Has the Millennial generation ‘overwhelmed’ the electorate? | Harry J Enten

Though they’ve drawn comparisons with the Greatest Generation for their liberal leanings, young people haven’t taken over yet

The Millennials are the most Democratic cohort in a generation. Some believe attribute their liberal inclinations to the racially diverse demographics within their generation, and while that may be partially true, I prescribe the Millennials’ (born after 1980 through the mid-90s) Democratic leanings to the fact they grew up during a strong Clinton administration and a weak Bush one. The Millennials today have mostly replaced the very white, very Democratic voters of the Greatest Generation (who were born 1910-1927) who came of age during the weak years under Hoover and a Roosevelt administration so strong it won FDR a third term.

In both the 2004 and 2012 election, almost all age cohorts voted the same relative to other cohorts, and the Millennials were as Democratic relative to the nation in 2004 and 2012. The Greatest Generation was too small a percentage of the electorate in 2012 to collect poll data, but they voted as Democratic as the Millennnials did in 2004.

Proving the cohort point further, the then +60-year-old Greatest Generation has been the most Democratic cohort all the way back in 1988, when age cohorts didn’t differ all that much in how they voted – despite even some members of the Lost Generation still voting. The Greatest Generation crowd was the most Democratic in the 1992 election, as well.

Even the most ardent critics of the cohort theory will admit that a person’s views of the presidential administration he or she grew up with will shape their political views going forward. The real question is whether or not the Millennials have a a large enough portion of the electorate to “overwhelm” the rest: would Bush have still won in 2004 with 2012 demographics, and would Obama have still won with 2004 demographics? With the release of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) voter supplement, we can find out.

The CPS is a geographically defined sample that seeks to fully represents each type of voter. Respondents are asked simple questions such as race, registration, and whether or not they voted. It is generally seen as a more comprehensive survey than network exit polls to determine the exact composition of the electorate.

There are, however, reasons to be cautious about making too much of the CPS report. The CPS doesn’t have a perfect response rate, and as my friend Sean Trende points out, there are more people who claimed to the CPS to have voted than actually did. The CPS tabulators assume that those who didn’t respond didn’t vote, which is likely not true, but there’s no perfect way to account for the discrepancies. Preliminary examination of board of election data from different states shows that fewer African Americans, for instance, voted than the numbers that the CPS finds.

Either way, the CPS is a very solid starting point, and we can still take a preliminary step in answering whether or not Obama would have won without the Millennials. We can determine this by multiplying the percent of what Obama won among Millennials by the percentage they made up of the electorate. In other words, the percentage of vote the Millennials contributed to Obama’s margin of victory. Then we compare this with the percentage of the vote the Greatest Generation contributed in prior years, and we’ll have a solid answer.

The Millennials now make up 18% of the electorate, per the CPS. That’s less than the exit poll data reports, but exits have been known to count too many young voters. Meanwhile, the CPS data is backed quite well by Pew Research, which most would agree is one of the finest pollsters out there, if not the best.

Those born between 1910 and 1927 were just 2% of the 2012 electorate. In 1996, the election before the Millennials began voting, the Greatest made up 15% of everyone who cast a ballot. By the time 2004 rolled around, Millennials were 8% of the electorate, while the Greatest was down to 7%. Thus, as a percentage of the total electorate, there was a 5pt gain in the Democratic coalition of the Greatest Generation and Millennials from 1996 to 2012, and from 2004 to 2012.

Given Obama’s +20pt win among Millennials, what percentage of the vote is that 5pt difference worth? With the 2004 electorate, Obama would have won by 2.6pt instead of 3.85pt last year. Meanwhile, if the 2004 electorate had looked like the 2012 one, George W Bush would have won by 1.2pt instead of 2.45pt. So yes, the Democratic candidate would have done slightly better with the demographic boost, but neither election would have turned out any differently.

Further comparisons to 1996 and 2004 undersell the Greatest Generation’s impact. The Greatest were 17% of the electorate in 1992, 21% in 1988, 24% in 1984, and 27% in 1980, but have dropped steeply as more of their members pass away. The Millennials, meanwhile, are still far away from 24%, let alone 27%. If other age cohorts had voted the same relative to the national vote, Obama might have actually won by more in prior years.

To me, the evidence does not suggest the Millennials have “overwhelmed” the Greatest. They are, if anything, a new “Greatest Generation” both in terms of voting patterns and, to a lesser extent, size – though we can still expect the Millennials to grow somewhat as a percentage of the electorate, since people are more likely to vote as they get older. The question going forward is whether Generation Z (born in the mid-90s and later) will follow the voting patterns of the Millennials.

His small re-election margin and his projected historic ratings mean that the Obama administration has largely been seen as mediocre, which in turn suggests that the next age cohort will walk the middle of the road. The polling data agrees that Generation Z will be less Democratic, than the Millenials, but if one believes the racial diversity theory, then the next generation should actually be more liberal, as it will have fewer white voters.

We don’t know whether the age cohort or racial diversity theory will end up being more correct in the long run. If it’s the diversity one, Republicans are in a lot of trouble. If it’s the age cohort theory, then it will be politics as usual. I’d bet on age.

Harry J Enten

No Patriot Act II: Americans choose civil liberties over security laws | Harry J Enten

Unlike 9/11, the Boston attack will not lead to new anti-terror law. But Democrats are now less civil libertarian than Republicans

Terrorist attacks offer lawmakers an ability to react. After 9/11, the American government decided to go to war in Afghanistan and to enact new laws aimed at curbing future attacks. The Patriot Act, for instance, has been regarded by some as a necessary step for safety and by others as an infringement on civil liberties.

Following the Boston Marathon attack, we’ve heard Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain, among others, push for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be handled in a way that many believe would be a violation of his civil liberties. So, has the Boston bombing opened up an avenue for lawmakers to pursue controversial new anti-terrorism measures that may limit civil liberties?

