Public Opinion Could Lead to Further Gridlock

Shane Goldmacher
Add to Briefcase
Shane Goldmacher
April 23, 2012, 5:35 p.m.

Amer­ic­ans are fed up with Con­gress and a fed­er­al gov­ern­ment per­petu­ally frozen in con­flict, but voters re­main sharply split over how to ease the grid­lock in the na­tion’s cap­it­al, ac­cord­ing to a new United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll.

Even after more than a year of poin­ted dis­agree­ments between Pres­id­ent Obama and House Re­pub­lic­ans, a nar­row plur­al­ity of voters said that Wash­ing­ton is “more likely to make pro­gress” on the ma­jor is­sues fa­cing the coun­try if it has a di­vided gov­ern­ment after the 2012 elec­tions.

Both parties are furi­ously try­ing to sell their vis­ion to the na­tion, but wary voters, after three con­sec­ut­ive wave elec­tions that saw at least 20 House seats change party hands, don’t ap­pear ready to grant either side an un­equi­voc­al man­date.

The last such man­date, handed to Demo­crats and Obama in 2008, las­ted only two years. By 2010, the polit­ic­al pen­du­lum had swung back to the right, as House Demo­crats lost more than 60 seats to Re­pub­lic­ans. Nearly two years later, voters re­main un­happy with the res­ults. Three in four of those sur­veyed said that “it’s time to give new people a chance” to serve in Con­gress.

The latest sur­vey sug­gests a polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment that slightly fa­vors the Demo­crats. A ma­jor­ity of voters polled, 50 per­cent, said they pre­ferred that Demo­crats keep hold of the Sen­ate, com­pared with 39 per­cent who wanted a GOP takeover.

On the House side, a slim plur­al­ity, 46 per­cent, said they hoped that Demo­crats would win the 25 seats they need to take back con­trol, while 43 per­cent said they pre­ferred that Re­pub­lic­ans main­tain power. That 3-point ad­vant­age, however, is down from an 11-point edge that Demo­crats held in a Janu­ary poll.

Wo­men and minor­it­ies are the key con­stitu­en­cies in the Demo­crat­ic co­ali­tion to re­take the House, ac­cord­ing to the United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll. White voters pre­ferred to main­tain the Re­pub­lic­an-held House, but 66 per­cent of minor­it­ies wanted to put the Demo­crats in charge, com­pared with just 26 per­cent who were sat­is­fied with the GOP.

Men in the sur­vey, mean­while, favored GOP con­trol of the House by 47 per­cent to 40 per­cent. Wo­men, however, wanted to see a Demo­crat­ic takeover by 50 per­cent to 39 per­cent, provid­ing the mar­gin of ad­vant­age. A sim­il­ar gender gap fa­vor­ing Demo­crats has emerged in oth­er na­tion­al polls, as the party has tried to score polit­ic­al points over what lead­ers have called a Re­pub­lic­an “war on wo­men.”

Still, no party held a defin­it­ive ad­vant­age in the sur­vey. In fact, one-third of re­spond­ents said that more pro­gress on the biggest is­sues would come if neither Demo­crats nor Re­pub­lic­ans had full rein in the na­tion’s cap­it­al. Only 25 per­cent thought that pro­gress would be more likely with com­plete GOP con­trol, and just 28 per­cent thought put­ting Demo­crats fully in charge would help end the grid­lock.

The latest edi­tion of the poll was con­duc­ted by Prin­ceton Sur­vey Re­search As­so­ci­ates In­ter­na­tion­al, which sur­veyed 1,004 adults by land­line and cell phone on April 19 -22. It has a mar­gin of er­ror of +/- 3.7 per­cent­age points.

Sup­port for law­makers run­ning for reelec­tion has man­aged to crawl out of the single di­gits. But that im­prove­ment since late 2011 is more a test­a­ment to how far out of fa­vor Con­gress has fallen than to any ser­i­ous growth in sup­port. Now, 13 per­cent of re­gistered voters said that most mem­bers “have done a good enough job” to get reelec­ted. A sol­id 77 per­cent said that it’s “time to give new people a chance.”

