Key Findings:

• Money in politics is not a distraction from the economy, it is the economy. For ordinary Americans, this is not an either/or proposition; it is not a question of addressing money in politics at the expense of talking about pocketbook problems. Voters believe that Washington is so corrupted by big banks, big donors, and corporate lob-byists that it no longer works for the middle class. A large majority (60 percent) says candidates ought to tackle money in politics in order to make government work for the middle class.

• As a result, voters from both parties, but particularly swing voters, feel strongly about reducing the influence of big money in politics. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of all voters, and majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, believe there should be common sense limits on the amount of money people can contribute to political campaigns. And a large majority (59 percent) is intensely committed to such limits. Voters do not believe that there are two equal sides to this debate; just a fifth (21 percent) of all voters say that limits on campaign contributions violate free speech.

• Voters will strongly support candidates – from both political parties – who seize this issue. Voters do not currently trust either party to tackle money in politics. All voters, and swing voters in particular, strongly support candidates who are willing to take on money in politics as a serious campaign issue.

Voters support reforms to limit big contributions

Voters support common sense reforms—enforceable regulations that would limit big money campaign contributions and encourage small donors instead. They also support laws to prevent top government officials and leaders from lobbying for foreign entities after leaving public service.

Voters strongly believe that Washington is corrupted by big banks, big donors, and corporate lobbyists. Given two possible solutions—either enforcing new rules to make Washington work for the middle class again or shrinking the size of government to mitigate the corruption—voters prefer the former. Twice as many voters (60 percent) agree with this statement over the alternative, that Washington is so corrupted that we should shrink the size of government (31 percent). Majorities of independents, unmarried women, and white non-college-educated voters believe we need new regulations more than we need to shrink government. This is an important result for progressives and reformers.

This survey finds strong and broad-based support for alternatives to the current system of big money politics. Voters are open-minded about what the goals of a new regime should look like—whether it should promote small donations or prohibit large ones. While not mutually exclusive, we tested two different frameworks—one that would rely on small donations and another that would prohibit large donations. There are only marginal overall differences between the two and widespread support for both. On our thermometer scale, favorable ratings outnumber unfavorable ratings by almost two-to-one for both plans. A plan to prohibit large donations but keep limited public funding has mean rating of 57.1 points, well above the neutral rating of 50. Independents and moderate voters are some of the strongest supporters, each giving this plan a mean rating just over 60. Voters also support a system that would rely on small contributions supplemented with limited public funding. Among all voters, this plan has a mean rating of 56.3, with strong support among independents (mean 59.8) and moderates (mean 60.4).

Voters are also ready to stop the revolving door between public service and lobbying. Two-thirds (66 percent) of all voters favor a bill, like the Foreign Lobbying Reform Act, which would prohibit the President, Vice President, members of Congress, and other top-level appointed officials from lobbying for any foreign government or corporation for ten years after leaving government service. A strong plurality (40 percent) says they favor this bill strongly.

This bill also has broad bipartisan support and support among key swing voters. A strong majority (71 percent) of Republicans support this bill. Importantly, independents support the bill more intensely than partisans of either party—72 percent of independents support this bill, and half do so strongly.

Money in politics is a ballot box issue

There is a significant opening for candidates to claim the mantle of money in politics reform and plenty of voters are willing to make it a ballot box issue. A significant majority (57 per-cent) say that reducing the influence of money in politics and special interest lobbyists is one of the most important factors in deciding which candidate to vote for. Key swing voters come down strongly on this issue. Two-thirds of independents (67 percent) say it is one of the most important issues and more than half of all independents (52 percent) strongly be-lieve it is one of the most important issues in selecting a candidate.

Neither party can afford to leave this issue on the table. Six in ten seniors report that this will be one of the most important issues in selecting a candidate and more than half (54 percent) say so strongly. A strong majority of white non-college-educated voters (61 percent) and 58 percent of those in the Rising American Electorate (unmarried women, young people, and minority voters) say this will be one of the most important issues at the ballot box.

And it is not something candidates should ignore. Voters are also willing to punish candi-dates who do not commit to reforming the current system. A majority of all voters (52 percent) and more than half of all independents (55 percent) say that they won’t vote for candidates who will not commit to reducing money in politics.

Opportunity for candidates on both sides

Neither party currently owns this issue of money in politics and voters are wary of politicians on both sides. While Democrats are viewed more favorably than Republicans on “cleaning up how we pay for elections,” for the most part, there is a big opening for both parties to claim this issue in a serious way. Asked which party would do a better job addressing money in politics, a substantial number volunteers “neither.” Politicians should pay attention when 17 percent say that neither party does a better job “cleaning up the mess in Washington and Wall Street.” High numbers also volunteer that neither party does a better job of “putting the needs of everyday Americans before special interests” (10 percent) or “cleaning up how we pay for elections” (12 percent). Including those who either refuse to answer the question or say they don’t know, nearly a third of all voters cannot indicate whether one party is better than the other on the issue of money in politics.

Among independents, the opening is substantial. Half of all independents either refuse to answer the question or volunteer that “neither” party is better at cleaning up how we pay for elections.

This presents a significant opportunity for candidates to fill the vacuum on a serious and popular issue. Democrats begin with an untapped advantage, as voters overwhelmingly believe that Democrats are better at “putting the needs of everyday Americans before special interests.” Almost half of all voters (47 percent) believe that Democrats are stronger on this issue and they lead Republicans by a healthy 14-point margin. There is a clear opening for willing Democrats to translate the support that they have in looking out for the needs of regular Americans into actual trust in cleaning up the mess in Washington.

The corrupting influence of money in politics

It is not surprising that voters are willing to cast ballots on this issue. Substantial majorities harbor very serious doubts about candidates who take money and subsequently pass laws favorable to their contributors. We tested a series of messages about candidates who cast votes that benefit oil companies, Wall Street banks, and the wealthiest taxpayers. While each of these messages tested well, performance slightly increased, specifically in intensity, when we added that these candidates had also received campaign contributions from the beneficiaries of those votes. This is particularly potent among key swing voting blocs, including seniors, white non-college-educated voters, and independents and weak partisans.

A strong majority of all voters (71 percent) say they have doubts about a candidate who gives tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthiest while raising taxes on middle class families.

This increases to 73 percent, with a 5-point jump in intensity, when we add that the candidate also received millions of dollars from Big Oil, Wall Street, and lobbyists.

This is particularly powerful among key voting blocs. The first message raises doubts among two-thirds of all seniors (67 percent). That increases to three-quarters (75 percent) when campaign contributors are included. More importantly, the intensity of this message among seniors increases 17 points (from 25 percent with very serious doubts to 42 percent with very serious doubts). Among white non-college-educated voters, overall message strength increases 7 points (from 70 to 77 percent) and intensity increases 10 points (from 32 percent very serious to 42 percent very serious). Among independents and weak partisans, overall message strength increases 7 points (from 69 to 76 percent) and intensity increases 3 points (from 35 to 38 percent).

Two-thirds of all voters (65 percent) are persuaded by a message that focuses on tax breaks for profitable oil companies.

Support for this message increases one point, and intense support for this message increases three points (from 31 percent to 34 percent), when we add that the candidate also took campaign contributions from oil executives and lobbyists.

Adding campaign contributions increases resonance among independents and weak partisans and white non-college-educated voters.

A strong majority of all voters (69 percent) are persuaded by a message that attacks a candidate who sided with Wall Street profits over struggling families with student loans.

Support for this message increases one point, and intense support for this message increases four points (from 26 percent to 30 percent), when we add that the candidate took campaign contributions from Wall Street CEOs.

Adding campaign contributions increases its resonance among key swing voters, especially seniors and women under age 50.

[1] This memo is based on a national survey of 1000 likely 2012 voters conducted April 28-May 1, 2012 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Democracy Corps and Public Campaign Action Fund. Unless other-wise noted, margin of error= +/- 3.1 percentage points at 95% confidence.

Democratic incumbents in the 23 most competitive seats appear poised to do very well in their races. Democratic incumbents have hit the critical 50 percent mark on both job approval and on the ballot.

The President is not quite back to where he was in the Obama-Republican districts, but he is now more than half way back.

Just 41 percent support the Ryan budget without any description. Amazingly, after hearing information about the budget and a debate on both sides, the congressional vote flips in favor of the Democrats.

The Republicans’ vote margin in the battleground congressional districts is unchanged and still falls far short of the margins they enjoyed in November 2010. At the outset, these Republican incumbents edge their generic Democratic opponents by a 6-point margin, 49 percent to 43 percent. They lose after voters hear the debate around the Ryan budget.

In the new post-reapportionment districts where we have been able to conduct the survey, Republican job approval trails the rest of the battleground.

Several key subgroups have turned against these Republicans including unmarried women, suburban voters, senior women, and moderates.