Almost certainly not. The latest CNN/Time/ORC poll finds that 49% of Americans are not willing to give up civil liberties in order curb terrorism, while only 40% are. In fact, 61% of Americans are more fearful that the government will overreact to the Boston bombing, compared to 31% who are worried that the government won’t act strongly enough.

Other polls confirm these findings. Just after the attacks, Fox News found that 43% of Americans were willing to give up “some personal freedom” to reduce the threat of an attack, while 45% were not. A Washington Post poll, from before the bombers were caught, reported that only 41% of Americans were most worried that the government wouldn’t go far enough because of constitutional concerns. Almost half of Americans, 48%, were worried the government would go too far and compromise constitutional rights.

The reaction to Boston has been monumentally different to the polling results after 9/11. Immediately following the attacks on the WTC, 66% of Americans were willing to give up “civil liberties” to stop terrorism – 26pt higher than today. And 39% of Americans were concerned that strong laws wouldn’t be enacted, while 34% were more concerned about restricting civil liberties. That 4pt lead for enacting stronger laws is now a 30pt lead in favor of protecting civil liberties, per the ORC poll. After 9/11, 71% of Americans were willing to give up “personal freedom” to reduce the threat of a terrorist attack per Fox – 28pt higher than today.

Indeed, the party breakdown of new polling means that Graham and McCain have even less chance of getting their way. Democrats at large – who are unlikely to agree with hawkish senators – are now more willing to give up personal freedoms than Republicans. In the CNN/Time/ORC survey, 51% of Democrats were were willing to give up some civil liberties to curb terrorism, while only 41% of Republicans were. Fox found an identical 51% of Democrats were willing to give up “personal freedom”, against just 43% of Republicans. The Washington Post poll found the same 8pt spread between Democrats and Republicans on the question of whether the government might compromise constitutional rights.

Republicans, it seems, have become the standard-bearers of civil liberties due to two factors: who’s in the White House and shifting currents inside each party.

The executive branch, the government’s chief, is currently a Democrat – one who many Republicans believe, for instance, is out to take their guns. After 9/11, a Republican president held office, which likely accounts for the parties switching positions. We already know that a respondent or a politician will often oppose an issue or policy just because of who’s in charge.

Second, the Republican party is increasingly becoming the party of Rand Paul and civil libertarians. You would expect exactly these respondents to be against an intrusion on civil liberties. Many Paulites tend to call themselves independents, which would also explain why, in the CNN/Time/ORC and Fox News, independents were the least likely to give up personal freedoms, at 32% and 29%, respectively.

This puts hawkish Republicans like Graham and McCain in an awkward position within their own party. If there were a Republican in the White House, I think more Republicans would be willing to sacrifice civil liberties to prevent terrorism. At the same time, though, the Republican party simply is in a different place than it was a decade ago.

Overall, the chances of any major, hawkish changes in terrorist policy are significantly hampered by public opinion. Americans did not react to the Boston bombings with anything near the willingness to sacrifice civil liberties they showed after 9/11. That Republicans – usually hawkish on national security issues – are wary of giving power to the Democratic-run executive branch only further weakens the chances that any new law might pass.

Harry J Enten

Why the bully pulpit is Obama’s only hope for gun control | Harry J Enten

With public will waning, the president’s paradox is that making gun control his issue is divisive but nothing gets done otherwise

President Obama tried to breathe new life into his stalled gun control agenda on Thursday, but will he have any impact? He may not have a choice: it looks like some kind of action on his part is the only hope for reform.

Over the past few weeks, the percentage of Americans favoring new gun control regulations have dropped across the board. Fox News polling saw support for background checks with new gun purchases fall by 6pt, to 85%; mental health checks by 11pt, to 72%; new ammunition limits by 10pt, to 70%; high-capacity magazines bans by 2pt, to 54%; armed guards in schools by 9pt, to 51%; and assault weapons bans by 3pt, to 51%.

The good news for those favoring tighter gun control is that most of the specific proposals still have majority support. Background checks, the center of the White House’s gun control package, still have 85%, per Fox News; and 90%, per CBS News. Even the long-doomed ban on assault weapons is at 51% and 49%, per Fox and CBS, respectively.

Of course, the issue has always been that any gun control package presented by the president would ultimately become polarized along party lines. That is, people may support specific measures in theory, but they’ll disagree as soon as it becomes “President Obama’s gun control plan”.

We haven’t had any polls attach Obama’s name to gun control questions in the past few weeks. We have had broader gun control questions, though, that generally matched Obama’s past proposals. I also feel these broader questions do a better job measuring the public will on gun control legislation.

The drops in support for strong, broad gun control measures have been dramatic. CBS found the percentage of Americans who want stricter regulations fell from 57%, immediately following Newtown, to 47% now. And 50% of Americans saw no need for stricter regulations, or preferred, in fact, loosening gun restrictions.

Only 43% of Americans said that they wanted to put major restrictions on gun ownership or make them illegal, in the latest CNN/ORC poll. That’s down from 52% post Newtown. Meanwhile, the percentage who wants only minor or no restrictions is at 55% – the highest percentage ever measured by CNN/ORC.

What happened here?

Part of it, no doubt, is that President Obama’s overall popularity has dropped off in recent weeks. I noted previously that his overall approval was highly correlated with support for his gun control package. That’s why you see red state Democrats hesitant to get behind background checks, even as they poll at astronomical levels.

The other cause is that gun control has left the news. As I spoke about previously, the spike in support for tighter gun control after Newtown was reminiscent of trends after the Columbine massacre. These two gun tragedies were unlike others, such as the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, because they became remained top news stories or some time, and were thus able to enter the public consciousness.

