Margie Omero

The Myth of a Gun "Intensity Gap"

2013-04-24T13:23:56-04:00

In the wake of the failure of the Senate to pass even a modest background check bill, many around the country are still scratching their heads. How could Senators ignore a "90% issue"? Many assume the answer lies in one of two places.

First, the supposed strength of the gun lobby. As I've written about before, and as has been written elsewhere, the NRA is in danger of being exposed as a paper tiger. They had a terrible return on their investment in 2012. And even their own members feel alienated. Gallup shows only about 5% of Americans are gun owners who feel the NRA always shares their views.

The second is a misestimation of "intensity." As written here and elsewhere, 90% of Americans may support background checks, but the other 10% will be more likely to vote based on gun laws. They are more passionate, the argument goes.

While it's true the 10% may be passionate (and receive, I believe, a disproportionate amount of coverage), the polling simply does not show gun law opponents feel more strongly than gun law supporters.

In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, just under a third (29%) said they could not vote for a candidate who disagreed with them on guns, even if they agreed on most other issues. This number is exactly the same in gun households and in non-gun households. It is essentially identical for both Democrats (29%) and Republicans (27%).

By the way, there are likely more single-issue gun voting women (33%) than men (26%), reflecting the strong gender gap on this issue I've written about before. And this Center for American Progress poll shows candidates slightly more likely to be punished for an NRA endorsement than rewarded, overall and with younger voters.

A recent Fox News poll actually shows more than twice as many voters will move away from a candidate who is against background checks than will move toward one. Two-thirds (68%) of voters (including 57% of Republicans and 60% of those in gun households) said they'd be more likely to support a candidate who expanded background checks. Only a quarter (23%) would be more likely to support a candidate against background checks, including 29% of Republicans and 28% of those in gun households.

And unsurprisingly for specific gun laws with majority support, there is more intensity for support than opposition. As Mark Blumenthal and Emily Swanson observed, in that recent WP/ABC poll, three-fourths (76%) strongly support universal background checks, 45% strongly support an assault weapons ban (30% strong oppose), and 44% strongly support a ban on high capacity magazines (31% strong oppose).

So no, there is no gap in intensity hurting the fight for stronger gun laws. There is simply a gap between public opinion and Senate votes. Maybe Senators are concerned about primary challenges, or have a distorted fear of the NRA. But no reading of the polls could lead to the conclusion that this is the outcome voters wanted.

Politicians, Not the Public, Have Moved on Guns

2013-04-03T03:28:58-04:00

Much has been made of a recent CBS poll showing declining support for "stricter gun control laws." But as argued in a new report for Center for American Progress (written by myself, an all-star bipartisan team of pollsters, and CAP Senior Fellow Arkadi Gerney), a survey question focused on broader views toward gun law fails to capture the reality of the debate.

First, the CBS poll question includes the phrase "gun control." As I've written about before, and in the above report, the word "control" is aggressive, outdated, and shown to immediately weaken support for stronger gun laws. It should be scrubbed from polling language.

Further, we simply have no idea what people are responding to when asked about "stricter gun control laws." Are they thinking about background checks? A new federal trafficking law? Mandatory buy-backs and confiscation? We just don't know. This makes the question less useful in nailing down public opinion.

Here's what we do know. There has been consistent, support for a variety of specific stronger gun laws, even before Newtown. In August 2012, CNN/ORC found overwhelming support for background checks (96 percent), and majority support for both an assault weapon ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines (57 percent, 60 percent, respectively). These numbers are essentially unchanged now (Fox News, March 19: 85 percent support background checks, 54 percent ban on high-capacity magazines, 51 percent ban assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons). Other outlets show similar results.

Here's what else we know. The NRA's main plan: more armed guards in school, has weathered a precipitous drop in support in the last few months. In the immediate aftermath of Newtown, Pew found 64 percent supported more armed guards in school. In the most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, support was evenly divided (50 percent support), a drop from their own earlier polling (55 percent support in January). Fox News polling also shows almost a 10-point drop since January in support for armed guards, while support for other proposals remain more consistent.

While on some gun questions support fluctuates, the president's main gun law priorities remain popular. It is politicians who have moved on these popular policies, not the public. And if anyone has missed their moment of a public opinion boost, it's NRA lobbyists, not stronger gun law advocates.

