Tuesday, December 31, 2013

My Political Take on Self Identification...

On my last post, I tried to present data without adding any interpretations that could be considered partisan. Here, there are no such qualms. Please note, however, that my certainty for these interpretations is far from absolute. Those who are curious as to how I personally would read the data, press on!

Again, here is the breakout of philosophical self-identification by party self-identification. Read this from top to bottom, meaning for all self-identified Republicans, 3% say they are liberal, 22% say they are moderate, etc.

Tot Rep Dem Ind
Lib 20% 3% 44% 15%
Mod 36% 22% 40% 46%
Cons 40% 74% 13% 36%
DK/NA 4% 1% 3% 4%

I noted in the last post how Republicans overwhelmingly call themselves conservative while Democrats are nearly as likely to call themselves moderate as liberal. I believe that this is a remnant of the Carter/Reagan years, when the liberal label was frequently used (to great effect) as a pejorative and the conservative label was used with pride; many Democrats abandoned the liberal label, and found political utility in “claiming the center” by calling their own views moderate. I also noted that Democrats are roughly 3 times as likely to call themselves conservative as Republicans are to call themselves liberal. This is also consistent with the above.

Second, here again is the breakout of party self-identification by philosophic self-identification.

Tot Lib Mod Con
Rep 26% 3% 16% 49%
Dem 31% 67% 34% 10%
Ind 34% 24% 43% 30%
Other 7% 5% 5% 8%
DK/NA 2% % 2% 3%

While I do think that each of the potential reasons I offered in the last post (which was not intended to be an all-inclusive list) for these breakouts have some bit of truth to them, I think that a main reason so many self-identified conservatives are Democrats is stickiness to what they’ve always been. Conservatives, by nature, are slower to embrace change. I suspect that number, over time, will drop as the population ages, barring a sudden change (or evolution) by either or both of the main parties. I also believe that this cohort by-and-large does not think that the Republicans are too far to the right, but instead is too favorable to big business (which does not necessarily correspond to a left/right view of politics).

I would love to see a question on how respondents perceive each party (“too liberal”, “too conservative”, “neither too conservative nor too liberal” and then see the crosstabs there by political philosophy. I think that this would be illuminating towards a broad picture of how each party would best be served in terms of moving left or right in general.

But let’s look at the calculated approximate sizes of the cominations again:

Philosophy/Party Pct
Con/Rep 19%
Mod/Ind 16%
Lib/Dem 14%
Mod/Dem 12%
Con/Ind 12%
Mod/Rep 6%
Lib/Ind 5%
Con/Other 4%
Con/Dem 4%
Mod/Other 2%
Other/Ind 2%
Other/Other 1%
Other/Dem 1%
Lib/Other 1%
Lib/Rep 1%
Other/Rep 0%

For giggles, let’s make some assumptions about the above:

  • Con/Rep form the “base” of the GOP
  • Lib/Dem form the “base” of the Democrats
  • Some percentage of “Mod/Rep” and “Lib/Rep” will vote Democrat if the GOP moves too far to the right, and as such are “in play” but leaning Republican
  • The same is true for “Con/Ind”
  • Some percentage of “Con/Dem” will vote Republican if the Democratic Party moves too far to the left, and as such are “in play” but leaning Democratic
  • Some percentage of “Mod/Dem” will vote Republican if the Democratic Party moves too far to the left, and as such are “in play” but strongly leaning Democratic (I realize I am not specifying a similar bucket on the GOP’s side; this is intentional and is due to the phenomenon of more Democrats calling themselves moderates and my suspicion that this is partly just due to an aversion to the liberal label rather than an indication of them being truly in play. In other words, a smaller percentage will jump ship)
  • “Lib/Ind” and “Con/Dem” are likely Democratic votes, but more amenable to jumping ship
  • The entire cohort that says their party is another (as opposed to not specifying) is not really in play
  • Those that did not specify a party identification but did specify conservative will tend to vote Republican
  • Those that did not specify a party identification but did specify liberal will tend to vote Democatic
  • The balance is both in play, and just as likely to go either way

With these assumptions, we end up with something like this:

Republican Base 19%
More likely Republican than Democratic 19%
More likely Democratic than Republican 9%
Even more likely Democratic than Republican 12%
Democratic Base 14%
Neither 8%
Truly up for grabs 19%

This feels about right, if we keep in mind that the survey was taken at a time when the Obamacare website rollout fiasco was hitting hardest, and is likely a bit heavy on the GOP side of things. However, if this is really how things shake out, it looks to me like the Democrats actually have room to move to the left. Either way, it looks to me as though there is more benefit for the GOP to move towards the center than for them to do the opposite. As a libertarian leaning conservative (or is it vice-versa), this does not make me particularly happy, but it does appear to me to be the stronger political move.