Eventually, however, Columbine received less and less news coverage, and the polling bump faded. We can check for the same pattern with the Newtown shootings by searching the News Library archive, which tracks newspapers and television transcripts.

In the month following the Newtown tragedy, the phrase “gun control” was mentioned 23,484 times. In the second month, it actually climbed slightly to 23,506. During March, through Wednesday, the number dropped to only 9,238. Now, that’s still much higher than the 1,243 mentions in the month prior to Newtown, but you don’t have to be a statistician to see the downward trajectory.

The president can help gun control reenter the news, and thus the minds of Americans. Danny Hayes found that in the week following the president’s initial announcement of his plans, the press mentioned gun control twice as much as previously. During that same period, the percentage of Americans who wanted tighter gun control barely strayed from the post-Newtown high.

One might expect that a similar news spike and rebounding of support for stricter gun control can happen, given President Obama’s new push.

This not to say that the president can convince the American public of something that they don’t believe. What he can do, according to research by Brandice Canes-Wrone on budget issues, is take stalled, popular proposals, and create a campaign issue out of them, thus convincing Congress to act. Background checks are, as Mark Blumenthal pointed out, the perfect example of a policy that is massively popular – and going nowhere in Congress.

We already see Democratic donors and grassroots organizations following Obama’s lead, and trying to turn background checks into a campaign issue. As reported by Greg Sargent, top Democratic donor Kenneth Lerer won’t give money to Democrats who don’t back gun control. The Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas followed up this report by hoping:

“It is a start of a trend. Too many big liberal voters have given to the party and candidates uncritically in the past.”

Of course, this could all easily fail. The president could simply polarize the debate even more. This campaign may make red state Democrats even more squeamish, and will almost certainly make the Republican-controlled House even less likely to move towards more regulation.

But right now, the issue is already polarized. Gun control has gone nowhere in Congress, while the president was saying little. Nationally, public will on the issue is fading. The situation for gun control advocates could hardly be worse, in fact.

The flipside, though, is that by speaking, Obama can engage and activate a public that is still firmly in favor of background checks. He just might be able to change the dynamic and make politicians recognize that, politically, they are on the wrong side of the issue. Thursday’s speech was a start, but it’s all uphill from here on.

Harry J Enten

Obama talks peace, but Palestinians and Israelis more sceptical than ever | Harry J Enten

In 2008, both Israelis and Palestinians wanted a two-state solution. Today, they agree on just one thing: Obama can’t help

When President Obama first entered the presidency, great expectations had been raised by the campaign catchwords of “hope and change”. One of the US policy areas this extended to was the Palestinian/Israeli peace process: in 2010, Obama said that a Palestinian state was a realistic goal within a year.

In practice, that objective is no closer today than it was in 2008, and arguably is further away. So, is there any real chance now of serious peace negotiations? And can Obama be helpful in restarting the peace process?

Ask the people concerned – Israelis and Palestinians – and the answer is no, on both counts.

The percentage of Palestinians who want to return to the 1967 borders and normalize relations with Israel under the “Saudi Plan” has fallen far since the beginning of Obama’s presidency. Back in December 2008, 66% of Palestinians agreed to this plan. Now, only 53% think it’s a good idea.

On the Israeli side, support for the two-state solution is not down since the beginning of Obama’s term, but the demographics spell doom. A very high 69% of Israelis over the age of 50 want a two-solution. That drops to 63% among those 30-49, and to an even lower 42% among those 18-29. Furthermore, 25% of Israeli youth want to annex the West Bank territories without granting Palestinians full rights, if (according to the poll question) that was necessary to keep Israel a Jewish and democratic state.

The only good news is that both a majority of Palestinians and a majority of Israelis are still in favor of a two-state solution: 52% of Palestinians want it and 62% of Israelis want it. The problem is that this is a very broadbrush question.

The percentage of Palestinians who want an independent state alongside an Israel that is a state for the “Jewish people” and want Palestine as the state for the “Palestinian” people is way down. At the beginning of Obama’s term, 53% of Palestinians agreed to that. Now? Only 40% of Palestinians do. This is a problem for any peace settlement considering that 58% of Israelis want Israel to remain a specifically Jewish democracy.

It doesn’t help that neither side trusts the other: 61% of Palestinians think that Israelis’ real intention is to create a state “to cover all the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean sea and its Arab citizens”; 67% of Israelis think that the peace process problems are beyond Israel’s control (that is, on the Arab side)

Not surprisingly, Palestinians and Israelis alike have very little hope for peace. A full 62% of Palestinians think that peace is not possible at this time, while 54% of Israelis don’t believe that the two-state solution is possible.

Meanwhile, President Obama seems to have squandered any chance for helping out with peace talks. Back when Obama first took office, 57% of Palestinians wanted the United States to play a stronger role in the pace process; 41% thought Obama had improved the way the United States dealt with Middle East issues, against only 7% who thought that there had been a regression. A relatively optimistic 35% of Palestinians thought that Obama would increase the chances of peace, while just 12% thought it would reduce the chance.

All that hope is gone on the Palestinian side. Now, 93% of Palestinians were dissatisfied with the United States role in November’s Gaza conflict. Only 2% of Palestinians currently want the United States to act as mediator if peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis resumed. After Obama’s re-election, 50% thought that his victory would have a negative impact on peace negotiations, as opposed to the 10% who thought it would have a positive impact.

Obama, on the other hand, blew it with the Israelis pretty much right away. When he first entered office, 31% of Israelis thought he was pro-Israel, against 14% who thought he was pro-Palestinian. After he delivered his Cairo speech in 2009, six months into his presidency, 51% of Israelis thought that Obama was pro-Palestinian, while just 4% believed he was more pro-Israeli. By the time of the 2012 American presidential election, Israeli Jews favored Republican Mitt Romney over Obama by almost a 3:1 margin.