Ladies: All Hands On Deck

2013-03-08T13:10:04-05:00

In the latest "Mommy War" skirmish, two tech titans have awakened that other giant: the Ladyblogs. But like so many previous battles, Sandberg-Mayer vs. the girl gang is just a distraction from the real struggle over workplace equality desperate for reinforcements. (For more on the backlash, and the backlash against the backlash against Yahoo CEO's and Facebook's COO, read Roiphe, Walsh, or Goldberg.)

Much written on this topic is so personal, focusing on Mayer's dresses, Sandberg's shoes, or an author's own work and family choices. This sends the message that only through one's own experience can you develop a legitimate opinion about women's equality. (And your experience better be relatable!) I too have such credentials, but they are ultimately irrelevant.

Because the debate about how we accommodate mothers in the workplace should be much larger than any one CEO, or any one woman's story. When we have no national child care policy, and no consistent national standard about how new mothers are treated at work, we all suffer. We don't just suffer because it's harder. We suffer because we fight amongst ourselves over how hard it is. Working moms judge stay-at-home moms. Stay-at-home moms judge working moms. Mere mortal working moms judge Sandberg and Mayer. Women reporters judge women bloggers. Women bloggers chafe when they are critiqued.

All this infighting wastes valuable energy we should be spending fighting for policies, on which, amazingly, we largely agree. Last week the WK Kellogg Foundation released a national survey on breastfeeding, and they found similarly huge numbers of both stay-at-home moms and working moms say a variety of measures would be helpful to breastfeeding moms, including "free, discounted, or tax deductible breast pumps (78 percent stay at home moms, 82 percent working moms), workplaces supporting breastfeeding with "time and space to pump" (85 percent stay at home moms, 88 percent working moms), or even the vaguer "government policies that support breastfeeding" (64 percent stay at home moms, 68 percent working moms).

But helping moms is not just about breastfeeding, of course. After one State of the Union mention national polling shows preschool to be a higher priority than immigration reform or raising the minimum wage, and actually the second priority among women, tying background checks and following closing tax loopholes. Further, as I've written elsewhere, the pressure of balancing work, family, and personal responsibilities transcends party, and is not at all limited to rarefied world of high-powered executives. (Thanks to both the folks at Public Opinion Strategies and the Kellogg team for providing us with crosstabs for their surveys.)

Yahoo, albeit belatedly, explains their new policy is striving for "all hands on deck." Coincidentally, that's exactly what the women's movement needs, too. That means less time fighting each other, and more time fighting for all of us.

Raise Your Hand If You Like Public Preschool

2013-02-22T15:14:49-05:00

The post-State of the Union preschool debate and the anniversary of the Feminine Mystique make this a good time to examine views on the "women's issues" Stephanie Coontz so eloquently described as human rights issues. Turns out there is more consensus than division.

Most Americans feel women should be free to participate in the workforce without facing disapproval. This CNN/ORC poll from last year showed 97 percent "approve of a married woman holding a job in business or industry if her husband is able to support her." Almost as many (89 percent) also approved of a "married woman with young children" working. Also in 2012, Pew found nearly 80 percent -- a record high -- disagreed with the statement: "Women should return to their traditional roles in society."

And while CNN showed sizeable majorities finding "women working outside the home" a good thing for marriages (75 percent), the workplace (88 percent) and "society in general" (81 percent), the biggest shift was in views toward the effect of working women on their children. A majority said more women working was a good thing for their children (52 percent); in past decades a majority felt it was a bad thing. Similarly, Pew found a record high (61 percent) disagreed with the statement: "A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works."

Not only do people approve, but majorities of women themselves say they would prefer to work outside the home. CNN/ORC found 60 percent of women would prefer to work outside the home, the highest in decades of tracking. Gallup tracking confirms this, and even shows women not currently working are pretty divided on what they'd prefer.

But while support for working women in theory may pervade, so do daily struggles to balance work and family. A 2012 bipartisan post-election poll for the National Partnership for Women and Families showed huge numbers feel conflict in "managing work, family and personal responsibilities." Women feel the squeeze at least "some of the time" more than men (76 percent vs. 70 percent), a gap that widens among working women and men (81 percent vs. 72 percent). (Thanks to the National Partnership for Women and Families for providing crosstabs on their data.)

Efforts to improve preschool options could greatly ease these hardships. In my firm's focus groups with Walmart moms last week, moms became animated when talking about the President's agenda on public preschool. Each mom had a story of struggling to afford, or simply get to, their child's preschool. One mom said she had to quit her full-time job in order to be able to take her child to a part-time, private preschool. Another fondly recalled the public preschool program for which her family qualified.

