Polarized Polls

CBS' Kathy Frankovic: Partisan Divide Has Risen Sharply

(CBS)  By Kathy Frankovic, CBS News' director of surveys.

---

Americans answer poll questions differently than they did 20 years ago. We are more conscious of partisan differences, and when people answer poll questions about political and social issues they answer in a way that suggests they know what’s expected of them.

In June 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush had a 34 percent approval rating. Not surprisingly, Republicans liked him more than Democrats did. Fifty-five percent of Republicans approved of the way he was doing his job; 18 percent of Democrats did — a difference of 37 percentage points in the approval rating.

Fourteen years later, in 2006, the current President Bush also had a 34 percent approval rating, but that rating was both higher among Republicans and lower among Democrats. Seventy-four percent of Republicans approved of how George W. Bush was handling his job, while only 6 percent of Democrats did. That’s a 68 point difference — nearly 30 points HIGHER than the partisan spread for his father!

This partisan divide is common in polls these days – and not just on questions about the administration and its leaders. The partisan divide shows up on almost any policy issue that can be associated with the Republican administration or the Democratic Congress.

The war in Iraq is an important example. In 1991, during the highly popular Persian Gulf War, the difference in support for the war between Republicans and Democrats was 25 points (84 percent of Republicans thought the U.S. did the right thing to get involved in the war, as did 59 percent of Democrats). At the start of the 2003 Iraq War, 87 percent of Republicans supported military action, but only 50 percent of Democrats did — a difference of 37 points. Now the difference is even more striking. In the latest CBS News polls, there are differences of 50 points or more in how Republicans and Democrats view the war in Iraq. (There are some issues where the parties aren’t polarized — immigration may be one of them.)

Partisanship matters more today to what people think than it has at any time in my recent memory. In 2004, nearly 90 percent of Republicans voted for George W. Bush, while nearly 80 percent of self-identified Democrats voted for John Kerry — a wider partisan difference than in the previous three presidential elections. The public no longer gives an incumbent president of the opposing party the benefit of the doubt — except in times of enormous crisis, like the attacks of September 11, 2001, when even Democrats overwhelmingly approved of the way George W. Bush was handling his job. Bill Clinton experienced the support of a majority of Republicans only in February 1998, immediately following the charges that he had inappropriate sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky — a self-induced crisis if there ever was one!

Except for that one instance, Clinton’s presidency marks the start of the recent partisan polarization. After six months of the Clinton presidency, there was a 40-point gap in his approval rating between Republicans and Democrats. It grew throughout his first term. By June 1994, it was 43 points. A year after that, it was 48 points.

An individual’s partisanship changes — many states don’t have party registration — so there is no “census” count for the number of Republicans and Democrats in this country. In our polls, we ask people to tell us what they call themselves. The wording of that question has remained essentially the same since its use in academic research in the 1950’s. “Generally speaking, do you usually consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?” About two-thirds of Americans today will say they consider themselves either a Republican or a Democrat.

Political scientists used to talk about the need for “responsible” political parties — that the two parties should stand for something and not be just a collection of people with diverse views who gather together for political gain. And indeed, that has happened. Parties have become more “responsible” in recent years — and less diverse. Republicans have become more conservative, Democrats more liberal. People have changed parties: In a CBS News/New York Times Poll taken last March, one in four of today’s Republicans and Democrats say they once thought of themselves the other way.

But the more “responsible” parties have isolated many partisans. Many Americans don’t spend much time with people who think differently than they do: Republicans and Democrats often live in different neighborhoods; there is a big city, small town difference; Americans who attend religious services regularly vote differently from those who don’t attend at all. No Northeast state voted for Bush in 2004, and no Southern state voted for Kerry.

Partisan leaders in the media have tended to reinforce those differences, and Americans seem to have caught on to what it means, now, to be a Republican or a Democrat. Polarized parties have given us increasingly polarized respondents.

[katg21]

But we are talking about some serious stuff here, people at Nuremberg were hanged for starting a war under false pretenses.

Posted by sparks224 at 12:13 PM : May 24, 2007

What the lack of WMD again...tired. I'm done arguing about this. If you want go and read some of my earlier posts on the subject, I don't care either way. I'm tired of typing and I'm bored with you. Now go pat yourself on the back, I'm going to bed and believe me I'll sleep well.

[AgentGGG]

If you keep forcing a log to split, you will get a huge crack.

The common ground in this country has become so small, I believe we are sowing the seeds for Civil War II. We need to be very careful how much indignation and anger we foment in the course of practicing our democracy. Encouraging the radical fringes to strengthen actually weakens our nation drastically.

Calm down and realize that your opponents have much more in common with you than they differ. Accept diversity and dissent as positive values. Encourage free, critical thinking over dogma and alignment based on ideology. Search for practical solutions, not moral righteousness.

[usawarrior]

Republicans? Democrats? Is there any difference? Nah! But I must say that although Carter was totally paralyzed and incompetent%u2026 Bush has taken incompetence to a new level. I will promptly pay all my taxes but I will let the fanatics and the idiots choose the next decider for me. So far there is not one candidate that would make me want to register.

[sparks224]

katg21,
Yes, the Republicans got him to lie about s,e,x in a civil matter. Congratulations on that one.

But we are talking about some serious stuff here, people at Nuremberg were hanged for starting a war under false pretenses.