Today, Obama’s numbers in Israel are still pretty low: 36% of Israelis think Obama is pro-Palestinian, which 10pt lower than the 26% who think he is pro-Israeli. Israelis are also doubtful that Obama in his second term can help out with the peace process. Just 11% of Israelis believe that Obama can be helpful in bringing about peace over the next four years.

The ugly truth is that the Palestinians and Israelis are arguably further apart on peace now than they have been at any point in the past 20 years. Both sides want a settlement, but they can’t see how to achieve it and they don’t trust each other. The only aspect they really agree upon at all is that President Obama will not be helpful in establishing peace. Whether as a symptom or as a partial cause of the impasse, Obama has succeeded only in alienating himself from both Palestinians and Israelis.

• Comments on this article will be on for 24 hours and may be turned off overnight

Harry J Enten

President Obama is about to lose the PR battle on the sequester | Harry J Enten

The president’s numbers on the sequester are falling. He risks losing his edge if he doesn’t change tactics soon

The sequester talks drone on while congressional Republicans and President Obama cannot reach an agreement to stop it. Obama hopes that the public will force congress’s hand by dint of their unpopularity, but Republicans seem content to muddle the field enough so that neither side holds a public relations edge. I think the Republicans are right, even though the president may have the power to turn it around.

More Americans trust Obama on the sequester than Republicans, but the margin between the two seems to be down. Obama held a 26pt lead over congressional Republicans in December per Pew Research, which dropped to 18pt in mid-February and 13pt by the end of the month. After the sequester took effect on 1 March, CBS, which has generally found better numbers for Obama than other pollsters, had the margin down to 5pt.

Interestingly, a lot of this movement isn’t because more people are blaming Obama alone – more people are blaming both parties equally. The percentage of Americans blaming Obama was at its lowest 27%, and now rests at 33%. The percentage blaming just the Republicans has dropped from 53% in December to just 38% in March. The percentage blaming both sides or neither equally has risen from 20% in December to 29% now.

We see this split reflected in the approval ratings for Congress and the president. Congress continues to have approval ratings matched only by those for Lance Armstrong. The president’s approval ratings have, however, slid down from their post-election high; they’re now below 50% in the Real Clear Politics average, the first time since his re-election.

What’s happening?

First, it was unlikely that Americans would continue to blame just Congress. The president is, rightly or wrongly, going to get some flak when things go wrong. That’s why the president’s party loses when the economy is bad and wins when it’s good, even though the president really doesn’t have too much control over the economy.

Second, since congress is still massively unpopular, we can’t expect the public to only blame Obama. If you ask someone whether you can blame a snow storm on cold weather or the precipitation, chances are they will blame both.

Third, Americans are actually split between Obama’s and the Republicans’ general positions. Obama wants a “balanced” approach of new tax revenue and spending cuts. Republicans just want to cut taxes. Most polls indicate that Americans do want a compromised approached, but few of these polls break down what “balanced” means, exactly. The only poll to do so is a recent Fox News poll.

The percentage of Americans who want an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts is 36%, which is statistically equal to the 33% who only want cuts. The true middle ground are the 19% who want mostly spending cuts with a small number of tax increases.

So how does President Obama get the public back on his side? He needs to make this debate about specifics. When Pew tested different policies on reducing the deficit, people only agreed on cuts to foreign aid. Americans wanted to increase or keep funding the same for all other specific policy programs or proposals.

The president could reach this goal in two ways. He could try something dramatic, like a government shutdown, as suggested by my friend Nate Cohn. This tactic would force the public to look very closely at the specifics.

The president could also try to use the bully pulpit. As the president knows, he cannot magically persuade the public to agree with his positions. Studies do show, however, that the president can highlight positions that are already popular with the public, and thus force the public’s will upon Congress.

Get that? Broad generalities on cutting spending do very well with the public. Specific ones do poorly. Every time the president talks about generalities like a “balanced” budget, he’s playing on turf far more favorable to Republicans.

You might say though that the president is still “playing to tie”. The truth, though, is that presidential approval seems to be more predictive of midterm elections outcomes than congressional approval. If the president’s approval rating drops, then congressional Democrats will end up paying the price. We saw this in 2010 midterm blowout: the public actually blamed Republicans more than Democrats, but the president’s approval rating was low and Republican winners stormed Congress.

Now, this isn’t to say that using specifics will immediately turn the fight in favor of Obama and the Democrats. I will say, though, that the president’s current strategy isn’t working. Even if congressional Republicans aren’t “winning”, they will be more than happy to see the president “not “winning”.

Harry J Enten

Seniors lean Republican, young people more Democratic, right? Not so much | Harry J Enten

The stereotype of aged conservatives and liberal youth is wrong. It’s the president you grow up with who affects your voting for life

Republicans have a problem with young people 18-29. Democrats have a problem with seniors over 65. The story taken from this dichotomy is popular and simple enough: Republicans are the party of crusty old folks who are going to die, and Democrats are the party of the youth, who will lead a continued resurgence into office.

I’m not so sure about this story; the generational math is different than you might think.

One of my favorite bits of trivia points to the bigger picture: “From which age group did Bill Clinton win the highest percentage of votes in 1992?”

Seniors.

Indeed, if you came of age during the Franklin D Roosevelt administration, you are more Democratic than the nation as a whole. If you could first vote during the administrations of Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush, you’re more Republican. Turn 18 while George W Bush or Barack Obama held the White House and, again, you’re more Democratic. That’s right: the 18-29 year-olds of today are about as Democratic as their oldest grandparents and great-grandparents.

These voting patterns tend to stay relatively consistent within a group, even as people age. Contrary to popular belief, people don’t become any more conservative with every birthday, and college doesn’t necessarily make people more liberal.