Self-identification By Party And Political Philosophy

I have been meaning to get around to this since when the last Quinnipiac national poll came out earlier this month. In the crosstabs for the release, there were breakouts on many questions by party and/or by political philosophy.

My impression, gleaned from many discussions and from reading many news articles is that people frequently use “moderate” as a political philosophy interchangeably with “independent” as a party self-identification. If the overwhelming majority of moderates self-identify as independent, and vice-versa, then this is quite valid. But is it? And regardless of that question, I think it would be interesting to know how these self-identifications relate with each other.

Fortunately, I do not have to guess (much) as to this. While one cannot determine the approximate crosstabs for this from the official poll release linked above, the good people at Quinnipiac were willing to run crosstabs for this upon my request.

Before I get to the below, let me qualify my commentary by saying that I am well aware that this is one survey, and treating the numbers from it as absolutely correct is not my intention. I just do not want to continually be writing something along the lines of “according to this survey’s results” and “within this survey’s margin of error.” Also, Quinnipiac supplied me the margins of error for each crosstab; rather than reproducing them all, I’ll just say that they range from +/-3% to +/-4%. (Side note: they provided them to me to the second decimal point. However, due to the fact that the results were reported as whole integers, that is how I choose to represent the MoE. Significant digits!)

First, let me present the data they shared with me. First, here is the breakout of philosophical self-identification by party self-identification. Read this from top to bottom, meaning for all self-identified Republicans, 3% say they are liberal, 22% say they are moderate, etc.

Tot Rep Dem Ind
Lib 20% 3% 44% 15%
Mod 36% 22% 40% 46%
Cons 40% 74% 13% 36%
DK/NA 4% 1% 3% 4%

I am struck by how Republicans overwhelmingly call themselves conservative while Democrats are nearly as likely to call themselves moderate as liberal. Also, Democrats are roughly 3 times as likely to call themselves conservative as Republicans are to call themselves liberal.

Second, here is the breakout of party self-identification by philosophic self-identification. Again, read this from top to bottom.

Tot Lib Mod Con
Rep 26% 3% 16% 49%
Dem 31% 67% 34% 10%
Ind 34% 24% 43% 30%
Other 7% 5% 5% 8%
DK/NA 2% % 2% 3%

From the above, a little math can give us rough approximations of the percentages for each combination. Granted, I cannot account for rounding error here, so by no means should one consider these to be absolute (both for this reason and for the caveats specified above). However, they should be close enough for government work in terms of this survey.

(Note above that Quinnipiac did not give an “other” option on the philosophy self-identification question. This makes sense as they are breaking the entire spectrum down into three buckets. There really is not an “other” for this purpose. Meanwhile, on the party self-identification question they did, which again makes sense as there are parties beyond Republicans and Democrats, so the Independent label is not a catch-all for those who gave an answer. For my purposes, I have rolled “don’t know/didn’t answer” into “other”, mainly because both the “other” and “don’t know/didn’t answer” buckets provide no information as to which breakout most closely applies.)

Lib/Rep 1% Mod/Rep 6% Con/Rep 19% Other/Rep 0%
Lib/Dem 14% Mod/Dem 12% Con/Dem 4% Other/Dem 1%
Lib/Ind 5% Mod/Ind 16% Con/Ind 12% Other/Ind 2%
Lib/Other 1% Mod/Other 2% Con/Other 4% Other/Other 1%

Putting these results into an ordered list:

Philosophy/Party Pct
Con/Rep 19%
Mod/Ind 16%
Lib/Dem 14%
Mod/Dem 12%
Con/Ind 12%
Mod/Rep 6%
Lib/Ind 5%
Con/Other 4%
Con/Dem 4%
Mod/Other 2%
Other/Ind 2%
Other/Other 1%
Other/Dem 1%
Lib/Other 1%
Lib/Rep 1%
Other/Rep 0%

There are many different potential ways to interpret this. I have my own, but my purpose in posting this is not to advocate any particular political position; as such I will save that for a possible later post. Instead, my purpose in posting this is to provide context for interpreting poll numbers. I want to thank Quinnipiac for providing me details that they had not released as part of their publication of this survey, particularly April Radocchio, Tim Malloy, and whoever in their tabulations department who took the time to fulfill this request. Thank you very much!