These are districts that Republicans collectively won by an 11-point margin just a year and a half ago—and as incumbents stake claim to unpopular positions on this newest Ryan budget, their already weakened position erodes further.

The more voters hear about the Republicans’ newest Ryan budget the more sharply they turn against the Ryan budget and these Republican incumbents. To be sure, Americans remain deeply concerned about government spending—and Republicans do get heard when they talk about how vulnerable our debt makes the country in the long term—but Americans are poised to punish those who would balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the middle class.

Key Findings:

• The President’s approval and vote against Romney has surged in the battleground. Obama is now tied (with a marginal 1-point advantage) with the presumptive GOP nominee. This compares favorably to the 7-point deficit he faced against Romney in these districts in December. Just 32 percent give the former governor a positive rating.

• Democrats are winning the image battle, up and down the ticket. While half of the voters in these districts register cool feelings toward the Republican Party and Republican Congress, the Democratic Party has enjoyed an 8-point bump in favorability since September 2011, and Democrats in Congress have seen a 7-point rise.

• Republican incumbents have not improved their vote position in the 33 districts where we have been tracking since March 2011– something you would expect from incumbents building support at home. In September, these incumbents were winning by a sizeable 14-point margin, 53-39. They now have just an 8-point lead, 49 to 41 percent, hovering just below the 50 percent threshold.

• Republican incumbents’ job approval rating is just 41 percent, and just 37 percent in the top tier of the most competitive 28 districts.

• Additionally, in the 14 districts we surveyed that reflect new post-redistricting lines, Re-publican incumbents fare worse than in the old lines. In these new districts, just a third (34 percent) say they approve of the job their Republican incumbent is doing (compared to 42 percent approval in old districts) and almost half (48 percent) say the more they hear from Republicans like their incumbent, the less they like (compared to 45 percent in the old districts).

• Voters reject the Republican position: majorities want to raise taxes on the wealthy and reject the Republican no-tax pledge.

• The Ryan budget is in trouble. Just 41 percent support it in these Republican districts with no description other than the fact that it cuts spending. When described, including using Ryan’s own language, support collapses to 34 percent.

• Many of the proposals in this newest Ryan budget are deeply unpopular, leaving Republicans vulnerable to attack, particularly on taxes, Medicaid, Medicare, cuts to anti-poverty programs, and health care.

• Republicans do well when they describe their budget as a plan to “save Medicare,” but the bulk of their proposals misinterpret voters’ enthusiasm for fiscal restraint. While the Republican plan lays out deficit reduction as an end in and of itself, voters see deficit reduction as a means to protect the programs they rely on and care about most. Any budget that eliminates these programs in order to tackle the debt has deeply misunderstood voters’ priorities.

• The result is that after voters hear a neutral description of the budget and a balanced debate between Republican arguments for the budget and Democratic attacks against it, the vote shifts a net 9 points, from a six-point vote margin for Republicans to a three-point advantage for Democrats. Importantly, those who shift include key blocs of voters that will be essential to the outcomes in these districts in November.

• Voters in these districts have polarized along gender lines, with Democrats gaining ground among women, particularly unmarried women, while Republicans pick up support among men. This movement is notable in light of the recent Republican focus on contraception.

• To be sure, Democrats still have a lot of work to do to take a majority of these seats next November. While Democrats have made important gains among some base groups such as unmarried women, they still have ground to make up among others in the Rising American Electorate, specifically young people and minority voters. While young voters are proving to be a challenge nationally, there is plenty of evidence that minority voters are consolidating. So, that could shift at some point.

• While unmarried women deliver strong margins for Democrats, they are also less enthu-siastic about turning out to vote. If these voters choose to stay at home, that could be the difference between narrow wins and narrow losses in competitive elections.[2]

Democrats gain image advantage and congressional Republicans fail to clear critical 50 percent mark

In the Republican districts we have been tracking since last March, voters are warming to the Democrats, without any appreciable gains for the Republicans – giving the Democrats a growing image advantage in these Republican districts. These incumbents continue to underperform 2010 and they are losing support with key voting blocs, including women (particularly unmarried women, independent women, and older women), white non-college-educated voters, and moderates.

Democrats are well-positioned in these competitive Democratic districts. This is not definitive because 10 are incumbents, 5 are open, and 8 are new seats. But, in those 10 Democratic seats, incumbents are now winning by 9 points, double the margin by which they won in 2010. Across all of the Democratic seats, the potential vote reaches 61 percent, 5 points above what Republi-cans have in their seats.

In addition, these Democratic incumbents have a 50 percent approval rating, 9 points above Re-publicans in their seats, who have a 41 percent approval rating in their seats.

While Democrats and the President have improved in favorability measures since September, the Republican incumbents, Republican Party, and John Boehner continue to struggle in the Republican-held districts. John Boehner’s negative rating has increased by 12 points, now at 44 percent negative. Half of all voters in these districts now give the Republican Congress and the Republican Party negative ratings. Last year at this time, just a quarter of all voters in these districts gave their Republican incumbents a negative rating; that has climbed to a third with an identical third giving their incumbents a positive rating. This is not a strong place from which to start.

And it is apparent on the ballot. In the districts we have been tracking since last March, the named Republican incumbent now holds an 8-point advantage over the unnamed Democratic challenger. This is a significant decline since September (when the Republican incumbent had a 14-point advantage) and is unchanged since December.

This shift away from Republicans has been noticeable in suburban districts where incumbents enjoyed a 10-point advantage in September. In those districts, the Republican incumbent now leads by just 4 points. The same result is also clear in all of the Republican districts surveyed here—Democrats are now statistically tied with Republican incumbents in the suburbs. Overall, these Republicans are either losing ground or stagnating on important measures.

The vote is more polarized along gender lines, with Republicans improving among men (+8), while losing support among women (-4). Among unmarried women, Democrats have made sig-nificant improvements. In the districts we have been tracking since last March, Democrats en-joyed just a 4-point margin on Republican incumbents last December. That gap has now widened to 16 points, with the Democratic challenger leading 56 percent to 40 percent. Absent this margin, the battleground would look far different.

While Democrats have made up crucial ground with key groups since 2010, they still have a long way to go to take a majority of these seats. Among young voters however, Democrats have wit-nessed a sharp decline. Last March, Democrats had a 38-point advantage on Republican incumbents. That margin dropped to 15 points in September, down to 1 point in December, and the vote is now even (with the incumbent enjoying a 1-point advantage). Among minority voters, the Democrats’ margin has been cut in half since last March when the vote was 65-29 in favor of the Democratic challenger. The incumbent Republican now trails the Democratic challenger by just 18 points, 51 percent to 34 percent. Research elsewhere suggests there is good potential to consolidate the minority vote, which could produce later gains for the Democrats in the vote.

Obama surges in Battleground

President Obama has made significant gains among voters in these districts. His approval rating has improved significantly since the fall; in September just 39 percent said they approved of the President’s performance and a striking 56 percent disapproved. Less than 50 percent now disapprove of the President’s performance while a quarter now give the President their strong approval and his overall approval is at 46 percent. This change has been particularly pronounced among independents, among whom the President now enjoys a net approval (48 to 46 percent)—a significant difference since September when 60 percent of independent voters in these districts disapproved of the President.

This shift is reflected on the ballot. In September, Romney edged Obama by an 8-point margin, with the presumptive GOP nominee taking 50 percent of the vote. Romney’s advantage has completely eroded, with the vote now tied in these districts (with the President enjoying a marginal 1-point advantage).

Path to Prosperity?

Just 41 percent support the Ryan budget plan, described simply as “a budget for the next 10 years that cuts an additional 5.3 trillion dollars from the federal budget,” with 42 percent opposed. It is stunning that it gets only 41 percent at the outset when we only describe that it cuts money from the budget. It gets just a third of moderates, who make up more than a third of this electorate.

When the budget is described — using as much of Paul Ryan’s description as possible (see text box below) — support collapses to 34 percent, with just 16 percent strongly supporting the plan. The facts in the budget lose people almost immediately – dropping 7 points. Putting the spotlight on this budget is damning. A large majority of 56 percent oppose it, 44 percent strongly.

Indeed, more than half of all voters in these Republican districts say they want to vote for a candidate who will raise taxes on the wealthiest, compared to just 42 percent who say that there should be no tax increases. In the 14 new districts we surveyed, the result is even sharper—56 percent say they want to vote for a candidate who will ask the wealthiest to pay more in taxes compared to just 36 percent who say there should be no tax increases. In other words, this budget is backwards.

A debate about the budget erodes support even further. Presented with attacks on the specific cuts and Republican arguments in favor of this budget, the margin for Republican incumbents in these districts erodes from net 6-point advantage to a net 3-point deficit.