There are two key questions, then: who’s next to die off, and what ideology will their successors have?

Most people part of the Eisenhower/Truman-generation, who vote more Republican than the nation at large, are likely to be around through the next three elections; estimates suggest life expectancies of about 9-16 years for people aged 80 to 70. Voters of the very Democratic Roosevelt-generation have life expectancies of less than eight years, being at least 85. Thus, the generations most likely to expire next are those who have historically been more Democratic.

Many might think that these Roosevelt-generation voters are going to be replaced by more liberal Obama-era voters, but polling casts that theory into doubt. Just because today’s college students are liberal doesn’t mean tomorrow’s will lean left, too.

UCLA has been polling freshman college students for over 40 years on their political beliefs, and has found that young people are hardly automatic Democrats.

On the eve of the 2008 election (pdf), the most college freshmen in 35 years – 30.3% of men and 37.4% of women – described themselves as liberal or left. Combined, that matches the 33% percentage of 18-29 year-olds who described themselves as liberals in 2012. In other words, the new college students of 2008 were representative of a new generation of liberals.

On the eve of the 2012 election, the percentages of liberals among first-year college men and women dropped by 4pt and 5pt, to 26.4% and 32.4%, respectively. The liberal percentage is about 10pt higher than it was during the Reagan administration (pdf), but it’s a major liberal decline – nearly on par with what occurred between the 1976 and 1980 elections.

New college students are liberal – just not as liberal as freshmen were four years ago. This new class is about as liberal as young people were early in the Carter and Clinton administrations. People who turned 18 during the Carter administration ended up being somewhat more Republican than average; those who came of age during Clinton’s were somewhat more Democratic. How today’s college freshmen will vote likely depends on the state of the economy over the next four years.

Are the new college freshmen just a blip in a sea of student liberalism?

The polling says “probably not”. Before the election, American University/GfK polled high school (13-17 year-olds) and college students. The margin between Obama and Mitt Romney for high school students was 21pt less than among all college students. (Note: there’s no discernible difference between the voting patterns of 18-29 year-olds with at least some college education and those without.)

The huge fall isn’t exactly surprising. The Roosevelt generation is liberal because people became politically aware when Roosevelt was viewed as a success. The Gipper generation is conservative for the same reason with regard to Reagan. Conversely, the younger Bush is mostly viewed as a failure, and as such, most young people revolted.

Obama’s presidency, meanwhile, is only seen as a moderate success – as illustrated by a rather close re-election margin in the popular vote. Given past history, it’s expected to be seen as somewhere between good and average, as far as presidencies go. We would expect, therefore, that people who come of age during this presidency to be about as Democratic as the nation, or slightly more so.

And that’s exactly what seems to be happening.

Indeed, the generation of the next few years isn’t likely to be either conservative or overwhelmingly liberal; it’s probably going to be moderate. The UCLA survey found that the fastest growing group are people who describe themselves as “middle of the road”. On social issues, like gay marriage, they lean lean to left; on fiscal issues, like healthcare, they lean more to the right than the majority of current 18-29 year-olds.

Overall, I doubt we’re looking at a pipeline of new liberals. Far more than most young voters today, the next generation is likely to be up for grabs.

Harry J Enten

Democrats see a bright future in Obama’s approval ratings | Harry J Enten

Judging by the historic pitfalls for second-term presidents – war, failing economy, scandal – Obama’s prospects look good

President Obama makes Tuesday’s state of the union address with a very respectable approval rating just north of 50% – though there’s chatter already that it won’t last. HuffPollster shows signs of a less smoothing trend and Real Clear Politics has an average that indicates his approval has dropped a few points since its post-election high in late December.

But I would wager that his approval rating will stabilize – and perhaps even climb in the months and years to come. Why would I say such a thing? The factors that have derailed second-term presidents since the second world war – the economy, scandals, and wars – seem unlikely to trip up Obama.

The economy

Presidents George W Bush and Eisenhower were done in by bad economies. The recession of 1958 shaved 15pt off Eisenhower’s approval rating, from 70% to 55%, by the time that year’s midterm elections rolled around. The first signs of the 2008 recession (along with growing opposition to the Iraq war) knocked Bush’s approval from the low- to mid-40s into the mid-30s. Both presidents saw their parties lose more than 30 seats in the House and over 6 seats in the Senate during their second midterm elections. Two years after those midterms, the opposition party took back the White House.

In contrast, Obama’s economy is expected to pick up steam. His biggest problem is that the current rate of growth isn’t historically strong; and the time has passed when he could pin economic distress on the Bush administration. Many economic models predicted an incumbent victory in 2012, but also said that if his predecessor had been Democratic and had seen a similarly slow economy, Obama would have been defeated.

Fortunately for Obama, most forecasters also see the GDP hitting near 3% and the unemployment rate dropping to 7% in the next few years.

Scandals

Presidents Clinton, Nixon, and Reagan were able to keep the economy going, but ran into scandals that marred their ratings. For each president, respectively, there was Monica Lewinsky, Watergate, and Iran-Contra. Clinton’s favorables fell by 10pt into the upper-40s to low-50s, a drop that had immediate consequences for the Democrats. His lower approval damaged 2000 nominee Al Gore, who, by most accounts, should have won with the strong economy; voter choices were more closely linked to Clinton’s “mixed favorables” than his strong approvals.

Unlike Clinton, Nixon’s approvals plunged over the course of 1973, from the 60s in January to the 20s by October. Watergate cost his party nearly 50 seats in the House, another four in the Senate, and prevented his successor Gerald Ford from getting his approvals out of the 40s for the rest of his term; Ford then lost to Jimmy Carter by 2pt in 1976.