(My firm, Momentum Analysis, along with Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, conducted two focus groups of Walmart moms on February 13, 2013, one in Philadelphia, the other in Kansas City. The groups are qualitative, rather than quantitative, and so results are not statistically projectable onto the population at large. Walmart moms are defined as moms with kids under 18 living at home who have shopped at a Walmart at least once in the last month. See more of our past research here. All Walmart moms research is sponsored by Walmart. The views in this post are my own.)

Candidates looking to reach women voters would be well-advised to address issues of work/life balance. Currently, though, it seems Democrats have the advantage. In a May 2012 Hart/McInturff poll for the Wall Street Journal, Democrats were seen as having a 26-point advantage being "attuned and sensitive" to the needs of working women. (They had an 8-point advantage in being attuned to the needs of stay-at-home moms.) In the official 2012 exit polls, Obama benefited from a large gender gap overall (+10), and a larger gender gap among parents (+11) than among non-parents (+7). (The official exit polls do not include a gender/employment crosstab.)

But helping working families doesn't have to be a partisan issue. According to the National Partnership crosstabs, Republican women are actually slightly more likely to say they face hardships managing household struggles than are independent and Democratic women. Helping working families juggle home and work -- through programs like full-day public preschool -- would actually benefit women and men, Democrats and Republicans. And it could help candidates of both parties at the polls.

Stronger Gun Laws: The Next Women's Issue?

2013-01-23T14:21:50-05:00

Close followers of my blog posts (hi Mom!) know I've written extensively about how support for stronger gun laws is actually less controversial than the press reports might lead you to believe. And crosstabs suggest something driving the dissension that does exist: a gender gap that transcends party lines.

Women more supportive of stronger gun laws, broadly

Women are more likely than men to support stronger gun laws, even before any specific gun laws are described. In the Post-Newtown climate, all major outlets releasing data by gender show a nearly identical pattern. CBS/New York Times shows a gender gap of +14 points for support for "more strict" gun laws (women: 61 percent "more strict"). And Democratic-leaning outlet PPP shows a similar +16 point gap in support for "Congress passing stricter gun laws" (women: 61 percent support). Pew also shows a 13-point gender gap in support for "controlling gun ownership" over "protecting the right of Americans to own a gun" (women: 57 percent "control gun ownership").

Women more supportive of stronger gun laws, specifically

There is also a gender gap in support for specific gun laws up for debate. In the latest Washington Post/ABC poll, women are more likely than men to support a variety of specific gun laws. Every proposal but two has a gender gap of double digits. Pew's poll from around the same time shows a similar result, although men are more supportive of arming teachers or adding armed guards to schools.

Women more likely to be worried about school shootings, and the danger of guns

There is also a clear gender gap in concern about school shootings. The same Washington Post/ABC poll shows nearly two-thirds of women are concerned about a mass shooting in their communities (62 percent), but fewer than half of men (46 percent) have similar concerns. Gallup shows nearly identical results with 60 percent of women feeling it is very or somewhat likely something similar to Newtown could happen in their community, compared to just 43 percent of men.

Women are also far more likely to worry that gun ownership makes them less safe. In the immediate aftermath of Newtown, Pew found a majority of men felt gun ownership does more to "protect people from crime" than "put people's safety at risk" (men: 55 percent, 30 percent). But a plurality of women (43 percent) agreed with the latter. And nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of women said allowing citizens to own assault rifles makes the country "more dangerous" compared to 58 percent of men.

Men may be favorable toward the NRA, but women are not

When you read a headline about the NRA being a "popular organization" (such as here, here and here), remember that it is only true among men. PPP finds nearly half of women unfavorable toward the group (48 percent unfavorable), and even in December before the NRA's blustery press conference women were slightly unfavorable toward the group (43 percent unfavorable, 41 percent favorable). The Washington Post/ABC poll shows women unfavorable toward the "NRA leadership" by almost 2-to-1 (50 percent unfavorable, 28 percent favorable), while men are more favorable (45 percent favorable, 37 percent unfavorable).

Further, in the Washington Post/ABC poll a plurality of women (42 percent) feel the NRA has too much influence; fewer men feel the same (34 percent).