Dis­sat­is­fac­tion is wide­spread — it is true in cit­ies, the sub­urbs, and rur­al areas, ac­cord­ing to the poll. At least 70 per­cent of every age group, edu­ca­tion level, and in­come level said that it’s time for new blood. And the feel­ing is shared among Demo­crats, Re­pub­lic­ans, and in­de­pend­ents.

But des­pite this per­vas­ive un­hap­pi­ness, sur­vey re­spond­ents don’t ap­pear pre­pared to un­seat law­makers en masse. Mir­ror­ing a his­tor­ic­al trend, voters looked more fa­vor­ably on their own mem­bers of Con­gress than on Con­gress as a whole.

Thirty-eight per­cent said that their rep­res­ent­at­ive de­served an­oth­er term, a 4-point jump since Decem­ber (al­beit to only 38 per­cent). In­cum­bency was more a mixed bag than an al­batross in the poll as well.

More than half of those sur­veyed, 56 per­cent, said it made no dif­fer­ence wheth­er a can­did­ate was an in­cum­bent, an in­crease of 5 points since May 2010. Only 21 per­cent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for an in­cum­bent; 14 per­cent said an in­cum­bent was more likely to get their vote.
First-time of­fice-seekers held no great ap­peal, either. Twenty-three per­cent of those sur­veyed said that a can­did­ate with no elect­ive ex­per­i­ence was more likely to get their vote. But 21 per­cent said that such a can­did­ate would be less likely to re­ceive their sup­port.

That mixed sen­ti­ment on in­cum­bency has been borne out in the first wave of House primar­ies across the coun­try. So far only one in­cum­bent, Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Jean Schmidt of Ohio, has lost to a nonin­cum­bent chal­lenger. And Schmidt did not take her op­pon­ent ser­i­ously, dodging de­bates and spend­ing part of Elec­tion Day in Wash­ing­ton in­stead of her dis­trict. Those in­cum­bents who have girded for battle, not­ably Rep. Spen­cer Bachus, R-Ala., who faced down a tea party chal­lenger, eth­ics al­leg­a­tions, and a free-spend­ing anti-in­cum­bent su­per PAC, have sur­vived.

More tests come on Tues­day in Pennsylvania, where Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Tim Murphy and Demo­crat­ic Rep. Tim Hold­en face primary chal­lengers — al­though Hold­en’s has been wrought as much by re­dis­trict­ing map­makers as anti-in­cum­bent fer­vor.

What We're Following See More »
CFPB Decision May Reverberate to Other Agencies
48 minutes ago

"A federal appeals court's decision that declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau an arm of the White House relies on a novel interpretation of the constitution's separation of powers clause that could have broader effects on how other regulators" like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
59 minutes ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Twitter Bots Dominated First Debate
2 hours ago

Twitter bots, "automated social media accounts that interact with other users," accounted for a large part of the online discussion during the first presidential debate. Bots made up 22 percent of conversation about Hillary Clinton on the social media platform, and a whopping one third of Twitter conversation about Donald Trump.

Center for Public Integrity to Spin Off Journalism Arm
2 hours ago

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the nonprofit that published the Panama Papers earlier this year, is being spun off from its parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity. According to a statement, "CPI’s Board of Directors has decided that enabling the ICIJ to chart its own course will help both journalistic teams build on the massive impact they have had as one organization."

EPA Didn’t Warn Flint Residents Soon Enough
2 hours ago

According to a new report, the Environmental Protection Agency waited too long before informing the residents of Flint, Mich. that their water was contaminated with lead. Written by the EPA's inspector general, it places blame squarely at the foot of the agency itself, saying it had enough information by June 2015 to issue an emergency order. However, the order wasn't issued until the end of January 2016.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.