/PRNewswire/ -- Building on its April 2010 survey on the growing incivility in politics, the Center for Political Participation (CPP) at Allegheny College, in conjunction with Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW), today released the findings of new polling data that suggests Americans see politics as increasingly nasty and that the current political tone may be harmful to our democracy. Still, an overwhelming majority believe that passionate but respectful campaigning is possible.
Some 63 percent of respondents in the latest civility poll, conducted during the last four days leading up to the November midterm elections, believe politics has become less civil since President Barack Obama took office nearly two years ago. This is up from 48 percent in the April survey, and up from 58 percent in a second poll conducted in September, two full months before the midterms.
"You have to remember," said Professor Daniel M. Shea, director of the CPP, "our first wave of polling was done immediately following the health care reform vote. Things were rather hot in Washington. The dramatic increase in the perceptions of negativity since then is stunning. Things have gotten even worse."
A full 46 percent of registered American voters in the November poll said this year's election was the "most negative they had ever seen." An additional 26 percent said that it was "more negative than in the past," but they had seen worse. Only 4 percent said that campaigns were more positive than in the past.
"Sure, memories are short and it's common for all of us to think the most recent election was the worst," said Shea. "But these polling results are powerful. Nearly three out of four people believe this election was one of the nastiest they have ever seen."
A majority of voters (64 percent) polled in November said that the degenerating tone of politics is unhealthy for our democracy. Only 17 percent think the tone of campaigns is healthy for our democracy, while 14 percent think the tone has little impact on democracy. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats who viewed 2010 as the most negative election said that incivility in politics hurts our democracy. Independents and Republicans also see a detrimental effect, with independents at 78 percent and Republicans at 72 percent.
Although a majority of African Americans and Hispanics believe the negative tone of campaigns hurts our democracy, these groups (55 percent black, 50 percent Hispanic) were less likely than whites (67 percent) to consider this as harmful to democracy.
Even so, the November poll finds that voters remain optimistic about candidates' ability to run positive campaigns. Nine out of 10 registered voters believe it is "possible for candidates to run for office in aggressive, but in respectful ways."
"This percentage actually grew by 5 percent from our mid-September poll," said Michael Wolf of Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne, co-author of the study. "Just because the public views campaigns as brutal, particularly this year's, doesn't mean they think it has to be that way. At least for now there remains some optimism out there."
Does their perception of negativity in politics have an impact on voters' willingness to get involved? Thirty percent of all registered voters questioned in the poll reported that the tone of the midterm elections made them less interested in becoming engaged in the process. Independents and Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to say they were less interested due to the tone. Indeed, a majority of Republicans who said that the 2010 election was the most negative they had ever seen said the uncivil tone would actually push them to participate. Additionally, African-Americans—who on the whole are loyal to Democrats—were much more likely than all Americans to say that negative campaigning made them more interested in getting involved in elections.
Another sore subject for voters was the role that so-called "outside money" – through which interest groups not located in a particular district flood a race with ads, mailings and phone calls -- has played in campaigning. Just less than 60 percent of respondents oppose this practice. Democratic respondents were more opposed to outside money (69 percent) than independents (57 percent opposed). A majority of Republicans (51 percent) also oppose this practice.
"It's a bit early to know with certainty, but early evidence suggests a strong majority of outside money was aimed at helping the GOP retake control of Congress, and a vast majority of these ads were hard-hitting and negative," Shea said. "It would make sense that some of these ads actually revved up GOP voters."
This recent wave of polling for Allegheny and IPFW was conducted by SurveyUSA between Oct. 28 and Nov. 1, 2010. In all, 1,252 registered voters were contacted, yielding a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.
