 60+ percent of the vote. because he has a D next to his name. and that's enough for the vast majority of voters in my congressional district. point being, party support is needed to get in the door and fend off well funding and legit challenges. the vast majority of members never face those during re-election.
LikeLike
"For your consideration, I give you Jim Moran."Well, that's a pretty good example. And you would certainly be in a better position to know than I.
LikeLike
check this out, it's charlie cook's PVI — partisan voting index. breakdown of each congressional district by the expected vote. for example, in an R+2, a generic Republican presidential candidates would be expected to receive 2 percentage points more votes than the national average. the majority of the districts are +double digitsfor a party. Boehner is an R+14. Moran is a D+16. he doesn't even have to campaign. and he doesn't really. and these guys aren't even the extremes. the are some in the +30s http://cookpolitical.com/sites/default/files/pvistate.pdf
LikeLike
OK, you all have given me food for thought. So here's my follow-up:If the polls that get published (like this one) don't reflect the polling that the politicians are seeing, why not? I wish MsJS was around because she has lots of experience with this kind of thing; is the theory that the published polls aren't worded correctly, and therefore the results aren't reflecting the actual desires of the constituents, the answer? Or do pollsters for politicians do a better job? And if that is the correct answer, then why hasn't Gallup, or CNN, or WaPo or someone hired them for lots and lots of $$$$ and do the world's most accurate published poll?
LikeLike
http://cookpolitical.com/sites/default/files/pvistate.pdfWell, that's definitely food for thought. And who are those + voters? Voters who support the things that other poll respondents don't like?I imagine in some cases politicians as a group look at the folks who are likely to show up and vote for them over others. So, extremely likely voters is probably a favored metric among the political class. And, as NoVA points out, once elected, many of them aren't vulnerable and don't have to worry. So, clearly, it's their interest to go along with the leadership unless they enjoy fighting and making enemies out of the people they have to work with every day.
LikeLike
Some back of the envelope stuff:After all the broken out items of the President's proposed tax bill (hehe), there is an item/question I didn't see flagged in commentary, that's Question #12. GOP respondents rank reducing the deficit more important than reducing UE by 52-46. conservatives are at 49-49. The margin of error for GOP is +/-6, +/-5 for cons, so the real numbers could be as high as 58-40 and 54-44.I'd say that GOP leadership looks at a rank & file that is of two minds. They won big-time in 2010 on tax & deficit reduction. No respondent wants to look unsympathetic to teachers or the unemployed so you answer favorably on the broken out stuff. But when you add "Do you want your taxes raised, deficit spending and inflation in the bargain?" in order to bail out states, the UE, etc., those favorables would drop like Icarus.So the leadership discounts "support," and will flesh out why as the voting heats up…For example: my personal response to the payroll tax-gambit2.0: "Do you really think I'm going to hire someone because of a temporary, one-year blip, you don't know jack about biz, do you Mr. President, uh, Sir?"
LikeLike
You can make the same argument about not following the polls with regards to the Democrats passing the ACA in the face of it's unpopularity. Sometimes, it's about ideology (aka standing up for principles), not polling.
LikeLike
jncThere was some confusion regarding ACA I think among democrats. A lot of the polling had to do with the fact that it actually didn't stand up for principles, at least not the ones defined by Dems. A lot of people on the left saw it as a giveaway to the insurance industry and were unhappy with the compromises. I doubt it's much more popular today.
LikeLike
What Troll and tao said. I've stated my contempt for most attitudinal polls like this many times.
LikeLike
tao: "I'd say that GOP leadership looks at a rank & file that is of two minds"I haven't looked at the breakout of the poll, but this bit: "favor providing federal money to states to hire teachers and first responders" contains certain assumption. What the question was asked: do you support small increases in local property or sales taxes to pay for teachers and first responders within the local community, or do you prefer an increase in federal taxes so the federal government would then provide money for teachers and first responders nationwide", you might get a different response. I suspect less people would favor federal money for those things. Also, it would probably influence some people's answer to know how much money the federal government current provides for education and first responders already.qb: You have to change your avatar. I'm reading things you said and for a moment think it was lmsinca, and it's freaking me out. "What Troll and tao said. I've stated my contempt for most attitudinal polls like this many times."There are lies, damned lies, statistics, poll results, and projections. Each further down than the other on the scale of dishonest and malfeasance than the other.
LikeLike
tao: "For example: my personal response to the payroll tax-gambit2.0: "Do you really think I'm going to hire someone because of a temporary, one-year blip, you don't know jack about biz, do you Mr. President, uh, Sir?""Nope. In fact, I don't think government incentives have any direct influence on hiring practices. Certainly not one-year tax credits. It's posturing. Taxation and regulation can form a long term drag on hiring, but even in places where the tax and regulatory structure seems to hate business (California? What say you, lmsinca?) people hire folks when the economy is booming. The problem is less the length of tax credits (it could be ten years–I'm not hiring anybody new if it looks like my customer base is going to be shrinking next year, period) than the state of the economy.Politicians cannot defeat the business cycle, or put an end to boom-and-bust, no matter how confident they feel that they've got policy super powers. 😉
LikeLike
I'll switch back, it was just a joke anyway, and I'm used to being "the hippie".CA isn't much different than other states really, we have business friendly and unfriendly taxes and conditions. If you are going to buy property for instance our property tax is extremely friendly and really we offer the same kind of "loopholes" any other state does. One of our best features is how close we are to the docks if you do any importing or exporting, which we do. Our stuff from Taiwan is here in two weeks door to door, delivered by truck not rail, and the only fluctuation in price generally is the cost of oil. We have tough environmental standards which is adverse to some business but most of the residents sort of like the cleaner air and water.Our biggest problem right now was the havoc created by Countrywide.
LikeLike
tao,Sorry bout that. lms and I were just having a little fun with avatar warring, since I recently invoked the Little Red Hen as all we need to know about OCW.I like Dr. Quest better anyway. And as everyone knows, I live for her hippie icon.
LikeLike
Oops, I guess that was Kevin who was freaking out.Anyway… tada.
LikeLike