Thanks to the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan saw his 60% approval in late 1986 fall into the mid-40s in 1987, before it stabilized in the low-50s by the end of that year. He did manage to maintain net favorables of about +10pt or better as the 1988 election approached, which helped push Vice-President George HW Bush to victory by 8pt.

Obama’s administration has been squeaky clean by historical standards. In fact, he broke the record for (lack of) any scandal in the modern era, according to Brendan Nyhan’s definition. The scandals that have occurred were the secret service prostitution ignominy in Colombia, the Solyndra failure, and, as Republicans have tried to define it, the attack in Benghazi. But President Obama hasn’t really been linked in a personal way to any of these; overall, he enjoys a squeaky-clean record to take into his second term.

War

Presidents Truman and Johnson fell into the war trap and squandered their chances to transform strong economies into high approval ratings. Truman saw his approval ratings plummet from the mid-50s to the mid-20s thanks to the Korean war, while LBJ’s ratings slipped from the high-60s to the low-40s because of Vietnam. These drops corresponded with more than 25 lost seats in the House and over three lost seats in the Senate at the midterms. Neither president ever recovered, and both their parties subsequently lost the White House.

Obama has avoided major military fatalities in his first term. He’s mostly closed out the occupation in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan seems to finally be winding down. Looking ahead, there isn’t any obvious prospect of another major military engagement. That’s not only a good thing for our men and women serving overseas, but it’s a good thing for Obama’s standing – and his party’s chances in the next few elections.

Conclusion

So what’s the second-term outlook for President Obama?

He seems well-prepared to sidestep the pitfalls that presidents usually encounter during their second terms. If he can avoid them, it should keep his positive rating above his negative. His relatively high approval could also keep Democratic midterm losses to a minimum and potentially help the next Democratic presidential nominee, who could use Obama’s strong record as a platform.

There are certainly no guarantees when it comes to politics, but by historical standards, Obama and his party are in a good position for the next four years.

Harry J Enten

How the fate of gun control is tied to presidential popularity | Harry J Enten

Polling shows that Obama’s approval rating is closely correlated with opinion on gun control. That suggests trouble ahead

Want to know how people feel about President Obama’s gun control plan?

Simply ask whether they approve or disapprove of how the president and his administration are doing their job. The two questions are nearly perfectly linked, and that could have major consequences for the future of gun control legislation.

The latest ABC/Washington Post polls prove the strong relationship. Many individual gun proposals are highly popular. In fact, seven tested gun measures, including background checks and bans on assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, have majority support ranging from 51% to 88%.

When you attach Obama’s name by calling it “Barack Obama’s proposals”, the Post discovered that 53% of Americans favor the proposals – nearly identical to Obama’s approval rating of 55% in a separate Post poll last week. Gallup found the same, with 53% in favor of Obama’s gun control plan, compared to his monthly approval rating of 52%.

Drill down to specific demographics and the link between approval of the gun plan and approval of Obama’s administration becomes even clearer. Neither the Post nor Gallup asked about the plan or Obama’s approval in the same poll. The Post did, however, enquire about Joe Biden’s favorability. Biden’s net favorable of +11 percentage points is very close to Obama’s net approval rating of +14pt from the prior poll, meaning that the two are closely correlated.

[Note: we test Biden because we are examining small sub-samples and the sampling error on margins (for example, for favorable minus unfavorable) of less than 350 people is about 10pt or greater, which makes comparing different poll sub-samples difficult. By restricting ourselves to the same sample of people, as we can with Biden's favorables and the gun package, we can compare the answers among the exact same group of respondents.]

Among the 24 subgroups tested, the correlation between a subgroup’s opinion towards Joe Biden and Obama’s gun plan is 0.98 – nearly perfect. Moreoever, 95% of the differences in subgroup net favorables on Obama’s gun plan are predicted by their respective opinions of Biden. You rarely see two variables this closely linked. That’s even higher than the strong explanatory power that evangelical voting had in forecasting the Republican primary.

The median difference between a group’s opinion towards Biden versus Obama’s gun package is 2pt, which matches the 1pt difference between favorability for Biden and Obama’s gun control package overall. That’s ridiculously small. It means that if a respondent liked Biden, who substitutes for the administration, then the person liked the gun plan. Among independent voters, Biden’s net favorable is +5pt, and the net favorable impression of Obama’s plan is +7pt. Republican responders register -51pt net favorables for both. Among region, the median difference is only 3pt. Biden, for example, had a net favorable of +12pt in the south, while Obama’s gun plan had a favorable of +10pt. In the battleground of the midwest, Biden stood at +4pt and Obama’s gun plan was at +5pt net favorable.

So much for the correlation, but what does it mean for the future of gun control legislation?

In short, it means the gun control debate is likely heading in the direction of healthcare. In that political fight, as with this one, individual proposals polled well, but attaching Obama’s name to a proposal polarized opinion.

The key difference this time is that the net approval for Obama and his administration is about 14pt higher than it was when the healthcare bill passed in March 2010. That’s at least part of the reason why Obama’s gun safety proposals are polling much higher than his healthcare reform bill did three years ago.

This is also the main explanation for why President Obama’s gun plan is doing fairly well among independents and southerners. Obama lost both groups in the 2012 election, yet his post-election bounce has temporarily endeared him to them.

The chances are that he can’t maintain this surge in popularity, as most second-term bounces don’t last as long as the first-term ones. Obama will likely maintain a positive net approval overall, but not among certain subgroups. If his subgroup approval eventually matches his election margins, then he’ll start to show negative numbers among independents and southerners.

The question, then, is whether the high correlation between support for Obama’s administration and its gun policy signals that support for gun control is also poised to drop. It makes sense that it would. I’d also anticipate that this drop will be among the same subgroups as for Obama’s overall approval. That’ll mean that the current support for the gun plan among independents and southerners goes up in smoke.