A Troubled Path to Prosperity

The Republicans’ greatest vulnerability centers on protecting the tax position of the wealthy. Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of voters said this caused them to doubt the Republican incumbent and more than a third said it raised very serious doubts. In regression analysis, this was also a strong driver of the vote, the shift in congressional vote, and which party is better on the econ-omy. This attack raised doubts almost across the board—including among white seniors (68 percent), white blue collar voters (66 percent), unmarried women (72 percent), independents (67 percent), and self-identified moderate voters (71 percent). This attack raises doubts even among Republican voters—including almost half (45 percent) of Romney voters—a potential weakness for the presumptive GOP nominee, who has supported the Ryan plan.

Republicans are also vulnerable on changes to Medicare. While this year’s budget includes an option for seniors to purchase traditional Medicare, many remain concerned about changes to Medicare’s delivery system. This raised the most serious doubts among self-identified moderate voters (76 percent), independents and weak partisans (69 percent), and voters in the rising American electorate—unmarried women, young people, and minority voters—of whom 69 percent said this raised serious doubts. It was also powerful among voters in rural areas (65 percent), and, critically, seniors, 68 percent of whom said this raised serious doubts.

This debate does not exist in a vacuum, and we tested the arguments Republicans are making in support of their budget plan. However, the Republican counter-argument on Medicare (that this plan saves Medicare for future generations and maintains guaranteed coverage options, is signif-icantly weaker in intensity. Just over a quarter (27 percent) say the Republican argument is very convincing compared to more than a third (34 percent) who say the Democrats’ attack against Ryan’s Medicare plan raises very serious doubts.

Republicans are also vulnerable on health care. Six in ten voters are concerned about the Repub-lican plan to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, charge women higher rates than men, and eliminate the option for adult children to remain on their parents’ insurance. This attack was particularly potent for young people (three-quarters of whom said this raised serious doubts about the Republican incumbent) and for unmarried women (69 percent of whom said this raised serious doubts about the Republican incumbent).

It is important to note that voters have begun to turn back on the President’s health care reform law and the Republicans’ once-strong point of attack against Obama and the Democrats has weakened considerably. Voters are now 9 points more supportive of the new health care reform law than they were in September and December. Additionally, the Republican attack against Obamacare now garners less than 50 percent support.

Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) are concerned, and a third very concerned, about Ryan plan’s proposal for Medicaid—which would cut funding for the program almost in half (1.7 trillion dol-lars over the next ten years) including coverage for seniors, the disabled, and the poor. Voters most responsive to this include independents (62 percent), unmarried women (76 percent), white blue-collar voters (65 percent), voters in the Rising American Electorate (69 percent), and seniors (70 percent). This was the strongest attack among seniors, a large portion of whom rely on Medicaid funding for nursing home care.

Almost six-in-ten voters (56 percent) are concerned about funding cuts for programs that benefit low-income Americans; in regression analysis this was a significant driver of the vote and of vote shifts toward Democrats. This attack is particularly potent among young women (65 percent), and minority voters (76 percent). We should note that one of the strongest attacks is focused on how these programs hurt the most vulnerable, seniors, and the poor. It is possible that there is an emerging vulnerability just as the implications of the Ryan budget become clearer.

The Republican Plan

This should not suggest that voters are not open to Republicans’ efforts to reduce the deficit. And the Republican plan contains elements that many voters like. More than two-thirds also support the Ryan plan to increase spending on veterans programs. In regression analysis, however, this argument did not have a measurable impact on the vote.

The Republicans are strongest when they frame their deficit reduction plans in the future tense—arguing that debt and spending will leave the next generation at the mercy of China and burdened by debt and that their plan will save Medicare for future generations. This mirrors what voters consistently say worries them the most—that future generations will inherit a has-been country that is at the mercy of China and that cannot afford to provide its citizens with the programs they value most. The key problem here is clear—Americans support deficit reduction as a means to an end (the ability to provide Medicare and maintain a dynamic economy), not as an end in and of itself.

As a result, the Republican arguments are measurably weaker in both overall support, and crucially, in intensity. While all of the top tier attacks against the Ryan budget garnered a quarter or more intense support, only two of the Republican arguments, about veterans and energy, broke the 33 percent threshold on intensity. This is important to understanding how voters will respond to the coming debate about the budget and what it says about the nation’s priorities.

In the final vote, after hearing both Democratic attacks and Republican arguments in favor of the Ryan budget, support for Republican incumbents erodes.

Critically, the biggest shifts in the vote come among key voting blocs—including 16 percent of independents and liberal-to-moderate Republicans, those living in the South, minority voters, young people, white blue-collar voters, and unmarried women.

As this poll makes clear, the right messages could go a long way to closing this gap. Young people and minority voters shifted 13 points towards Democrats on the vote after being exposed to information about the Ryan plan and an even debate on both sides. This is not insignificant, particularly when many of the items in the budget stand to impact these voters in particular. In addition, Democrats stand to pick up moderate swing voters, independents, white non-college-educated voters, and the suburban voters (among whom Democrats have been making significant inroads over the last two years).

But Democrats need to start with a targeted and focused message—as our regression analysis showed, while voters responded well to the Republican message about veterans, that particular message had no impact on vote choices. It might not be worth the fight. By contrast, the Democratic attack focused on middle class taxes and the contrast between Democratic priorities and those outlined in the Ryan budget is a significant driver of the vote and cuts to the heart of voters’ biggest fears about this Republican Congress and the policies it privileges.

Democracy Corps Battleground 2012
• The 2012 Democracy Corps congressional battleground research focuses intensely on the Republican-Obama districts; 44 of the 56 Republican-held districts were won by Barack Obama in 2008 but claimed by Republicans in the 2010 midterm.
• This survey also included 23 of the most competitive Democratic-held districts. This combined Republican and Democratic model, which includes the 79 most crucial battleground districts, allows Democracy Corps to track public opinion in ways that will define, shape, and structure the public debate leading up to the election in November.
• Due to redistricting and methodological limitations, the makeup of our battleground is a combination of old and new district lines, using the new district lines where states have finalized new maps and where voter lists have been updated, and using the old district lines in states that either have not finalized new maps or where updated voter lists are not yet available. This hybrid model will evolve over the course of 2012, with the increasing ability to dial in new districts with each succeeding survey. In this current survey, 22 out of the 79 districts (28 percent) reflect new district lines.
• The Republican districts are divided into 2 tiers. Tier 1 includes the 28 most competitive districts; Tier 2 is composed of 28 secondary targets. Voters in Republican districts were given a complete survey, including incumbent traits and the Ryan budget debate; respondents in Democratic districts were asked base questions, including thermometers and votes.
• 33 of the 56 Republican-held districts in this survey were included in our March 2011 battleground survey – the first in the 2012 cycle – giving us the unique ability to track changes in public mood and opinion over time in these crucial swing districts. The trend data in this presentation represents these common districts.

[1] This memo is based on a unique survey of 1000 likely 2012 voters in 56 Republican-held battleground districts and 500 likely 2012 voters in 23 Democratic-held battleground districts conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Re-search for Democracy Corps and Women’s Voices. Women Vote Action Fund from March 29 – April 4, 2012. For questions asked in both Democratic and Republican districts, the margin of error = +/- 2.53% at 95% confidence. For questions asked just in Republican districts, the margin of error = +/- 3.1% at 95% confidence.

**Note: The time series data represents the common 33 districts originally selected in March 2011 and still in the battleground for this survey. All other data, where noted, represents either the 56 Republican-held districts, 23 Democratic-held districts, or the 79 total districts in the battleground.

[2] A separate, more detailed analysis of the contraception issue and the role of unmarried women in the battleground will be released tomorrow.

The Republicans’ more recent decision to reignite the culture war, boorish comments by a radio talk show host, and a budget proposal and debate that aims dead-square against the economic interests of many women in this country may have awakened the women’s vote. Women are starting to push back.

A recent Democracy Corps/Women’s Voices. Women Vote Action Fund survey in the Congressional battleground shows Democrats making significant gains among women in districts held by Republican incumbents. In the Republican-held districts where we have data from last year, Democrats picked up a net 10 points among women since December and now lead by 4 points. Among unmarried women, Democrats lead by 20 points in Republican held districts. In the entire battleground represented in this survey – including both Republican and Democratic districts – Democrats hold a 51 to 41 lead over Republicans among women.

The controversy over contraception plays an important role in this movement, but this is not entirely about reproductive and health care freedom. It is also about budget choices that undermine the economic prospects of women and a broader economic narrative that, in their eyes, leaves the middle class and middle-class women behind. Driving that broader narrative will amplify the Democratic margin among women.

For Democrats, there is still work to do. Progress among younger women—and younger voters overall—is less promising. While Democrats enjoy a healthy margin among unmarried women, these women do not show the same enthusiasm for voting in the 2012 election as married women. Historically, progressives have left many votes on the table because of their failure to turn out unmarried women. Evidence in this survey suggests this could happen again. Importantly, the Republican record on women can play a significant role not only in the margin, but also in energizing participation among traditionally under-represented groups.

