CONGRESS

Poll Shows Tough Landscape for Incumbents

Matthew Cooper
Add to Briefcase
Matthew Cooper
July 24, 2012, 5:20 p.m.

A strong plur­al­ity of Amer­ic­ans are seek­ing mem­bers of Con­gress who are more will­ing to com­prom­ise, but that im­pulse, so far at least, has not re­doun­ded to the be­ne­fit of either Mitt Rom­ney or Pres­id­ent Obama, ac­cord­ing to the latest United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll.

When asked wheth­er they would be more or less likely to vote for a con­gres­sion­al can­did­ate who “would make com­prom­ises with people he or she dis­agrees with,” a full 43 per­cent of re­spond­ents said they would be more likely to vote for that can­did­ate, while only 20 per­cent said they would be less likely. Some 34 per­cent said that it would make no dif­fer­ence.

By con­trast, back in May 2010, only 30 per­cent said that abil­ity to com­prom­ise would make a dif­fer­ence in how they de­cided to vote. That’s a 13-per­cent­age-point in­crease over the last two years.

When asked about the pres­id­en­tial race and reach­ing agree­ment with mem­bers of the oth­er party in Con­gress, Amer­ic­ans gave high­er marks to Obama. Forty-three per­cent said he would do a bet­ter job reach­ing agree­ment with the oth­er party, versus 33 per­cent for Rom­ney.  

Cleav­ages along ra­cial and party lines were gap­ing on this ques­tion. Non-His­pan­ic blacks were more than twice as likely as non-His­pan­ic whites to give a thumbs-up to Obama for be­ing best at find­ing agree­ment with the oth­er party. And a whop­ping 79 per­cent of Demo­crats saw Obama as bet­ter able to work across the aisle, while 73 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans said the same for Rom­ney. In­de­pend­ents split just bey­ond the poll’s mar­gin of er­ror, with 36 per­cent of them say­ing Obama would do bet­ter versus 32 per­cent for Rom­ney.

The res­ults of the sur­vey don’t bode par­tic­u­larly well for in­cum­bents. Only 14 per­cent of re­spond­ents said that they would be more likely to vote for an “in­cum­bent run­ning for reelec­tion.” That’s the same level of anti-in­cum­bent sen­ti­ment as two years ago, when voters ended Demo­crat­ic con­trol of the House.

Un­like 2010, however, there’s slightly less in­terest in elect­ing polit­ic­al neo­phytes. Back then, 24 per­cent of voters said that they would be more likely to vote for a can­did­ate who “has nev­er held elect­ive of­fice.” That’s down to 19 per­cent in the latest sur­vey, with a ma­jor­ity — 51 per­cent — say­ing pre­vi­ous of­fice­hold­ing ex­per­i­ence made no dif­fer­ence.

Does a new­found ap­pet­ite for can­did­ates who com­prom­ise be­ne­fit either Demo­crats or Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress who vow to help im­ple­ment their pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee’s agenda? The an­swers are de­cidedly mixed. Those polled were asked if they would be more likely to sup­port a con­gres­sion­al can­did­ate who sup­por­ted Obama or Rom­ney “most of the time.” Just 28 per­cent of voters said they would be more in­clined to back a can­did­ate who would vote in sup­port of Obama. That’s down a tick from earli­er this year, when 30 per­cent of voters said that might make them more likely to vote for a con­gres­sion­al can­did­ate.

Rom­ney came in even lower, with only 18 per­cent of those sur­veyed say­ing that if a con­gres­sion­al can­did­ate vowed to back a hy­po­thet­ic­al Pres­id­ent Rom­ney’s po­s­i­tion most of the time, they would be in­clined to vote for such a can­did­ate. Lar­ger plur­al­it­ies said that it wouldn’t mat­ter.

The Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll, con­duc­ted by Prin­ceton Sur­vey Re­search As­so­ci­ates In­ter­na­tion­al, sur­veyed 1,001 adults by land­line and cell phone on Ju­ly 19-22. It has a mar­gin of er­ror of plus or minus 3.8 per­cent­age points. The poll is taken most weeks of the year when Con­gress is in ses­sion and is de­signed to give law­makers — as well as oth­er poli­cy­makers and the pub­lic — an in-depth look at where Amer­ic­ans stand on the most im­port­ant is­sues that are fa­cing Con­gress.

Dig­ging deep in­to the sur­vey res­ults re­veals a po­lar­ized elect­or­ate. On the ques­tion of wheth­er they’d be more likely to sup­port a con­gres­sion­al can­did­ate who backed Obama most of the time, only 3 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans felt that way, while only 5 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans were more fa­vor­ably in­clined to­ward a con­gres­sion­al can­did­ate who prom­ised to side with Rom­ney on is­sues most of the time. Among a group that has proved prob­lem­at­ic for Demo­crats — white men without a col­lege edu­ca­tion — 35 per­cent said that they would be less in­clined to back a con­gres­sion­al can­did­ate who sup­por­ted Obama. In­de­pend­ents were less likely to back a con­gres­sion­al can­did­ate who sup­por­ted Obama than one who car­ried the flag for Rom­ney.

When 80 per­cent of those polled say that the two parties have “been bick­er­ing and op­pos­ing one an­oth­er more than usu­al,” that’s a dif­fi­cult en­vir­on­ment for either party to run in, es­pe­cially when 52 per­cent say that “there have been good ideas” but fights between the parties have “blocked needed gov­ern­ment ac­tion.”

On the oth­er hand, the poll gives politi­cians breath­ing room to com­prom­ise — a par­tic­u­larly im­port­ant gift to mem­bers as the Au­gust re­cess ap­proaches and the lame-duck ses­sion of Con­gress looms.

What We're Following See More »
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
2 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
IT’S ALL CLINTON
Reliable Poll Data Coming in RE: Debate #1
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
NEXT THURSDAY
Trump Transition Team Meeting with Silicon Valley VIPs
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Donald Trump's "transition team will meet next week with representatives of the tech industry, multiple sources confirmed, even as their candidate largely has been largely shunned by Silicon Valley. The meeting, scheduled for next Thursday at the offices of law and lobbying firm BakerHostetler, will include trade groups like the Information Technology Industry Council and the Internet Association that represent major Silicon Valley companies."

Source:
×