For a complete set of the data, along with cross tabulations and graphic displays of the results, see: http://www.allegheny.edu/novemberpoll. The survey findings from the September poll, along with charts and cross tabulations, can be accessed at: www.allegheny.edu/septemberpoll. The April 2010 survey, "Nastiness, Name-calling & Negativity," is available at www.allegheny.edu/civility.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
D.C. Leaders Believe in Practical Solutions to the Deficit and National Debt, but Doubt They're Politically Possible
/PRNewswire/ -- The "movers and shakers" in Washington are worried about the national debt and believe there are practical solutions for it, but they're just as convinced that partisan politics will block any progress, according to a new survey by Public Agenda, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization.
The research, conducted for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Choosing Our Fiscal Future initiative, examined how "beltway influencers," those who set the debate and make the decisions in Washington, view the problem. The more than 300 influencers surveyed broke down into two groups:
-- "Leaders" included high-level federal government staffers in the
executive and legislative branches, as well as media, nonprofit and
interest group executives who are key players in crafting and
implementing policies.
-- "Opinion elites" included politically active citizens in the
Washington metro area. This group may not be formally part of the
government, but they are educated, affluent and regularly participate
in civic activism. They're not decision makers, but they do provide
the context in which decision makers operate.
In light of the national debt gaining more attention, with a presidential commission set to make recommendations this December, strong majorities of both leaders (85 percent) and elites (86 percent) believe the rising national debt is a real threat and agree with the statement that "if we do not get the national debt under control, it will overwhelm the federal budget and damage the economy in the long run." But it's not their top priority - only 13 percent of leaders and 9 percent of elites cited the national debt or deficit as the country's most important problem, falling behind the economy (35 percent of leaders and 37 percent of elites) and jobs (19 percent of leaders and 11 percent of elites). A sizeable minority of both groups also worry policymakers are too focused on the issue right now.
Roughly 8 in 10 of the "beltway influencers" surveyed (78 percent of leaders and 83 percent of elites) say there "are at least several practical policy approaches to meet the country's needs without causing the debt to rise." Just as many believe that "there is no realistic way to address the rising national debt by solely cutting spending or solely raising taxes - both cutting spending and raising taxes are required to reduce the debt" (81 percent of leaders and 76 percent of elites say this).
Yet, "Beltway influencers" are highly skeptical that the political system is capable of addressing this issue. Some 78 percent of leaders and 85 percent of elites and say that pragmatic solutions will be impossible to achieve because of partisan politics. And 99 percent of leaders and 98 percent of elites say that relations in Congress have been a period of partisan conflict, up 15 percentage points since the question was last asked in the summer of 2009.
"The Washington influencers take the nation's financial problems seriously, and they think solutions exist," said Scott Bittle, executive vice president and director of public issue analysis at Public Agenda. "But they're doubtful that the political system can act on this issue - and since this group is part of the political system, that's a troubling perspective."
The survey was conducted by Harris Interactive for Public Agenda between Feb. 10 and March 9, 2010. Full results are available at www.publicagenda.org.
About the survey
The survey was fielded by Harris Interactive® from February 10 and March 9, 2010. Participants included a total of 303 Beltway influencers, comprised of 150 D.C. opinion elites and 153 D.C. leaders including 50 government (congressional staffers and executive branch), 46 media employees and 57 thought leaders from NGOs, interest groups, foundations and associations. The D.C. opinion elite surveys were conducted online and figures were weighted on age, sex, education, race, household income and education where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the D.C. opinion elite population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for the D.C. opinion elite respondents' propensity to be online. Leadership interviews were conducted via telephone and were not weighted.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The research, conducted for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Choosing Our Fiscal Future initiative, examined how "beltway influencers," those who set the debate and make the decisions in Washington, view the problem. The more than 300 influencers surveyed broke down into two groups:
-- "Leaders" included high-level federal government staffers in the
executive and legislative branches, as well as media, nonprofit and
interest group executives who are key players in crafting and
implementing policies.
-- "Opinion elites" included politically active citizens in the
Washington metro area. This group may not be formally part of the
government, but they are educated, affluent and regularly participate
in civic activism. They're not decision makers, but they do provide
the context in which decision makers operate.