Many House representatives up for re-election in 2014 are likely aware of the relationship between Obama’s gun proposals and his approval. Right now, that’s not an issue, but a fall in Obama’s approval would make this high correlation a problem. I don’t believe that legislators from areas where Obama’s approval is negative would want to be associated with a bill whose popularity is tied directly to presidential ratings. I’m talking about senators from red states who are committed to opposition, or waffling, on gun control – like Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and, to a lesser extent, Kay Hagan.

So, we shouldn’t be surprised by a decline in support for Obama’s gun control package, nor by more obfuscation from vulnerable Democrats, who want to tread very carefully on guns. This doesn’t mean any gun package is over before it’s begun. Universal background checks, which are supported by about 90% of the public, seem to be picking up some steam.

But gun control legislation, on the whole, will be difficult to pass – and not just on the face of the proposals, but because red state legislators facing re-election simply won’t want to be associated a bill so closely tied to the popularity of President Obama.

Harry J Enten

How Senate Democrats, not just House Republicans, will block gun control | Harry J Enten

A filibuster-proof majority in Senate is already a stretch, but red state Democrats up for re-election may make it unreachable

Vice-President Biden’s group will make recommendations to President Obama this week on gun control. Majorities of Americans support numerous new gun restrictions, yet I’m pessimistic that anything will get through Congress. Why?

You might expect me to cite the Republican-controlled House, but the chances that the Democratic-controlled Senate will pass anything are not much better.

The Democrats need 60 votes to achieve “cloture” or avoid a filibuster, and that seems near-impossible. Assuming all 55 Democrats vote for a piece of gun control legislation, another five Republicans must join the coalition. I can only think of four Republicans who are gettable.

Mark Kirk, from blue state Illinois, has a lifetime F-rating from the NRA and has voiced support for an assault weapons ban. Susan Collins, from Obama-voting Maine, and Dan Coats of Indiana have each received a C+ from the NRA, and worse grades from the Gun Owners of America. Finally, John McCain of Arizona only has a B+ from the NRA and a C- from the Gun Owners.

These four Republicans, plus all the Democrats, equal only 59, which, of course, isn’t 60. Every other Republican has at least an A from either the NRA or the Gun Owners. There would have to be a major change of heart from at least one Republican in order to avoid a filibuster or make cloture.

But even if you got that magical one Republican, the openness to discuss gun control from West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, isn’t likely to be shared by six red state Democrats who are set to run for re-election in 2014.

The reason is that regardless of how Americans view gun control right now, research indicates that they are likely to be at least somewhat affected by cues from their party leaders. This is especially the case if the party is out of power, as the Republicans currently are. You saw this during healthcare reform debate of 2009 when most Americans were in favor of Obamacare at first, then turned against it once it became a partisan issue and Republican leaders resisted the reforms. Americans then opposed the new law even as they still supported most of the policies contained within it. A similar outcome is possible this time, as Republicans leaders have not indicated much of any movement on gun control.

Pew Research found that Americans who prioritize gun rights over gun control, as well as gun owners, are more likely to say that the Republican party does a better job of reflecting their views on gun control, by margins of 44 percentage points and 22pt, respectively. Americans against gun control are more likely to be politically active than their pro-control counterparts: they are 17pt more likely to to contribute money, contact a public official, sign a petition, or express an opinion on a social network. I can’t imagine a senator from a red state, especially one in which there are more guns per household than the national average, wanting to go up against a barrage from pro-gun forces.

That’s why Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota all have A ratings from the NRA. They all come from states ranked third or fourth in gun ownership – at least 57% of households have a gun in the home. Baucus voted against a renewal of the assault weapons ban in 2004; Begich said he’d vote against it even after Newtown; and Johnson has seen his NRA grade go from a C+ in 2003 to an A, with an NRA endorsement, during his 2008 re-election fight.

The electoral prospects for each man adds to the unlikelihood that any will cast a vote in favor of serious gun control legislation. According to Public Policy Polling (PPP), Baucus has a net approval rating of -3pt and leads a generic Republican candidate by only 3pt. Begich won election 2008 by only 1pt and is rated as “vulnerable” by the Cook Political Report, which also pegs Johnson as the incumbent most likely to lose in 2014.

Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, too, is likely a goner on serious gun control legislation, despite a C from the NRA. She voted against renewing the assault weapons ban in 2004, and pretty much every other gun control measure of the past eight years. She won re-election in 2008 by six points – against a relatively weak opponent and in a state that voted for Romney by 17pt. She is “at risk” per the Cook Political Report. In Louisiana, 44% of households have a gun, 14th most in the nation.

Only Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas could go in favor of gun control. Hagan has an F from NRA, though she voted in favor in loosening regulations across state lines and calls herself a strong supporter of the second amendment. Pryor has a C-. He also voted to renew the assault weapons ban in 2004, and has wavered only occasionally since.

Again, the issue is that the Cook Political Report puts both of them at risk, come election season. Hagan’s net approval rating of -2 per PPP means she can’t afford to lose many voters, even if her state ranks only 23rd in the nation for households with guns, at 41%.

Pryor might be in an even worse spot. In 2012, Obama lost Arkansas by 24pt, and Democrats lost their control of the state legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. Democrats had three of the state’s four representatives in Congress during Pryor’s last election, but don’t have a single one now. He simply doesn’t need enemies in a state where 55% of households have a gun – sixth most in the nation.

So, I don’t think you can count on any red state Senate Democrat who is running in 2014. Taking away these six leaves the pro-control caucus with 53 votes in the Senate, at most – even with the four Republicans. Counting Hagan and Pryor only leaves the pro-control caucus with 55 votes.

