Avoid Getting caught Under the Dome

"I would say that we may have underestimated the anti-incumbent mood."

-- U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas), cnn.com, June 8, 2010

After reading this, we were wondering where the Senator has been living for the last year – in a cave?

A strong anti-incumbent, anti-establishment and anti-Washington sentiment has been brewing for over a year, manifesting in real political movements and some partisan driven groups.

The Senator's comments reflect a common affliction with many office holders, they develop an "under the dome" mentality, which is when their sphere of influence and perceptions are based on what a small circle of capitol insiders say and feel. Incumbents lose touch with the real needs and concerns of the people they represent. This mentality drives incumbents to feel everything they do in the Capitol is important to the voters back home while ignoring the local (small) things they must do back in their community.

Elections are won by candidates who remain in touch with the core needs and values of the people they represent and recognize that serving in a governing body is an honor and not a right bestowed upon them. They must recognize their job is to advocate for the people they represent, not a small group of capitol building advocates. Elected officials must advocate the issues and values in the legislature and beyond that connect with the voters in their communities, states, Districts. Incumbents should always be actively engaged in their communities when not required to be in session or the Capitol – this will prevent disconnections exemplified by Sen. Lincoln’s comment. Unfortunately, too many of our elected officials retreat to the safety cocoon of the Capitol and lose touch with the realities of what happens in their communities.

This is why we advise and push our incumbent clients to remain fully engaged in their communities throughout their term and to not focus exclusively on their work in the Capitol. This engagement includes aggressive earned and paid communications before the traditional campaign season, significant personal activity in their community among the voters – walking, Town Hall meetings, small groups / coffee meetings, as well as simply doing their job well – holding regular publicized offices hours, returning phone calls, taking care of problems with constituents no matter how big or small, etc. This also includes periodic polling to maintain a real pulse on the constituents they represent, identify opportunities and challenges and devise political and policy strategies to address these challenges.

Incumbents who remain engaged in their community will know the needs and concerns in their community that must be addressed and catch changes in attitudes. They will not have to climb out from their safety cocoon and be awaken by an anti-incumbent election.

Exploring Ideology and Partisanship in Political Polling

The public, campaign professionals, news media organizations and interest groups are being inundated with polling results now that we are in the final stages of the 2008 election cycle. We are already witnessing reports about who is winning, losing, and why a candidate is stronger or weaker than the other as campaigns position for earned media and fund raising dollars.

Party Identification (ID) is one of those demographic sub-data points receiving a lot of attention this cycle. Party identification may be reported based on a poll respondent’s declared or partisan registration status in states where this data is available and applicable or, more commonly, based on a “self-identified partisanship” demographic question in polls. This data is very useful for both public review and internal strategic analysis.

We see many reports that Democrats have a certain percentage advantage compared to four years ago, etc. This polling data is catching legitimate changes in voter attitudes. However, self-identified partisanship is a moving target. An individual who identifies as a Democrat today may have said Independent a year ago and Republican four years ago. This is a natural adjustment as people’s attitudes and perceptions of the political parties change over time.

The current partisan shift and trends are fueled by negative perceptions of the GOP brand, which causes fewer people to admit they are affiliated with / support the GOP, even if their underlying beliefs are more in line with Republicans. Obama’s appeal to elements of the electorate who previously didn’t participate (younger voters) and those who are shifting their affiliations based on their attraction to Obama, also fuel the changing partisan identification.

Self-identified partisanship shouldn’t be relied upon as an indicator of voting behavior in isolation. Due to its fluidity, we strongly recommend all polling analysis and public released polls include an evaluation based also on self-described ideology. This sub-group is frequently arrived at by a question such as the following (or similar iterations):

• How would you describe your own political beliefs -- very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative or very conservative?

Ideology tends to be a more stable, underlying factor that drives an individual’s voting behavior. It is an excellent variable to evaluate in conjunction with and context of changing partisan affiliations. It can verify strong partisan shifts in favor or against a candidate. It allows for a more realistic, accurate assessment of the political environment if the underlying ideological make-up of the surveyed electorate is out of alignment with a shifting partisan composition.

For example: If a Congressional District shows a 10 point increase in Democratic identification from two years ago, but the District remains a moderate to conservative leaning area, then the surface movement among partisans may be tempered by the voters’ underlying ideological leanings. This situation would show favorable trends for a Democrat, but not a fundamental change in the voters’ likely behaviors, although the partisan shift will have an impact on the immediate election.

Alternatively, in an area that has a 10 point Democratic gain from the last cycle and shows a moderating, more liberal electorate than previous elections, is catching a fundamental change in the electoral make-up and an indication of a long term, more stable movement in the Democrats favor.

The two scenarios where Democrats receive a similar gain in self-identified partisanship will require a different tone of message because of the underlying ideological composition of the District. A campaign that fails to realize the ideological difference between a liberal Democrat and a moderate to conservative Democrat or a center-right, Independent leaning area where self identified Democratic affiliation is increasing can be disastrously off message.

In conclusion, opinions of partisan sub-groups should not be reported or analyzed in isolation of the voters’ ideological position. Publicly released polls should include sub-group analysis by partisan and ideological breakouts and all reporting on polls should include similar evaluations. We also recommend campaigns utilize ideological data in their internal strategic analysis, which will lead to better, more accurate strategic recommendations and decisions.