But Democrats should keep their wits. Nearly all the gains have been produced by the Re-publican slide, not Democratic gains. Both parties and politicians are reviled. And most important, the voter has not seen personal economic gains and Democrats are no more trusted on handling the economy – the heart of this election. Some of the emerging Democratic messages are on target, but others miss what is really happening and pose considerable risks. The on-target messages set up an effective electoral choice around the middle class, but the off-target ones could give the Republican nominee a platform for challenging the President’s economic record.

Voters are still very negative about the economy and their lives and a large majority of 56 percent want a change of economic direction.

Voters report no improvement since last June in their job situation, experience with reduced wages and benefits, and health insurance coverage. Fewer have fallen behind on their mortgages, but this is a weak recovery at the personal level.

While Republicans have collapsed on nearly everything, 44 percent continue to trust them on the economy – unchanged over four surveys back to August. Just 40 percent trust the Democrats on the economy – about the same as the party’s average for 2011. The stubbornness of the Democrats’ disadvantage on the economy should be a lesson if they are really to prevail. These are still tough economic times.

Thus, it is critical that Democrats get to the right economic narrative that allows the President and progressives to identify with what is happening in the country, create an aspiration for the country and the middle class and pose a big choice with the Republican nominee.

Based on the State of the Union dial group research and this new national survey, we have to say the jury is out on the Democrats’ current economic narratives.

While we recorded very positive reactions to the President’s address, we also raised two reservations. Some of the economic sections did not push up the participants’ dials, and the increased confidence on handling the economy was less than for prior presidential speeches.[2]

In the State of the Union and subsequent speeches and interviews, the President has offered a number of distinct economic narratives. Two of these center on the middle class and do well. There are still some outstanding issues and they move different target audiences, but they are stronger than the current economic messages.

Two of the messages talk about progress: one centered on jobs and the other on the state of the country, “America is back.”

Middle Class Messages

The President makes his best case and strongest connection with voters when he advocates for an economy that structurally and actively works for a vital middle class. In this exercise, we tested two middle class frameworks; the first framed Obama’s economic program as one that would create middle class opportunity to achieve overall economic growth and the second framed Obama’s economic worldview as a “fair shot” for the middle class. The two messages produced similar overall results.

The middle class opportunity/economy message says:

More than half of all voters said they were more likely to support President Obama after hearing this message, with a third saying they were much more likely to support him. Critically, this was the strongest message among independents, with 43 percent of independ-ents saying this message made them more likely to support the President. Among independents, this message performed 5 points better than the second strongest Democratic message, almost 20 points higher than the weakest Democratic message. More importantly, this message was almost 20 points better than both Republican messages among independents.

This message was strong among other swing groups as well.  It was the strongest among white non-college voters (a population that has begun to move back toward supporting Democrats), white voters living in rural areas outside the deep South, in states with competitive battleground Senate elections, and in Congressional districts where Republicans picked up seats in 2010.

This was also the strongest message among Democratic base voters—voters in the Rising American Electorate (the young people, unmarried women, and minorities who helped bring Democrats to power in 2006 and 2008).  It was by far the strongest message among young voters (under age 30).  Overall, 62 percent of young voters said this message made them more likely to support the President and more than twice as many young people said this message made them much more likely to support President Obama than the second strongest message.

Our other middle class message, framed by fairness, also outperformed the other Democratic messages and the Republican counter-narratives on the economy.   This message says:

This message performed best in Congressional districts won by President Obama in 2008 and by a Republican in 2010 and among white seniors, who have become more open to Democratic candidates and messages over the last year.  It is likely that these voters will be a crucial swing population in November.

Progress on jobs

One of the President’s weakest operative frameworks highlights recent progress on job creation.  This message is potentially dangerous for Democrats.  During the State of the Union, we watched the dial lines go flat, with even Democrats peaking below 70 when the President highlighted recent jobs numbers.

In post-speech focus groups, respondents explained why this part of the speech did not resonate for them: first, and most importantly, they have not seen these jobs or felt the effects of job creation.  But they are also deeply concerned that these jobs are not permanent, that these new jobs belie much deeper structural problems in the economy, and that the new jobs that have been created are far inferior to the more stable, full-time, well-paying middle class jobs that have been lost over the last decade.  One Democratic-leaning participant said, “Just pouring sugar on the thing to create a few temporary jobs is going to get us no place.” Many told us that these statistics were meaningless because they are still just numbers to them. One Republican-leaning participant was incredulous: “I don’t see the kind of jobs numbers that I hear about from him.”

We tested a message that says:

This message underperformed the best Democratic message by nearly 10 points and was slightly less popular (by 2 points, within the margin of error) than the best Republican message.  More importantly, this message failed to capture key swing and essential base voters.  Less than 30 percent of independents (26 percent) said this message would make them more likely to support the President and just 10 percent said it would make them much more likely to support him.  Less than half of base voters in the Rising American Electorate said this message would make them more likely to support the President.

America is back

In the State of the Union address, President Obama began using a new framework, one that claims that “America is back” in the world.  During the speech, the President’s assertion that “America is back” produced an overall flat response across the dials with independents and Republicans responding negatively.

We tested a message that says:

Claiming that “America is back” is by far the weakest operative message and produces disastrous results.  It is weaker than even the weakest Republican message and is 10 points weaker in intensity than either Republican message.  Overall, less than a third of all voters said this message makes them more likely to support the President and a third said this message made them less likely to support Barack Obama.  Alarmingly, this message barely receives majority support among self-identified Democrats—and even less support among all other groups. Less than a quarter of independents say this message would make them more likely to support the President and no independents said that it would make them much more likely to support him.

Conclusions

The two progress narratives—progress on jobs and “America is back” create an opening for a Republican candidate to challenge the White House on its management of the recovery and whether America is back.  This is a difficult place to wage the election when two-thirds say America is in decline.

This survey sees a collapse of the Republican brand at almost all levels. Negatives associated with the Republican Party have not been this high since right after they lost the country in 2008. Their presumptive nominee flirts with a 50 percent negative rating and may now represent a big drag on the national party.

President Obama nears the 50 percent mark and is now just four points away from what he achieved in 2008. Democrats have newly consolidated the progressive voters of the Rising American Electorate who were responsible for Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. These voters—unmarried women, young voters, and minorities—dropped off in 2010 and lagged throughout 2011. They have returned in a big way for Democrats, led by a resurgence and re-engagement of unmarried women. Only young voters have not been re-consolidated, which is either a problem or an opportunity.

Seniors, who abandoned Democrats in 2010, have come back two surveys in a row and suburban swing voters watch the Republican primary debate with growing alienation from the Republican Party. The tax issue, a presumptive Republican advantage, has moved dramatically in favor of the Democrats.

These results may not simply be the result of a spot of good economic news and rough news cycles for Republican nominees, but the beginning of long-term structural changes that will characterize the 2012 election cycle.

Recent controversies over Planned Parenthood and contraception will not revive the Republican’s standing, indeed, the opposite may be true, as this survey shows voters disagree with them on principle and wonder why at a time of great economic distress, Republicans are consumed with denying birth control coverage for women.

This survey provides fair warning to the Republican Party that they may be losing the country.

• The Republican brand is in a state of collapse – over 50 percent of voters give the Republican Party a cool, negative rating. The presidential race and the congressional battles are interacting with each other to drive down their lead candidate, the party, and perceptions of the congressional Republicans.

• Romney may be on the edge of political death. The shift against him is one of the biggest in the polls and he now competes with Republicans in Congress for unpopularity. In the summer of 1996, Bob Dole essentially was disqualified in voters’ eyes and never really recovered his footing.

• President Obama is now at the critical 50 percent mark on approval and is approaching 50 percent on the ballot. More people view him favorably than negatively, creating a different climate at the top where Obama is not that far from the 53 percent he took in 2008.

• On the named Congressional ballot, Democrats continue to lead Republicans, with consolidated support among the coalition that brought them to power in 2006 and 2008. Importantly, they are now also performing equal to or better than their 2008 margins among seniors.

• Importantly, Democrats have consolidated the new progressive voters of the Rising American Electorate who were responsible for Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. These voters—unmarried women, young voters, and minorities—dropped off in 2010 and lagged throughout 2011. These voters have returned in a big way for Democrats, led by a resurgence and re-engagement of unmarried women.

• A drop in negative feelings about the direction of the country and the economy are major and are shaping the mood going into 2012. While Democrats have not made gains on who voters trust on the economy, the climate is better.

These changes are big and could become fundamental to the still young election year. Two big issues may have shaped this period. One is taxes and the other is the debate over the church and contraception, which is discussed at length later.

