What Voters are Thinking: An Interview with Two Top Pollsters

As the 2002 elections approach, legislators and advocates need to understand what is most important to voters. So we decided to ask the experts-two top pollsters who advise candidates and campaigns across the nation. Robert Green, a principal at Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, is an expert on national political trends and has written extensively on crafting a middle class message for the Democratic Party. Anna Greenberg, a Vice President of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, has published groundbreaking work on the role of religion and values in political life and is an expert on women in electoral politics.

Q: What issues do voters care about this fall?

AG: Post-September 11, I think there was a belief that terrorism and the war on terrorism would be important to people. But as we move forward, it’s clear that economic issues have really reemerged. These issues were important before the attacks, but September 11 crowded them out. So it’s not like these issues ever went away, it’s just that there were very different debates for the six months following the attacks. Today, nearly every poll indicates that the top four issues that people say they’re going to vote on are education, healthcare costs, retirement security, and the economy. Terrorism tends not to be an issue that people are going to vote on, so the war is not going to affect candidates much this fall.

Q: How important are corporate accountability issues to voters, and how will corporate accounting scandals affect the elections this fall?

RG: Undecided voters don’t sense a sharp difference between the two parties on this issue. The lesson to be learned is that progressives, or Democrats, don’t have an automatic advantage on this issue. It doesn’t mean it’s too late, but you only have a few months to really draw the distinction in people’s minds. So it’s absolutely important for progressives to get out in front of this issue and make clear distinctions between themselves and their political opponents.

As much as the accounting scandal issues are playing out in Congress, states need to address issues surrounding corporate responsibility. There’s an increasing feeling that, because of the tax deals corporations are able to get away with, they aren’t pulling their fair share of the economic burden. The Stanley Tools controversy in Connecticut is a prime example-the company announced it would “move” its headquarters from Connecticut to Bermuda, so it wouldn’t have to pay any federal taxes, and significantly less state taxes. However, since most of the company is still based in Connecticut, there was a serious public outrage over the move..

AG: I think it would be very interesting for people at the state level to think about various types of reform to rein in corporate behavior. Look at a state like Connecticut, that lost $250 million because of its investments in Enron. The loss of pension investments at the state level is everywhere. There’s a possibility for state legislators and advocates to take this on in a meaningful way. Progressives can make a larger case for whose interests get represented in policymaking, and link it to a larger narrative

Q: Are state candidates held responsible for issues they have no control over, like social security and the bulk of anti-terrorism measures?

RG: State candidates are not held responsible by voters for such things. That’s why I drew a distinction, for instance, between corporate accountability, which is a federal issue, and its cousin, corporate responsibility. Accounting standards is a federal issue, but states have the opportunity to make a difference over corporate responsibility and economic development issues.

Q: Are Americans aware of the fiscal problems affecting the states?

RG: From state polls and in my general experience in polling, I believe that the public may be more tuned into these problems than we generally realize in Washington. I did a poll recently in Kentucky, a state responsible for producing so much of the world’s tobacco, to capture whether voters would approve of increased tobacco taxes to raise state revenue. There was a clear sentiment and awareness that the state needed more money, and as a result, respondents were very pro-cigarette tax. That’s a big story there, because there is such a history of opposition to tobacco taxes.

Even in difficult times, state residents want to see expanded services, especially with things like prescription drugs. Doing anything that would help seniors on prescription drugs would be very appropriate, and is an issue where progressives can carve out a niche for themselves. While it’s very hard to generalize when talking about all of the states, there seems to be a dawning awareness that you can not only support more programs in times of fiscal crisis, but you can support taxes. States finally discovered this session that they could get away with increasing tobacco taxes, and the trend will spread to nearly every state next year. The tobacco taxes raised in states this year serve as proof that people are willing to accept higher taxes that serve a social purpose. Which is very good news for progressives.

Q: Has September 11 made Americans feel more trusting of government as a way to solve problems? Or just problems related to the war?

AG: There’s not a lot of evidence that September 11 has created any major sea change in how people think about government, civic engagement, political participation, or volunteerism. The major outcome is that it increased feelings of patriotism and national unity. When you think about the major events in American history that led to serious, major shifts in political alignment, or changes in how we think about government and what government does-what comes to mind is the Great Depression, Reconstruction after the Civil War, the New Deal, and World Wars I and II. September 11 was a traumatic event, but in my view, it wasn’t a realigning or transforming event, like those other events were.

As a progressive myself, it upsets me.

RG: Interestingly, there was a surge of people interested in entering public service after September 11, and polls showed there was a renewed interest in working for the government. Specifically, there was a jump in trust, and certainly an interest in government. We believe this was true at the state level as well. But Uncle Sam is still perceived as bureaucratic and an uncaring employer. So that surge unfortunately didn’t translate into more people applying for federal jobs.

Government should have been taking advantage of this interest. State governments are dealing with a rapidly aging workforce and a huge turnover in coming years. State governments are probably not doing all that they can to convert that level of trust and interest into making, at the very least, government more attractive to people, and thereby improving workforce recruitment. This is the time to reintroduce people to government, what government can do for people, and why public service is good. There’s a window of opportunity, but that window is closing quickly. So this is a good time to demonstrate what government can do.

A logical step to pursue could be to reorganize state government in light of September 11. If the public remains more interested in government, and generally inclined to be more trusting, what better time to introduce a kinder, better, more efficient government to them? September 11 provides a good context to shape attitudes in ways that are generally useful for progressives. When people are giving government a second look, the outdated ideas about government should be replaced with fresh ones.

Q: Are there any long-term trends that will help or hurt progressives?

AG: The budget problems at the state and national level will have a long-term impact on how progressives can talk about investments. When you’re operating in the context of no money, it’s very hard to talk about investing in education and health care, and ensuring retirement security. The situation really puts a constraint on what progressives can talk about. All of the states used quick fixes this year by tapping into their rainy-day funds and approving various cuts, but how are they going to handle balancing budgets next year? It’s been a long time since anyone’s made the positive case for government, or made it effectively. I’m not sure it can be made in the current fiscal environment, and that’s going to be problematic for progressives.

RG: The ground is shifting under progressives’ feet on education. School voucher programs are endangering the typical Democratic and progressive advantage on education issues. The recent Supreme Court decision is going to change the dynamic on education a great deal. And I think that progressives are going to respond to that decision in ways they may not fully understand now. It behooves progressives to think a lot about their responses to vouchers especially because education tends to be a top issue in the states. Rather than just being anti-voucher, we now have to think about what we are for. What we did prior to the Supreme Court decision is not going to work anymore.