[klifton2-2009]

For all of you out there, it does not matter who you vote for as long as he (or she) is intelligent and competent. Bush is now a benchmark for incompetency, recklessness, self-serving (which all politicians are, but Bush takes it to a new low), and corruption, which Bush is not alone but openly does it in defiance of good governance. Kick the bum and his bums out!

[katg21]

shut up, katg21. you "feel sorry" for democrats yet it's "sad but true" that the nation is politically divided? you must have the attention span (and possibly the intelligence) of a goldfish to have written both of those comments.

oh, and why is bush so unpopular? clinton! clinton! clinton! what was the question again?
Posted by zorlacskates at 07:54 PM : May 23, 2007

Ooh, got your panties in a bunch huh? Entitled to your opinions as I. Now go get a drink sounds like you need one.

[katg21]

If clinton was guilty over selling nuclear secrets to China why was he impeached over a bj?
Do republicans consider bjs more important than nuclear secrets?
Posted by ainttaken at 11:44 PM : May 23, 2007

He was impeached because he lied under oath.

[bluestardad]

I WAS A REPUBLICAN BUT NEVER AGAIN!

[r9119111]

I am definately polarized. I am an Independent Voter. I shall never vote Republican again.

[socrates392]

I've been reading through all these comments and one thing unites all of us. We are not happy with our leadership. So what are we going to do about it? This partisanship is getting us nowhere. Instead of lambasting Clinton and/or Bush all day, why don't we set our minds to finding solutions to the manifold problems facing our nation.

[actornaught]

"they decided to start the Iraq war on his watch"

who is "they"??

Monica had more president in her than Bush ever will...

[sparks224]

"My greatest curiosity about our government now is this: who provided the money that got us such a low grade loser as president?"

Posted by actornaught at 11:27 PM : May 23, 2007

All you have to do is take a look at who is getting the Cost Plus No Bid contracts, there%u2019s your answer.

A Cost Plus No Bid contract is nothing more than a license to loot the Treasury.

[sharncedar]

Bush was just unlucky in that they decided to start the Iraq war on his watch. Clinton only had to go along with the carpet-bombing of civilians in Serbia, a much smaller operation. Bush got a raw deal. The people who started the Iraq war also had Clinton as a puppet (look how his wife dances for them, she's a bg pro-war fool). So if 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch then he would have had to start the long-planned Iraq and Afganistan wars, in which case he would be the guy looking like a loser.

Let's not have any phony claims that Bill Clinton and George Bush are the least bit different in essence, which is, they are grinning puppets on the strings of powerful corporate and banking interests, and do exactly what they are told by their corporate masters, no more, no less.

[actornaught]

"facade" somehow spell-checks to "******"...

[actornaught]

Cont%u2019d from previous%u2026

What%u2019s behind it? An easy private theory, and I%u2019m not that well read, is MONEY. After years of observing polarization experts, it%u2019s easy to conclude that moneyed interests are quite clever at protecting and expanding their interests, or they're just lucky things go their way. If the so-called conservatives truly had a consistent philosophy, we wouldn%u2019t have had such a chain of corruption debacles from Newt to DeLay to w. The corruption is their true colors showing through, crumbling the ****** of such sad jokes as %u2018Contract for America%u2019.

My greatest curiosity about our government now is this: who provided the money that got us such a low grade loser as president? Before you knee-jerk a conclusion about me, let me say that I think the best president we%u2019ve had in my lifetime is Ike, a republican.

[sparks224]

It%u2019s become popular for disenchanted Republicans to say %u201Coh they%u2019re all the same, they%u2019re all the same%u201D rather than admit the neo-con philosophy is a failure.
They bet on a losing horse.

[actornaught]

The last paragraph is where it's at, folks, "Partisan leaders in the media...".

Partisan leaders in the media.

They're professional manipulators, and it's very interesting that the wave of modern politics-as-entertainment started with the loss of the Fairness Doctrine, thanks to Reagan veto and Bush 41 threats. There followed the %u2018neocon%u2019 likes of rush limbaugh and Fox. They have us hating each other intensely, creating an industry based on exaggerating that hate. For example, they%u2019ve manufactured the %u201Cdominate liberal media%u201D, et al, as a straw man, even though recent years we%u2019ve seen true liberal media in Radio America. In short, they rally and unite their audience with a boogey man to hate.

Before all this came down on us, political parties didn%u2019t need such unifying strategies. Individual politicians were permitted their differences. I think we also had far fewer one-issue voters.

cont'd...

[standlee5]

Don't bother they're all the same. Dems and Pubs. They're all multi-national corporate w.h.o.r.e.s. Let's get rid of them all and get real people with a conscience and sense of reality in there. Revolt against these pathetic do-nothing corporate w.h.o.r.e.s.

[zorlacskates]

shut up, katg21. you "feel sorry" for democrats yet it's "sad but true" that the nation is politically divided? you must have the attention span (and possibly the intelligence) of a goldfish to have written both of those comments.

oh, and why is bush so unpopular? clinton! clinton! clinton! what was the question again?

[katg21]

Looks like the terrorists (politicians) won.

We are democrats or republicans first...Americans second.

Divide and then conquer the individual.
Posted by shanev137 at 07:02 PM : May 23, 2007

Sad but true.