The shifting debate on taxes is one of the biggest things that has happened here. On every other issue we track, voters’ minds have not changed on which party is better—except taxes—where we have seen a 10-point shift in favor of Democrats. The tax debate is shifting heavily against the Republicans.

The Collapsing Republican brand

When voters look at the Republicans, they see a party that is not ready to lead. The Republican brand has collapsed over the last year; both Republicans in Congress and the major contenders for the Republican nomination see rising negatives.

• The percentage of voters who identify as Democrats has increased 7 points since November to 39 percent. This is driven by a consolidation of the Rising American Electorate—among whom strong Democratic Party identification has increased 5 points in the last month alone.

• Half of all voters now give the Republican Party a negative rating. The shift is driven dramatically by seniors—54 percent of whom now give the Republican Party a cool, negative rating (40 percent very cool). Critically, half of all independents (52 percent) give the Republican Party a cool, negative rating. The last time the Republicans saw numbers this bad was right after they lost the country in the 2008 election.

• More than two-thirds (68 percent) of voters disapprove of the Republicans in Congress—a staggering 22-point increase since last year at this time. Among seniors, the change is striking. Last year at this time, Republicans in Congress enjoyed marginal approval among seniors (45 to 43 percent). Today, two-thirds of seniors now disapprove and just 28 percent approve of the Republicans in Congress. Independents, too, have turned against this Republican Congress. Last year at this time, just 45 percent of independents disapproved of the Republicans in Congress—today 71 percent register their disapproval.

• We have also found dramatic movement among suburban voters, who have moved sharply against Republicans and are now consolidated in the Democratic camp; 60 percent of suburban voters now identify as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents compared to just 33 percent who identify as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents.

• Democrats hold a lead in the named Congressional ballot (47 to 45 percent) – and are ahead in both our January and February polls. Among seniors, who were essential to the Republican rout in 2010, the margin has now closed to just 2 points, an 8-point net improvement for Democrats since last month. .

The “None of the Above” Republican Field

Republicans do not have a viable candidate. Despite defeating nearly all of the anyone-but-Romneys, the Republican front-runner has failed to win voters. Indeed, Romney is in sharp decline. Nearly half of all voters (47 percent) now give Mitt Romney a cool, negative rating on our thermometer scale and nearly a third (32 percent) give him a very negative rating—up 7 points since last month. Mitt Romney is even unpopular among his own partisans; less than half of all self-identified Republicans give him a positive rating. Half of independents now give him a negative rating. Romney’s current standing is decidedly worse than where McCain landed at the close of the 2008 cycle and approaching where George Bush concluded his presidency.

As poorly as he is performing, Romney’s challenger-of-the-month, Rick Santorum, does not fare much better. More voters give Santorum negative ratings than positive (38 to 29 percent) and his average rating is stuck well below 50 at a dismal 45. Less than a third of independents (32 percent) and just over half of Republicans (54 percent) give Santorum a favorable rating. In a split exercise, we asked voters what issues they are hearing the Presidential candidates talk about and what voters believe these candidates should be talking about. A 56 percent majority have heard Santorum talk about the social issues and just 49 percent have heard him talk about the economy. However, 73 percent believe he should be talking about the economy and just 35 percent believe he should be talking about social issues.

Major Change at the Presidential Ballot

President Obama now holds a 49 percent to 45 percent advantage over Mitt Romney, up from 48 to 47 percent last month. He is very close to what he needs to win reelection and just four points shy of 2008. His support is deeper too; in our proprietary Voter Choice Scale, solid support for the President is up 5 points since last month.

Most of the gains the President sees on this measure are driven by voters in the Rising American Electorate—unmarried women, younger voters, and minorities. In fact, among voters outside the Rising American Electorate, Obama’s support is static.

The biggest story here is unmarried women. President Obama now leads Romney among unmarried women by a margin of 65 to 30 percent, up from 54 percent Obama, 37 percent Romney at the end of last year. These voters are approaching the same level of support (70 percent) they showed the President in the 2008 elections. Conversely, married women support the Republican by a 9-point margin, leaving a 44-point marriage gap. Younger voters, however, remain aloof from the President (55 to 43 percent) and Hispanics, among whom the President now holds a 16-point margin, are also withholding support compared to 2008, when he won Hispanics by a 36-point margin. There is still room for Obama to grow support among RAE voters.

Reigniting Culture War Unlikely to Revive Republican Chances

Recent controversies over the initial decision by the Susan G. Komen Foundation to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood and coverage of contraception under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rules have rekindled issues long-dormant in this political climate where the economy dominated the debate. This new narrative will not improve Republican chances – and may help Democrats with women and suburban voters.

First, Planned Parenthood enjoys a solid brand among voters (50 percent positive and only 32 percent negative on the thermometer rating) and is actually more popular than the NRA (44 percent warm, 32 percent cool), as voters seem to prefer pills to bullets.

Second, a good plurality of 49 percent agree with the president’s decision to require Catholic hospitals and universities, which provide health coverage for employees and employ people of different faiths, to purchase policies that cover the cost of contraception. That is true for all likely voters, as well as Catholics, and the margin exceeds that of his overall vote – despite the fact that the health care reform law is not yet popular with voters. The president is winning the argument, as you see below, even when it is cast in the context of religious freedom. As many Republicans and the Catholic bishops push to end the mandate for preventive health benefits, this issue will not be helpful to them.

More broadly, voters may wonder why the Republicans are consumed with pushing back health coverage for women rather than continuing to focus on the economy, spending and debt.

We may yet look back on this debate and wonder whether this was a Terry Schiavo moment.

The Obama position finds a two-thirds majority among suburban voters and a 61 percent majority among single women. These results loom large when voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by 52 to 26 percent on women’s issues, including a 36-point margin among senior women and a 47-point margin among unmarried women.

Conclusion

Obama and Democrats lost the country in 2010 and many disillusioned voters were ready to give the Republicans a chance and were very open to new presidential options.[2] Instead, they see a party and leaders determined to stop President Obama rather than work with him, stuck in an anti-tax mantra with few economic ideas, seemingly hostile to the middle class and aligned with the 1 percent and, more recently, obsessed over social issues when the economy still looms as the biggest problem. That performance, coupled with an improving economic mood in the country, may be locking in perceptions that may be hard to unlock over the summer and fall.

The President was most effective when he focused on fixing Washington and changing the economy and tax regime to foster American jobs and protect the middle class from higher taxes.  The strongest sections of the speech addressed new strategies for energy and education.  He made his biggest personal gains on “being for the middle class,” “understanding issues that are important to my life,” and “bridging the partisan divide.”  The speech also produced important gains on key issues—energy and taxes.  These were significant shifts and compare favorably to previous joint session addresses.

The President’s overarching message of “built to last” had broad appeal.  These Denver voters were particularly drawn to the President’s plans to build strong foundations for the future; they found his most far-sighted and fundamental ideas the most appealing—corporate accountability, insourcing, energy development, education and job training, and tax reform (the “Buffett rule.”) Additionally, the President’s consistent theme of responsibility and accountability received a welcome audience with these voters who told us that changing the way things are done in Washington and on Wall Street is a prerequisite to improving the economy.

The President made gains on approval and personal standing, though modest when compared to his previous speeches.  He improved just 4 points on “has realistic solutions to the country’s problems,” compared to 34 points last year and an average improvement of 18 points in past State of the Union exercises.  On “has good plans for the economy,” the President gained 18 points, half last year’s 36-point post-speech improvement.  His approval rating on the economy climbed 14 points, compared to an average of 20 points over the last four years.

This was not an easy audience for Obama. Our swing voters were far more Republican-leaning than Democratic (44 to 32 percent). And while just over half of the participants (54 percent) voted for President Obama in 2008, at the outset majorities gave him negative ratings on key issues and attributes, including his handling of the economy.

Deciding not to address the deficits, the President not surprisingly made no headway on fiscal responsibility (+2).  While the President made many proposals in the address, focus group participants were skeptical that Congress would move on anything, thus his only gaining 4 points on “having realistic solutions to the country’s problems.”

The economy was obviously the most important element of the speech – and it is important to underscore, he achieved almost 20-point gains on “having good plans for the economy” and “creating new jobs.”

Nonetheless, these are not the kind of improvements on the economy we have seen in the past and there is reason for some caution in reactions to some important economic sections of the speech.  While there is strong support for the Buffett rule and asking top earners to contribute their fair share of taxes, voters did not move their dials up in key parts of the narrative on the state of the country.

• Job creation: President Obama highlighted job creation over the last two years—progress many Americans have yet to feel.  Voters responded negatively to this section of the speech and highlighted it as a negative in our post-speech focus groups.
• Fairness: The President called this the “defining issue of our time.”  While voters support many of the policies he recommended to restore fairness (the Buffett rule, for example), this was not his strongest framework or entry point to those policies.
• America is back: At the conclusion of the speech, President Obama argued that “America is back” and that “Anyone who tells you otherwise…doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”  This section of the speech did not resonate for our voters in Denver and produced negative responses among Republicans and independents.