This isn't just a post-Newtown phenomenon

The Washington Post/ABC poll reveals women are more likely than men to say Newtown has made them more supportive of stronger gun laws (58 percent among women, 45 percent among men). But this gender gap existed pre-Newtown. Since 1991 Gallup has consistently found a double-digit gender gap in support for "more strict" gun laws. Similarly, Pew data in recent years shows majorities of women prioritize "controlling gun ownership" while majorities of men prioritize "protecting the right of Americans to own a gun."

These patterns transcend party

These differences can't be explained solely by a gender gap in party identification. Pew has released extensive tables after recent polls, showing women across party more likely to support "controlling gun ownership." Among independents the gap was almost 20 points in December (though it narrowed in Pew's most recent survey). There's also a large gender gap among whites; a clear majority of white men prioritize gun rights (63 percent), while a majority of white women prioritize "controlling gun ownership" (50 percent). Interestingly, there is little gap between mothers and non-mothers in their views on guns.

This pattern was also true before Newtown according to my own firm's bipartisan work for Mayors Against Illegal Guns. In 2011 national polling we found Democratic, Independent and Republican women were significantly more likely than their male counterparts to support "stricter gun laws" (Democrats: 81 percent women, 68 percent men; Independents: 54 percent women, 29 percent men; Republicans: 43 percent women, 21 percent men). This same pattern also held in support for specific proposals.

This gender gap could define the debate

With women deciding the election for Obama, a gap on stronger gun laws could be a defining issue in elections to come. Pew notes men are divided as to whether Obama's proposed gun policies are "about right" or "go too far," while a plurality of women (41 percent) feel the policy package is about right. Gallup finds both genders support Obama's policies on guns (men by an 8-point margin, women by a 17-point margin). But the debate on these policies has just begun. Given the consistent, ongoing gender differences on stronger gun laws, this could be yet another cue women voters use to identify candidates who share their values.

The NRA Stands Alone

2013-01-11T14:41:43-05:00

At the NRA website you can learn about how "the media continually misfires." Get it? Well, America is no longer chuckling at its tone-deafness. Both Gallup and PPP have shown the NRA's favorability declining post-Newtown. And even gun owners are distancing themselves from the group. By refusing to seek a balanced approach to reducing gun violence, the NRA has exiled itself from the mainstream.

PPP this week finds the NRA now unfavorable (42 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable) in the wake of their crazy-making December 21st press conference. This is a drop from 48 percent favorable/41 percent unfavorable just weeks before, with erosion across party lines. While a few weeks ago Gallup found the NRA to be net favorable (the press conference occurred mid-fielding), it is still a six-point drop in favorability from their 2005 poll. Gallup also shows voters unfavorable toward the NRA are evenly divided between "very" and "mostly" unfavorable, while those favorable feel that way more softly.

This is a reminder that gun owners and the NRA are not synonymous. Gallup shows a quarter of gun owners to be unfavorable to the NRA. Even more troubling for the group, gun owners (45 percent of adults, Gallup estimates) are divided as to whether the organization reflects their own views on guns (50 percent always/most of the time reflects, 49 percent only sometimes/never reflects). And twice as many (19 percent) say the group "never" reflects their views than say it "always" does (10 percent). So according to Gallup about 5 percent of adults are gun owners who say the NRA always reflects their views. Hardly a dominant electoral bloc.

It's no surprise the NRA has found itself sidelined, since voters -- including gun owners -- see common ground. Republican pollster Frank Luntz showed in his work for Mayors Against Illegal Guns in 2012 and in 2009 that huge numbers of gun owners (including NRA members), feel it is possible to protect gun rights while also keeping guns out of dangerous hands. And my firm's own work for the group (along with Republican pollster Bob Carpenter), showed voters in gun households are just as supportive of a long list of stronger gun laws. Right after the election, we polled again in three battleground states, and found the NRA's influence to be waning. (See here for all my past posts on guns.)

So, NRA, drop out of the gun violence debate if you must. But huge majorities of voters -- including your own members -- would still like a seat at the table to work for a solution.

How Gallup Is Wrong on Guns

2012-12-19T16:47:32-05:00

Post-Newtown, Gallup has been releasing a steady stream of polling and analysis on guns. But their results leave me with more questions than answers.

In this poll released today, Gallup tests six different measures, asking respondents how effective each would be in "preventing mass shootings at schools, like the one that occurred in Connecticut." Only one of the six is a stronger gun law. Two are about increasing a gun presence at schools. And missing from the list are two massive oversights: banning high-capacity magazines and fixing the current background check system.