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

On Congressional Approval in the Washington Post/ABC News Poll

The poll's write-up can be found here.

Let's start by putting some job performance numbers together:

TopicApprovedisapproveNet
Obama4355-12
Congressional Democrats3464-30
Congressional Republicans2473-49

One more. The question: "Overall, who do you trust to do a better job coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years - (Obama) or (the Republicans in Congress)?" Obama and the Congressional Republicans tie at 41%.

How does this happen? Democrats approve of Obama, 76-21%. They approve of Congressional Democrats, 61-36%. But Republicans disapprove of Congressional Republicans more than approve; the approve-disapprove breakdown is 43-53%.

Clearly, Democrats as a whole are relatively happy with the tactics and substance of their political leaders. Republicans are not in theirs, albeit not uniformly. We can read tea-leaves to figure which directions the unhappy Republicans think the fix should come on the left-right continuum. In the Obama approval question, 13% of Republicans approve of Obama's performance.

While not definitive, combined with the 53% who disapprove of Congressional Republicans' performance, it appears as if there are significantly more Republicans who want their elected leaders to be more effective in opposition and/or move further to the right than want them to be less opposing/move further to the left. [Updated to add: The ratio there is approximately 4-1. As it happens, on the "who do you trust to..." question, there are 4 times as many GOPers who say "Congressional Republicans" that do not.]

Boehner and other Republican leadership may have been trying to get conservative groups to chill on their attacks on the GOP, and to get the infighting to stop. Or, perhaps they were deciding to engage in some infighting of their own. If the latter is the case, they may want to reflect on the wisdom of moving against a clear majority of their voters. If the former is, it is a worthy goal. They may want to re-evaluate the approach they took, because it did not work.

If the wave they want is to form, they are going to need to solve the puzzle on how to satisfy their party's right while losing less of their left. Despite the 4-1 ratio I mentioned above, that they are already losing 13% in the Obama approval question tells me that simply moving right won't do the trick (and moving left certainly won't). I suspect the answer is for both main factions within the GOP coalition to swallow their grumblings and start selling the GOP "brand" as a whole. This is not the time for a GOP internal war, as is currently being fought. When it comes to infighting for the GOP, the Wargames finale holds wisdom: the only way to win is to not play that game.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

We Hate Them, But We Want Them. We Love Him, But Don't Want His Policies

I note the following in this NBC/WSJ poll:

PartyTotal PositiveTotal NegativeDifference
Democratic3644-8
Republican2651-25

Contrast those numbers to this from later in the same survey:

Preferred Party To Control CongressPercentage
Democrats42
Republicans44

Fewer people like Republicans, but more want them in charge of Congress.

One can infer from this that the Democrats have done a much better job in making their core voters happy than the GOP has. If my Twitter feed is any indication, then yesterday's announced budget deal is going to make this dynamic even worse.

A separate tidbit from the survey worth calling out-- they asked people which of the following "best describes your feelings towards Barack Obama." The options and results follow; while they are interesting, I just love this question. I think it is a great combination of "job approval" and "personal favorability."

PerspectivePercentage
Like Obama personally, approve of most of his policies36
Like Obama personally, disapprove of most of his policies28
Dislike Obama personally, approve of most of his policies2
Dislike Obama personally, disapprove of most of his policies31

Taken together, this means that 64% of people think Obama's a swell fellow, yet 59% do not like his policies.

Put that in the form that the earlier approve/disapprove numbers were presented, and it would look something like this:

PerspectiveApproveDisapproveDifference
Obama, personally6433+31
Obama's policies3859-21

If you were wondering why President Obama constantly gives speeches to try to sell his policies, wonder no longer. He's trying to leverage the former to improve the latter.

Added:

Repeal is a minority position. So is keeping ACA mostly intact. People want OINO.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

On the younger cohort in the 2014 elections (and possibly beyond)

This is a case where I use this blog to basically go beyond 140 characters on Twitter. I probably should have "moved" here a lot earlier in the discussion I'm about to talk about.

If you click to David's tweet (after reading the article he linked, naturally), you will see a back and forth, mostly between @GWHistorian (a worthy follow) and me regarding a nit-pick I had with a phrase in David's piece. Always the pedant, I tweeted:

That tweet was in reference to the following passage:

"Young voters, who trust the GOP over Obama by nine points on the economy, are now just slightly leaning GOP for the 2014 election. The challenge will be to turn them out, since they vote at such low rates."