Many individual proposals were well received: On the whole, the most far-sighted and foundational ideas had the broadest appeal for these Denver voters:

• Energy: Voters reacted positively to President Obama’s call for an “all-out, all-of-the-above” energy strategy.  They appreciated his proposal to build a new energy economy that would create jobs, cut costs, and improve the environment while making the United States independent of foreign energy sources, and reacted particularly strongly to his proposal to shift tax subsidies from oil and other traditional sources to clean energy.
• Education: The President’s sections on education hit high notes across the board.  Rewarding good teachers (while making it easier to remove bad ones), improving the quality of schools, and reducing the cost of higher education were popular among all voters.  Independents and Democrats also approved of his proposal to create new standards for student retention.
• “Buffett Rule”: The President’s proposals for tax reform to benefit the middle class received high and sustained support across all groups.
• Insourcing: The dials jumped when the President proposed a strategy to “insource” jobs. Voters appreciated the President’s call to end tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas and they applauded his emphasis on a new kind of corporate patriotism.
• Job training: These Denver voters appreciated the President’s approach to training workers for 21^st century jobs.  They strongly supported his idea to expand public-private partnerships to train workers and agreed with his plan to move workers from “unemployment” to “reemployment.”
• Corporate accountability: These voters, however, worry that none of the above matters unless Washington has the courage to tackle real reform in Washington and on Wall Street.

• Washington is broken: Some of the strongest responses came when the President acknowledged that “Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.” The dials spiked again when Obama highlighted “the corrosive influence of money in politics.”  For many voters in Denver, this seemed to be the real point.  While they worry that nothing will be accomplished until this problem is solved, they appreciated the President’s spotlight on what they believe is the real problem.

Energy

President Obama generated a strong response to his energy proposals.  In our post-speech survey, Obama gained 22 points on the issue, one of his biggest gains of the evening.  These voters endorsed his appeal to end subsidies for oil companies and instead focus those resources on expanding clean energy and creating green jobs in America.  This section received some of the highest sustained ratings of the speech from Democrats and independents.  While Republicans did not respond as favorably, Democrats and independents showed strong approval for the President’s proposal to end oil subsidies.

Among both groups, dials rose when the President said: “We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.” While Republicans did not respond as favorably, all groups rose in response to the President’s call for “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy—a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.”

The potential for the energy sector to create jobs resonated most with these voters.  One Democrat said, “Another area…that I think has so much potential for jobs and for the country is alternative energy. And those jobs are good jobs, local jobs.” Another emphasized the potential for broader economic development: “Alternative energy…that’s huge. That’s a huge area that, of growth and development that hasn’t been over-tapped.”

Other participants noted the national security and foreign policy benefits of investing in green energy:  “I think clean energy can go a long ways. I mean it’s something we have to have, that’s how we became prosperous it’s because we were able to harness energy and we demand a lot of it. And if we didn’t have to worry about foreign countries and bringing in the oil I think that would make us a lot safer.”

Education

These swing voters in Denver, across the political spectrum, responded positively to the President’s section on education.  He touched a chord with his offer to give schools the resources and flexibility they need to “to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test.” Across the board, the dials climbed to 80.

These voters responded well to the proposal to keep student loan rates low.  One Republican noted the President’s emphasis on the high cost of education and appreciated his focus on the issue because “Tuition is outrageous…and making education more affordable, because it’s really a business, and everyone is in debt, student loan debt.” A Democratic-leaning participant believed it was fundamental to the future: “I don’t think that you can maintain the change without creating the under, without creating the foundation based on education so that everybody has an opportunity. Without education you don’t have opportunity.”

The section on job training was also well-received.  The President also drew positive reviews, particularly with independents, for his plan to turn community colleges into “community career centers” and on his proposal to encourage public-private partnerships to train workers for the jobs they need and for which they are needed.  A Republican-leaning participant thought this was a critical point, saying, “I think he made a good point with having a lot of these jobs and not enough qualified people that take these positions necessarily. And so, that could translate into having a more educated workforce, obviously a stronger country.”

Prioritizing jobs and rewarding responsibility and accountability

The President touched on several key economic policy changes, most of which would be implemented through changes to the tax code—to discourage outsourcing, encourage job training, and ensure that the very wealthiest individuals and corporations cannot escape taxation.

The dials spiked when the President made his strong populist pitch for the “Buffett Rule,” with Democrats exceeding 80 on our 0-to-100 scale and both independents and Republicans moving above 70 when he emphasized that middle class taxes should not go up.  There was no polarization here, as voters across the political spectrum gave Obama high marks. One Democratic-leaning respondent noted that the middle class spends most of the money in the economy and said, “I agree with him wholeheartedly about the tax reform he’s proposing…[most people] you know, living on, you know, less than $250 thousand, and a lot of us a whole lot less than $250 thousand.”

The President’s proposal to reform the tax system to discourage outsourcing received strong and widespread approval. One swing voter said, “I would say his whole tax strategy on funding this country, I do strongly agree with…whether it’s to…to start taxing people if they outsource jobs, or give them tax breaks for bringing jobs back.”

Washington is broken

Some of the strongest responses of the night came when the President honed in on what is to many voters the most foundational issue: Washington is broken.  Voters are concerned that the economy cannot be restored for ordinary Americans as long as the power of big money rules Washington.  Dials climbed in unison when the President acknowledged “that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt; energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now: Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.” By the time he finished the statement, the dials of our Republican-leaning participants were slightly higher than those of Democrats and independents.   As one swing voter lamented, “We’re just in this stalemate and I think that the Republicans and Democrats alike in the United States are just sick of it. I mean we’re sick of just the fighting, the politics of ’no.’”

But as our participants told us, the inability of the two parties to work together is more of a symptom than a cause.  Among Democrats and independents, the dials rose even higher when the President honed in on the fundamental problem of money in politics.  The dials of the Democratic-leaning respondents neared 90 and independents near 80 when the President said, “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad — and it seems to get worse every year. Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that.”

To many, the corrupting influence of money in politics is the most fundamental problem.  As one Democratic-leaning voter told us, “I do think that’s the most important issue. There’s this sense of despair that I feel, at least amongst people I know. Somehow we used to think: we work hard and we organize and go out and we try to get votes. And it’s just when two-thirds of the money to elect a senator from Colorado comes from outside Colorado, we’re not even deciding on who our representatives are anymore.” Following the speech, another Democratic-leaning voter worried that corruption and greed on Washington and Wall Street would turn the United States into Greece.  “I think people are becoming more and more aware [of corruption,] you know we see it in…less developed nations that ‘wow Greece can’t pay their taxes because they have a corrupt system.’ That the wealthy business owners don’t have to pay their taxes because they’re wealthy and they have friends in the tax collection offices.” Yet another connected the problem of money in politics to lack of accountability in both Washington and Wall Street “So you bankrupt a lot of people and a lot of banks, so here’s your 5 million dollar bonus for this year, good job. You know, that just makes me crazy.  And he’s like, let’s hold people accountable, you know, hold people to the same standard regardless of what, you know, how much money they make, they should be held equally accountable as anybody else.”

Faltering on the economic narrative

While voters appreciated the President’s emphasis on specific policies outlined above, three elements of the President’s emerging economic narrative are much weaker than other frameworks he has used and that we have tested.  First, highlighting positive job growth—progress many Americans have yet to feel—engendered a dip in the dials and in our post-speech focus groups the reaction was overwhelmingly negative.  Second, the President’s “fair share” framework largely stagnated in the dials and produced only an uncertain response from voters.  Finally, Obama’s claim that “America is back” caused the dials to fall completely flat across all groups.

“More than three million jobs”

The President’s emphasis on positive job growth numbers largely fell flat.  The identification with the job growth at this point may not yet gel with voters’ experience in the real economy.

In our follow-up focus groups, participants reacted negatively to this part of the speech.  A Democratic-leaning participant doubted the quality of the jobs we are creating: “Just pouring sugar on the thing to create a few temporary jobs is going to get us no place.” Many told us that these numbers were meaningless to them because they had not felt the effects.  One Republican-leaning participant was incredulous: “I don’t see the kind of jobs numbers that I hear about from him.” Another Republican-leaning participant said he had not experienced job growth.  “All those jobs he talks about, all the rebound they talk about and all that, personally I don’t see that just from my circle of acquaintances.” Another noted, “With my friends who I’m close with and family I haven’t really seen it see it. I still know a lot of people that are kind of struggling to find work.”