In light of the national debt gaining more attention, with a presidential commission set to make recommendations this December, strong majorities of both leaders (85 percent) and elites (86 percent) believe the rising national debt is a real threat and agree with the statement that "if we do not get the national debt under control, it will overwhelm the federal budget and damage the economy in the long run." But it's not their top priority - only 13 percent of leaders and 9 percent of elites cited the national debt or deficit as the country's most important problem, falling behind the economy (35 percent of leaders and 37 percent of elites) and jobs (19 percent of leaders and 11 percent of elites). A sizeable minority of both groups also worry policymakers are too focused on the issue right now.
Roughly 8 in 10 of the "beltway influencers" surveyed (78 percent of leaders and 83 percent of elites) say there "are at least several practical policy approaches to meet the country's needs without causing the debt to rise." Just as many believe that "there is no realistic way to address the rising national debt by solely cutting spending or solely raising taxes - both cutting spending and raising taxes are required to reduce the debt" (81 percent of leaders and 76 percent of elites say this).
Yet, "Beltway influencers" are highly skeptical that the political system is capable of addressing this issue. Some 78 percent of leaders and 85 percent of elites and say that pragmatic solutions will be impossible to achieve because of partisan politics. And 99 percent of leaders and 98 percent of elites say that relations in Congress have been a period of partisan conflict, up 15 percentage points since the question was last asked in the summer of 2009.
"The Washington influencers take the nation's financial problems seriously, and they think solutions exist," said Scott Bittle, executive vice president and director of public issue analysis at Public Agenda. "But they're doubtful that the political system can act on this issue - and since this group is part of the political system, that's a troubling perspective."
The survey was conducted by Harris Interactive for Public Agenda between Feb. 10 and March 9, 2010. Full results are available at www.publicagenda.org.
About the survey
The survey was fielded by Harris Interactive® from February 10 and March 9, 2010. Participants included a total of 303 Beltway influencers, comprised of 150 D.C. opinion elites and 153 D.C. leaders including 50 government (congressional staffers and executive branch), 46 media employees and 57 thought leaders from NGOs, interest groups, foundations and associations. The D.C. opinion elite surveys were conducted online and figures were weighted on age, sex, education, race, household income and education where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the D.C. opinion elite population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for the D.C. opinion elite respondents' propensity to be online. Leadership interviews were conducted via telephone and were not weighted.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Opinion: The Better Way: Fair Elections Gains Momentum
/PRNewswire/ - The Arms Race Returns (or It Never Went Away)
Our elections are an arms race to see who can raise the most campaign cash -- and today's political strategy is to promote a high cash intake and downplay fundraising efforts that fall short of that goal. Candidates promote these dollar figures as "proof" that their campaign is viable.
Recent Federal Election Commission filings are once again serving as a litmus test for which candidates for Congress are "real" and which are in trouble for next year's congressional races.
The most recent numbers are also a reminder that the problem of big money in politics is getting worse. The FEC reported last month that fundraising for U.S. House and U.S. Senate candidates had topped $250 million over the first six months of the year. Despite the economic downturn, we're on track to have one of the most expensive midterm election cycles ever. That translates into candidates spending more time than ever before dialing for dollars and rubbing elbows with the wealthy and powerful rather than listening to regular voters concerned about jobs and the economy, health care, and the need to address our nation's energy policy.
Meanwhile, in Congress...
Health care reform. Money continues to pour into the campaign coffers of members of Congress from the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. This year alone, the health industries have spent more than $260 million on lobbying and have given almost $29 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
To what end? A majority of Americans support comprehensive health care reform, but far too many elected officials in Washington, D.C. seem to side with the health industry's positions. Campaign cash is used to curry favor and buy access that Main Street Americans just can't get.
Exempting auto dealers? Last week, the House Financial Services Committee passed a piece of legislation creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Among the amendments offered in committee was one authored by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), a former car dealer, to exempt auto dealerships from the agency's oversight.