Eventually, we agreed that blunting and advantage is always beneficial for whichever side had been on the short end.

However, there is one part to this that also needs to be considered. The younger cohort is one that Democrats have spent a lot of resources on turning out in the last few elections. If data show that the cohort is going to be a wash, then it would be a waste for a party to focus on them. A well-run party organization, which the Democrats have proven to be over the past several elections, will not make such a mistake.

It will be interesting to see if, as 2014's election draws near, there is as much visible effort being made on the youth vote as in 2006-2012. If not, one will probably be able to infer that their own internal polling is suggesting near-parity. It will also mean that they will have invested the freed resources elsewhere.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Interesting tidbit in the latest California Field Poll

I saw the latest Field Poll of California this morning, but did not have a chance to look at it until now.

The release itself only touches on 6 questions, and on most they don't provide crosstabs. The main exception to this is that they provided a lot of detail on those who disapprove of Obama's performance. From their write-up:

The latest Field Poll finds that while 51% of California voters approve of the President's overall performance, a growing proportion (43%) disapprove. This represents an increase of 8 percentage points in the proportion disapproving since July. While the growth in the number of Californians disapproving spans most demographic subgroups, some of the greatest increases have occurred among voter segments who have been among the President’s strongest supporters. This includes independent voters with no party preference (+16), Latinos (+16), union-affiliated households (+18), and women (+13).

Oddly, they didn't specifically call out the subgroup that had the greatest increase in disapproval: those with no more than a high school education. Let's rectify that:

SubgroupFeb. DisapprovalDec. DisapprovalIncrease
No Party Preference24%40%+16
Female27%40%+13
Latino18%34%+16
Union Affiliated25%43%+18
High School Graduate Or Less26%50%+24

The subgroups have, according to the methodology details, a margin of error of +/-4.5%1.

I have no idea why they would have skipped over the subgroup that moved the most when mentioning the groups that had moved the most from a position of low disapproval. As the table above shows, they had comparably low disapproval to the other groups the commentary said "have been among the President's strongest supporters."

If we assume that the measured percentages are correct, then it would be interesting to know why that subgroup had the largest swing towards disapproval. One possible reason would be that those less educated may have taken the President (and other Democrats) at face value with his various Obamacare promises more than other groups did. Whatever the specific reason, it seems likely that it is Obamacare related.

Things to look out for in this regard: if polls from other states show this same erosion in this subgroup, or if other California polls have breakouts on other questions that might give more insight towards why this group in particular is souring.

1 The methodology details in the release touch on two things I spoke about in this post made last week. They get a round of applause for including this explanation:

The maximum sampling error for results from the overall sample is +/- 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, while findings from the random subsample have a sampling error of +/- 4.5 percentage points. The maximum sampling error is based on results in the middle of the sampling distribution (i.e., percentages at or near 50%). Percentages at either end of the distribution (those closer to 10% or 90%) have a smaller margin of error.

They do not get a round of applause for stating the margin of error to one decimal point while reporting the results to the nearest integer.

Even when coming clean, lying liars lie.

I encourage everyong to read the article that J-Pod linked. In summary, Linda Walther Tirado wrote an essay about her being poor, and how it was a never-ending sinkhole from which there was no hope of escape. Some excerpts:

It’s that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be...
You have to understand that we know that we will never not feel tired. We will never feel hopeful. We will never get a vacation. Ever. We know that the very act of being poor guarantees that we will never not be poor.

The linked article does a good job explaining how the whole thing was fraudulent, and mentioned how "Ms. Tirado came clean (sort of)."

You have to understand that the piece you read was taken out of context, that I never meant to say that all of these things were happening to me right now, or that I was still quite so abject.

Emphasis mine.

The linked article, and this article linked to by it, do a fine job spelling out the hoax and many of the ramifications of it. But I did want to point out that Ms. Tirado still was lying when she was coming clean. There is no way to square "I never meant to say... that I was still quite so abject" with "We know that the very act of being poor guarantees that we will never not be poor."

I never meant to say exactly what I said in plain English.

But what else could you expect from someone who describes their political views thusly:

Depends on Where I Am
If I'm in Utah, I'm a pragmatic liberal. Outside Utah, my references get checked to make sure I'm not a GOP mole. I get Dems elected.

By lying about everything. She certainly makes a fine Democratic campaign consultant, if she is what she claims.