“Restoring an economy where everyone gets a fair shot”

President Obama framed his vision for the economy in several ways throughout the speech and many were well-received.  One of the frameworks emphasized restoring an economy where everyone gets a fair shot – and the response was mute, even though the President said this is “the defining issue of our time.”  He said:

Dials remained flat throughout the section with independents and Republicans dropping slightly.  The final sentence (“Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules”) produced a very modest average 7-point rise in the dials.  The same voters who dialed up when he spoke about protecting the the middle class against taxes and asking the top earners to pay more, reacted only modestly positively to “fairness” as the goal.

“America is back”

The President’s assertion that “America is back” produced an overall flat response across the dials with independents and Republicans responding negatively when the President claimed “America is back.  Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” This section came toward the end of the speech.  While the foreign policy section that preceded this produced overall positive responses, our audience in Denver was much less receptive to the claim that “America is back.”  For many Americans, it does not feel as though America’s position in the world has been restored.  The Democrats in our group edged up slightly to a lackluster average of 65 on the dial meter while independents dropped to 55 and Republicans remained flat at neutral.

Delivering on promises

For these swing voters in Denver, perhaps the biggest disappointment in the State of the Union was not anything the President did or did not say, but their lack of faith that Washington’s broken politics will allow any of this to happen. Many voters remain deeply skeptical and woefully cynical about the President’s ability to get things done in Washington. His speech did not change their minds.  As one Democratic-leaning voter told us, “I’ve just lost faith in government in general. I don’t really see a lot of what he said actually brought to fruition.”

The context here is important— after a year of gridlock, partisan breakdown, and failed negotiations, voters are skeptical that the President will be able to put any of his ideas into action.  Despite their largely positive response to many of the plans outlined in the State of the Union speech, many of these swing voters doubted the President’s ability to deliver.

This sentiment was expressed across party lines, with Republicans more concerned that the President’s words do not match his deeds and the Democrats worried that Republicans in Congress are intent on blocking his agenda.  One Republican-leaning participant said, “He gives a great speech and I agree with what he says, but I don’t turn the dial up because I know it’s not gonna happen.” Another said more hopefully, “He’s…putting it out in front of the American people that, hey, we gotta get this done, so maybe that will help a little bit. Because whether you lean Democratic or Republican, they never get anything done when they keep on fighting like that.” Echoing that thought, two Democratic-leaning participants noted, “It’s a lot of great sounding stuff but most of it’s not going to happen.” And, “It’s fantastic. If even half of it came to pass I’d be elated, but I don’t think in the long run it’s going to happen.”

This will indeed be the challenge for the President in 2012, but many remain hopeful.  Even this Republican-leaning voter in Denver noted at the end of the speech: “I liked that he kept asking the question about the bipartisanship, and I think he’s gonna do a better job of trying to get things done, of making it work together a little bit better.”

These voters overwhelmingly liked what they heard from Obama– even those who voted against him in 2008 appreciated the address.  But they continued to show deep skepticism that the President would be able to translate these words into actions.  The more Democratic participants mostly blamed Republican obstructionism while the more Republican participants insisted that Obama might talk a good game, but his actions in office did not reflect the words in this speech.  But participants across the political spectrum all agreed that Washington is broken and that progress on the important issues would be difficult until Congress addresses the corrupting influence of lobbyists and special interests.

This was not the easiest audience for Obama; although slightly more participants voted for him than McCain in 2008, it was a significantly Republican-leaning group (44 percent Republican, 32 percent Democratic).  At the outset, these voters were split 50/50 on Obama’s job performance and just 50 percent gave him a favorable personal rating.  But the President gained ground after the speech; his job rating rose 8 points and his personal standing jumped 16 points, to 66 percent favorable.

Table 1: Shifts in Measures

The Middle Class and the Economy

More importantly, Obama connected on the central thrust of his speech.  Prior to the address, just 42 percent of these Republican-leaning voters said that Obama was “for the middle class.”  But this measure jumped 24 points after the speech, to 66 percent.  As the table above shows, Obama also saw large gains on having “good plans for the economy,” job creation, taxes and “understanding the issues important to my life.”

The dials spiked when the President made his strong populist pitch for the “Buffett Rule,” with Democrats exceeding 80 on our 0-to-100 scale and both independents and Republicans moving above 70.  There was no polarization here, as voters across the political spectrum gave Obama high marks.  And Obama’s framing of the economic challenges facing the country through the lens of post-World War II America was particularly effective.  He also received high marks for his proposal to change the tax code to encourage “insourcing” instead of “outsourcing,” his call to change our “unemployment system” to a “re-employment system” and his appeal to make it easier for entrepreneurs and small business to grow and create jobs.

The President was least effective on the economy when he tried to take credit for economic successes, such as pointing to the 3 million new private sector jobs created in the last 22 months.  He engendered much more positive responses when giving credit, rather than taking it, using stories about businesses such as GM, Chrysler, Energetx and Masterlock to highlight the success of his policies.

Energy

Obama also generated a strong response when discussing energy.  This section received the highest sustained ratings of the speech from Democrats and independents, but it was also one of the few polarizing sections as Republicans reacted negatively to the President’s call for more support of clean energy (independents, like Democrats, responded very favorably).   Overall, Obama gained 22 points on the issue, one of his biggest gains on the evening, as these voters endorsed his appeal to end subsidies for oil companies and instead focus those resources on expanding clean energy in America.

Education

The President also sustained high ratings when talking about education. He touched a chord with his offer to give schools the resources and flexibility they need to “to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test,” pushing all three groups close to 80. These voters responded well to the proposal to keep student loan rates low and he drew positive reviews, particularly with independents, for his plan to turn community colleges into “community career centers.”

Foreign Policy

While Obama’s foreign policy ratings started the night higher than his ratings on domestic issues, he still managed to make modest gains on all of our foreign policy measures. Voters gave the highest ratings of the night to the two mentions of Osama bin Laden, both of which pushed the average dial rating close to 90, but other portions of the foreign policy section also scored well.  Interestingly, independents consistently rated this section higher than even Democrats did, sustaining numbers in the 70s.  President Obama also won spikes in the dials when he referenced “our last troops to serve in Iraq,” and the effort to “wind down the war in Afghanistan.”

Unified Response

Despite the heated partisan polarization in Washington, for the most part, Obama generated a unified response across the partisan spectrum.  In most speeches like this, we see significant sections where the dial lines of Democrats and Republicans completely diverge.  But aside from a few instances (such as energy), the President was able to move Democrats, independents, and Republicans together. As one participant noted, “What he said tonight appeals to everyone.  If any of it comes to pass it would be fantastic for the country.”

Post Dial Focus Groups

Following the speech, we conducted two breakout focus groups with participants who shifted in Obama’s favor on the economy: one group of 2008 Obama voters and one of 2008 McCain voters.  Across the board, participants thought the speech was hopeful, laid out an ambitious economic agenda, and hit some key policy points that resonated with all voters.  Even among his detractors, we heard positive feedback about the scope and substance of the message.

Obama voters still have a lot of hope for the future.  These respondents note a positive shift in the President’s tone and confidence over recent months, including in this speech.  They believe he has become more firm and aggressive in his positions while maintaining his willingness to work with Republicans. These Obama voters wanted to hear the President take a strong stand on jobs, tax reform, political reform, energy, and funding for education.  They were not disappointed.

While they largely blame the Republicans for “obstructing” the President’s legislative priorities and register their regret at Obama’s inability to get his agenda through Congress, tonight they believe the President has laid out a solid bi-partisan plan to “re-invest in America.”  To them, this means “insourcing” and growing American jobs, improving the quality and reducing the cost of education, building green energy infrastructure, and reforming the tax code to reduce the deficit and empower middle class people.

To these Obama voters, tax reform is key.  As one participant noted, “many in Congress want to continue to give tax breaks to super wealthy – I like his ideas on finance reform, holding people accountable.  It makes me crazy when bankers get a 5 million dollar bonus.”  They say “the 1 percent should shoulder more of the burden than the other 99 percent.”  Tax reform is not limited to millionaire surtaxes—these voters registered strong approval for the President’s plan to use the tax code to encourage “insourcing” and to punish those companies who are not investing in American jobs and workers.

Tonight, January 24, 2012, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, on behalf of Democracy Corps and GQR Digital, will hold dial testing focus groups during President Obama’s State of the Union Address. The dial groups will gauge reactions of swing voters from Colorado as they watch the speech in real-time.

Approximately 15 minutes after President Obama’s address, Stan Greenberg, co-founder of Democracy Corps and CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and Andrew Baumann, Vice President at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner will host a media conference call to discuss the results of the groups.

The results, arriving just minutes after the conclusion of the speech, will provide the earliest analysis of how Americans perceived the speech and what key points resonated with the viewers. After the short briefing, Greenberg and Baumann will take questions from the media.