Let’s also be real here. Joe Manchin has only said that “everything should be on the table”. He hasn’t actually committed to anything concrete. Neither have Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, nor Jon Tester of Montana – all red state Democratic senators given A-ratings by the NRA – committed to anything specific.

That’s why the smart analysis says that the chances of Congress passing serious gun control legislation decrease by the day. The House is a foregone conclusion. When all these numbers start getting added together, I’m not even sure you can find a simple majority of senators to agree on tougher gun control. A filibuster-proof majority, meanwhile, is likely impossible.

Harry J Enten

How far can President Obama go with an executive order on gun control? | Harry J Enten

Since any gun safety law would face opposition in a Republican-controlled Congress, the president must weigh public opinion

Vice-President Joe Biden’s gun panel is set to report to President Barack Obama next Tuesday. The common view is that any legislation that is at all controversial would have a difficult time getting passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Now, Biden has raised the possibility of getting gun control measures by executive order.

My advice for the president as someone who reads polls: go for it, if it’s what you want to do. There is much discussion that acting by executive order would be seen as a “totalitarian” action and provoke a backlash. Nonsense, so long as the order is supporting a measure the public favors.

Consider that in June 2012 Obama took executive action on a “mini-Dream Act” that provided a path to avoid deportation for some undocumented immigrants who came to the country before the age of 16, had a high school education (or were attending school) or had served in the military, and had no criminal background. He did so administratively because he couldn’t get a law passed by Congress.

There was heavy public support before the order was signed. Back in late 2010, Gallup found that 54% of Americans would vote for a bill that would allow for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country in their youth to have a pathway to citizenship. A late 2011, a Fox Poll put support for such a law at 63%.

After Obama made the new policy instruction, the public held to its position. Five polls taken between the June announcement and now found that anywhere from 54% to 64% of Americans still believe that young undocumented immigrants should not be sent packing. This includes three questions that specifically mentioned Obama’s name, and that his administration had “announced” the policy change (in other words, the measure specifically didn’t pass through Congress).

You might argue that the gun debate is different because the powerful gun rights lobby would be able to convince the public otherwise. The flaw in that statement is that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is just not that popular these days: only 42% of Americans have a favorable view of the NRA per Public Policy Polling, which is down from 48% just a few weeks ago.

The president is also dealing with a public that’s seen its support for gun control climb higher since the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I count five pollsters (ABC/Washington Post, CBS News, Gallup, CNN/ORC, and YouGov) that asked a question about whether gun control should be stricter before and after Newtown. Before the massacre, the weaker “stay the same” position on gun control beat the stricter position by an average of 3.8 percentage points. Afterward, stricter led by 11.4pt – a 15.2pt turn-around.

Past history suggests that the president can’t wait around until he gets a Congress that is willing to cooperate. After the Columbine shooting in 1999, Americans’ support for stricter gun laws jumped by 5-10pt. After a year or two, the spike had abated and appetite for stricter gun laws continued its slow decline to the minority position it held just before Newtown.

So what policies should the president consider, as long as he thinks courts will uphold his orders?

• He should end the “gun show loophole” to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.

• Obama should seek to ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.

• He should seek ways to ensure that people with poor mental health records do not get a gun: CNN/ORC found that 92% Americans did not want Americans with mental health problems to be in possession of a gun; PPP took it one step farther and discovered that 63% of Americans want people to be required to take a health exam before buying a gun.

• Obama should obviously prevent felons convicted of a violent crime from owning a gun: 94% and 92% approve of that measure, per PPP and CNN/ORC respectively.

• He should try to make sure that guns, even if not recently purchased, would be registered with a government or law enforcement agency: CNN/ORC finds 78% agree with that policy.

• Obama should look to ban outright bullets that explode or are designed to break through a bullet-proof vest: Pew found that 56% favor this position.

• Obama should try to make it more difficult to buy ammunition and/or guns over the internet: 69% of Americans wanted to ban these practices, according to PPP.

You’ll note I don’t include an assault weapons ban. The reason is that pollsters are split: Gallup and Pew signal that a majority is opposed to banning assault or semi-automatic weapons, while ABC/Washington Post, CNN/ORC, PPP, and YouGov show the reverse. It seems to me that, politically speaking, an executive order would be the wrong course on an issue that apparently splits the country down the middle.

Further, the president would almost certainly be better-off passing any law through Congress. It not only looks better, but it lessens the chance of any political blowback I may be underestimating. The danger, of course, is that if a bill fails to get through Congress, it would look like awfully sour grapes then to obtain gun control measures through executive orders. It’s quite possible that the public would see that as executive over-reach.

Also, I am by no means a constitutional scholar: while there are plenty of people arguing in favor of executive action, others argue that some of these proposals, if put into action by executive order, would be unconstitutional and would be ruled so.

That said, if the president is sensitive to public opinion and reading the polls, there are a number of gun control policies he can obtain by executive order without fear of a backlash. But the lesson of Columbine is that he has a narrow window of opportunity, in the wake of Newtown, in which to act.

Harry J Enten

Margin of Σrror

Category Archives: Obama administration

Has the Millennial generation ‘overwhelmed’ the electorate? | Harry J Enten

No Patriot Act II: Americans choose civil liberties over security laws | Harry J Enten

Why the bully pulpit is Obama’s only hope for gun control | Harry J Enten

Obama talks peace, but Palestinians and Israelis more sceptical than ever | Harry J Enten

President Obama is about to lose the PR battle on the sequester | Harry J Enten

Seniors lean Republican, young people more Democratic, right? Not so much | Harry J Enten

Democrats see a bright future in Obama’s approval ratings | Harry J Enten

How the fate of gun control is tied to presidential popularity | Harry J Enten

How Senate Democrats, not just House Republicans, will block gun control | Harry J Enten

How far can President Obama go with an executive order on gun control? | Harry J Enten