Not only was Rep. Campbell the recipient of $170,550 in campaign donations from auto dealers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; he received between $600,000 and $6 million in rent from auto dealers in 2008. If that's not a conflict of interest, we don't know what is.
Only in Congress is this business as usual. Rep. Campbell's amendment passed 47-21. The final bill passed by a 39 to 29 vote. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, those voting against the bill "received an average of 20 percent more in contributions from financial interests over the past two-and-a-half years than the bill's supporters."
Fair Elections Gains Momentum
Fortunately, it doesn't have to be this way. There is a bill that is making it's way through Congress that would allow candidates to run for office without having to rely on big campaign contributions from those with interests before Congress.
Called the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826), the bills would create a voluntary system in which candidates could run for office on a mix of small donations and public funding. Candidates would qualify for the public grant by collecting a set number of contributions of $100 or less. Qualified candidates could also supplement the grant with small donations of $100 or less from people in their states that would be matched 4-to-1 by a new Fair Elections fund.
The size of the grant, coupled with the matching fund system, provides candidates with enough resources to mount competitive campaigns without relying on special interests or donations from those with business before Congress. The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act is sponsored in the Senate by Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) in the House.
From David Donnelly
Source: Public Campaign Action Fund
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Our elections are an arms race to see who can raise the most campaign cash -- and today's political strategy is to promote a high cash intake and downplay fundraising efforts that fall short of that goal. Candidates promote these dollar figures as "proof" that their campaign is viable.
Recent Federal Election Commission filings are once again serving as a litmus test for which candidates for Congress are "real" and which are in trouble for next year's congressional races.
The most recent numbers are also a reminder that the problem of big money in politics is getting worse. The FEC reported last month that fundraising for U.S. House and U.S. Senate candidates had topped $250 million over the first six months of the year. Despite the economic downturn, we're on track to have one of the most expensive midterm election cycles ever. That translates into candidates spending more time than ever before dialing for dollars and rubbing elbows with the wealthy and powerful rather than listening to regular voters concerned about jobs and the economy, health care, and the need to address our nation's energy policy.
Meanwhile, in Congress...
Health care reform. Money continues to pour into the campaign coffers of members of Congress from the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. This year alone, the health industries have spent more than $260 million on lobbying and have given almost $29 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
To what end? A majority of Americans support comprehensive health care reform, but far too many elected officials in Washington, D.C. seem to side with the health industry's positions. Campaign cash is used to curry favor and buy access that Main Street Americans just can't get.
Exempting auto dealers? Last week, the House Financial Services Committee passed a piece of legislation creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Among the amendments offered in committee was one authored by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), a former car dealer, to exempt auto dealerships from the agency's oversight.
Not only was Rep. Campbell the recipient of $170,550 in campaign donations from auto dealers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; he received between $600,000 and $6 million in rent from auto dealers in 2008. If that's not a conflict of interest, we don't know what is.
Only in Congress is this business as usual. Rep. Campbell's amendment passed 47-21. The final bill passed by a 39 to 29 vote. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, those voting against the bill "received an average of 20 percent more in contributions from financial interests over the past two-and-a-half years than the bill's supporters."
Fair Elections Gains Momentum
Fortunately, it doesn't have to be this way. There is a bill that is making it's way through Congress that would allow candidates to run for office without having to rely on big campaign contributions from those with interests before Congress.
Called the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826), the bills would create a voluntary system in which candidates could run for office on a mix of small donations and public funding. Candidates would qualify for the public grant by collecting a set number of contributions of $100 or less. Qualified candidates could also supplement the grant with small donations of $100 or less from people in their states that would be matched 4-to-1 by a new Fair Elections fund.
The size of the grant, coupled with the matching fund system, provides candidates with enough resources to mount competitive campaigns without relying on special interests or donations from those with business before Congress. The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act is sponsored in the Senate by Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) in the House.
From David Donnelly
Source: Public Campaign Action Fund
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)