Call-in numbers:

US (and Canada): 800.704.5185
International: +1 303.223.4396

Follow the analysis live on Twitter:

@StanGreenberg
@DemCorps
@GQRDigital

To RSVP (recommended but not required), please email Catherine Heffernan at cheffernan@democracycorps.com. Those who RSVP will receive updated information about the start time of this call after the State of the Union address has ended.

The latest survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps and Public Campaign Action Fund[1] shows that the Citizens United decision is intensely unpopular.  Americans across all parties oppose the ruling; among all voters, 62 percent oppose the decision and nearly half (46 percent) strongly oppose it.  More than half of all voters say they would support a constitutional amendment to reverse the opinion.

This survey reveals that campaign finance reform cannot be overlooked in 2012; more than three-quarters of American voters say that it is important for candidates to make campaign finance reform a key election issue.  More importantly, voters say that reducing the influence of money in politics will be a deciding factor when they go to the ballot box in November.

Key Findings:

• Voters are intensely angry at lobbyists and the influence of money in politics. Two-thirds of voters give lobbyists a negative rating on our thermometer scale, more than half (54 percent) give them intensely negative ratings.  A large majority (57 percent) give money in politics a negative rating, nearly half (49 percent) are intensely negative about the influence of money in politics.

• Americans strongly oppose the Citizens United decision and a majority (55 percent) believe that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as individuals.

• Voters believe that the system is stacked against them—addressing the role of big money in politics is about giving ordinary voters a voice in Washington again. A strong majority (60 percent) say that the middle class will not catch a break in this economy until we reduce the influence of lobbyists, big banks, and big donors.

• A near consensus exists among voters that there should be limits on campaign money. Eight in ten voters say there is too much big money spent on political campaigns and elections today and that campaign contributions and spending should be limited.

• This has a big impact on the way voters see candidates for the highest offices. Two-thirds of all voters and three-quarters of independents say that big donors and secret money undermine democracy.

• By a two-to-one margin, voters say reducing the influence of lobbyists and money in politics will be an important factor in their vote.

• Swing voters, independents in particular, fall strongly on the side of reform, making campaign finance reform a potentially consequential election issue.

• Right now, neither party owns this issue. Republicans enjoy a slight advantage on “cleaning up the mess in Washington.”  However, 28 percent either refused to answer the question or volunteered “neither” when asked which party would do a better job.  An issue this important to voters is ripe for either party to grab at this early stage of the election season.

• Voters are broadly supportive of campaign finance reform. They support a plan that would replace the current system of big contributions with one built on small donations and matching funds.

Breaking the nexus of money and politics to give the middle class a voice

Voters are intensely frustrated with the current campaign finance system.  Voters believe it undermines democracy by selling power to the highest bidder.  Two-thirds agree with a statement that says: “Given what I see in the presidential race, I am fed up with the big donors and secret money that control which candidates we hear about.  It undermines democracy.”   By contrast, less than one third say that money is always going to be spent in campaigns and voters are the ones who ultimately decide.  As a result, given the choice between placing limits on campaign contributions and allowing unlimited contributions, voters choose the former by more than four-to-one.

To be clear, this is not just about campaigns.  Voters believe this system has real consequences for the middle class in America.  We tested two identical messages about rebuilding the economy for the middle class.  More than half (53 percent) agreed with the statement.  But when we added “The middle class won’t catch a break unless we start by reducing the influence of big banks, big donors and corporate lobbyists,” support climbed to 60 percent and more than half (51 percent) strongly agreed with the revised statement.   Americans are not concerned about campaign funding for its own sake—they believe that big banks, big donors, and corporate lobbyists influence policy for their own benefit at the expense of middle class priorities getting a voice in Washington.

Voters strongly believe that the current system should be reformed. However, simply replacing the current system with public funding, without offering specifics to voters, is not as popular as providing some details about how it should be done. Reforming the system to one financed by a combination of small donations and matching funds is much more popular.  Voters believe that small donors should be able to vote with their wallets, putting campaign funding back in the hands of ordinary voters.
Voting booth consequences

These results make clear that voters are willing to reward reform candidates and punish those who support the status quo.  Nearly two-thirds of all voters (63 percent) say reducing the influence of money in politics and special interest lobbyists will be a very important factor in determining their votes.

The issue is particularly important among independents, who will cast deciding votes in many races next fall.  Seven-in-ten independents say they oppose the Citizens United decision and a strong majority (56 percent) say they would favor an amendment to overturn it.

An overwhelming majority of independents (89 percent) say there is too much big money spent on political campaigns and elections today and reasonable limits should be placed on campaign contributions and spending.  Three-quarters of independents say that given what they have seen in the presidential race, they are fed up with big money, which undermines democracy.

Importantly, two-thirds of independents say that campaign finance reform is a very important factor in their vote. An overwhelming majority of Democratic voters (69 percent) and a strong majority of Republicans (56 percent) do as well.

Indeed, across all target swing demographics, voters report that reducing the influence of money in politics will be a key factor in determining their vote.  Two thirds of young men, suburban voters (who have been trending more Democratic), and white non-college educated voters (who swung sharply for Republicans in 2010) say that reducing the influence of money in politics will be a very important factor in their vote.  Additionally, approximately 60 percent of seniors, unmarried white women, and voters living in districts picked up by Republicans in 2010 say that it is a very important factor in their vote.

Voters are watching

More than half of all voters (53 percent) say that the more they watch the Republicans in Congress, the less they like what the Republicans have to offer; only 39 percent say they like it more – a 14 point margin. The country is equally repelled by the Republican presidential contest (53 to 38 percent).  The style of their politics and governance is driving away independents.  And more than half of white non-college voters who were key to Republicans wins in 2010[2] do not like what the Republicans in Congress are offering—a staggering result.

Republicans in Congress lead race to the bottom

John Boehner and the Republicans in Congress are leading the crash.

• For the first time in two years, Democrats are winning the Congressional ballot (48 to 45 percent), the result of a major shift among independents.  Democrats are now winning independents by 6 points – a net 13-point shift among independents since October and a net 23-point shift since August.   In June, Democrats were losing independent men by a margin of 29 points.  Democrats are now winning this demographic by two points.  In 2010, Democrats lost seniors by a 23-point margin.  That gap has closed to just 10 points.

• John Boehner’s favorability has fallen off significantly—43 percent now give the Speaker a negative rating, with three in 10 voters giving him a very negative rating (under 25 on our 100-point scale).

• Two-thirds of all voters now say they disapprove of this Republican Congress and its approval rating has hit a new low in our tracking—25 percent. The decline has come from a complete drop-off of those who “strongly approve” of this Republican Congress—down to 8 percent, also the lowest in our tracking.

• The Republicans have lost their advantage on the economy. Democrats now trail Republicans on which party would do a better job on the economy by only two points, a net 5-point shift since October.  While most improvements in this poll are due to Republicans faltering, here Democrats have gained 5 points on trust to handle the economy.

The Presidential Contest Full of Peril

The race for president remains very close, though showing the first signs of improvement for the president.  With his approval rating at 44 percent and vote at 48 percent, you have a close contest.  But Obama’s strong support is up 4 points, has more winnable voters than Romney and has made some important recent gains with key swing groups.  Obama is now winning 39 percent of white-non college voters, his highest total among that group in a year.  Among independents, Obama now wins by two points —a net 10-point increase since October and an astonishing 18-point increase since August.

Romney is not popular – only 30 percent of all voters, and only 26 percent of independents, give him a warm, favorable rating.  Obama, on the other hand, remains personally popular, with nearly 50 percent giving him a warm, favorable rating.  As a result, Mitt Romney has not been able to energize voters.  Voters, especially Republicans, are ready to bolt to independent candidates in large numbers — indeed, remarkable numbers.

Our poll shows that as a third-party candidate, Ron Paul would take 19 percent of the vote in a matchup against Obama and Romney.  Almost all of this comes at Romney’s expense.  Nearly tied in a head-to-head matchup against the President, Romney’s vote plummets when Paul is added to the ballot, losing 13 points of his vote share.

We also tested matchups between Obama, Romney, and three independent candidates: Ron Paul, Donald Trump, and Michael Bloomberg.  Together, these three take 24 percent of the vote.  While Romney’s support drops off in the face of a third-party challenge, Obama remains strong at 42 percent (10 points ahead of Romney). Thirty-two percent of Romney voters in the two-way matchup defect to one of the three independent candidates; only 12 percent of Obama voters defect.

These independent candidates have traction in key subgroups – 30 percent of white non-college and 35 percent of suburban voters chose one of the three independent candidates in this 5-way matchup.

Intensity Gap

We have seen a major change on intensity.   Obama and Romney have equal numbers of strong supporters — with strong support for the President up 4 points since October.  Conversely, strong support for Romney among white non-college voters has decreased 5 points since October.  Additionally, there is growing opposition to Republicans – strong disapproval of the Republican Congress is now 9 points higher than strong disapproval of President Obama.