In this analysis from Monday, Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport reviews past Gallup findings on guns. A post-Tucson survey asked respondents, in their own words, what are "the one or two most important things that could be done to prevent mass shootings from occurring in the United States." In Gallup's analysis: "significantly more Americans named things that were directly related to gun control than things that were not directly related to gun control." I have three problems with this conclusion.

First, a plurality (24 percent) actually said "stricter gun laws." With mental health screening second (15 percent) and every other response in single digits.

Second, Gallup didn't consider "better enforcement of existing gun laws" as "directly related to gun control." Yet fixing the broken background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking are just two "better enforcement" measures supported by Mayors Against Illegal Guns and other groups. [Disclosure, Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a client of my firm, Momentum Analysis. You can read my previous posts on the topic here, here, here, here, and elsewhere.]

Third, rather than compare the 42 percent of respondents who volunteered some sort of stronger gun law to every other response, it might also be helpful to examine those suggesting we make gun laws weaker. Only 4 percent of post-Tucson respondents said "allowing people to carry guns for their own protection" would help prevent more mass shootings. Compare that figure to the scores of politicians in recent days who have suggested exactly that.

I've written before about the use of the word "control" and outdated pollster trendlines on a handgun ban. As you read public polling in the weeks ahead, also make sure the variety of popular proposals are included before rendering judgment. I respect Gallup tremendously, but am troubled by their gun polling nonetheless.

This Is the Moment for Stronger Gun Laws: Voters Are Ready

2012-12-17T14:43:56-05:00

In the wake of the horror at Sandy Hook Elementary School, commentators are wondering if there is public support for stronger gun laws. But polling shows voters are ready. Several patterns emerge from our ongoing bipartisan work for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, along with other public polling.

Voters Have Never Supported Weaker Gun Laws.

While Gallup's trend line may show declining support for stronger gun laws, it also shows a consistent lack of support for weaker gun laws. Yet that's exactly what's come to pass. Washington has let the assault weapon ban expire, and now allows guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains. States have moved to allow guns in schools, college campuses, bars and playgrounds. Yet barely 10 percent of the electorate has been clamoring for "less strict" laws.

There is Widespread Support for a Variety of Common-Sense Gun Laws.

My firm's own polling in 2011 showed majority support for a whole host of gun laws, such as requiring background checks for every purchase (89 percent), tracking bulk purchases of assault weapons (81 percent) and banning high-capacity magazines (58 percent). And we found majorities strongly support nearly every provision we tested.

Even In Gun Households or With Gun Owners.

The above provisions also received strong, widespread support by voters in gun households. And Republican pollster Frank Luntz showed, also for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, gun owners (including NRA members) to be strongly supportive of background checks, requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns and other provisions. Further, his polling shows about nine in ten NRA members feel the Second Amendment goes "hand in hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals."

Post-Newtown Polls Show Even More Support for Action.

Polls are starting to trickle in, and the results are consistent. This Washington Post/ABC News poll shows majority support for stricter gun laws, for a semiautomatic handgun ban, and for a ban on high-capacity magazines. Half also say this shooting "reflects broader problems in American society," more than after past shootings. And this Huffington Post/YouGov poll shows half want to see stricter gun laws. More also feel stronger gun laws, not more guns, make us safe.

This Is Not About Control. It's About Public Safety.

Stop using the phrase "gun control." No matter what Nate Silver says, this is not a neutral term, and gun law advocates dropped it long ago. Pew and other outlets still use the phrase, but in my view it conjures up images of "control" for its own sake. We hardly use the word "control" for other sets of laws.

Demand a Plan.
While the women of Sandy Hook bravely stood between their charges and a madman, those who support more lax gun laws refused to go on Meet The Press to defend their position (and the NRA went silent online). Families deserve action, not silence. If you're ready for Washington to take real steps forward on guns, Demand a Plan from President Obama and your elected officials.

Voters Pry NRA's Influence Out of Its Hands

2012-12-03T11:36:59-05:00

Candidates feeling cowed by NRA influence should fear no more. NRA spending this cycle was ineffective -- or at least insufficient. In six of seven U.S. Senate races where NRA spending exceeded $100,000, their favored candidate lost (see this Media Matters report). And according to campaign finance watchdog group The Sunlight Foundation, the NRA Political Victory Fund's return on investment on their 2012 general election campaign spending was less than 1 percent -- the worst track record of all major political committees and organizations.

Polls confirm this too. Immediately following the election my firm, along with Republican pollster Bob Carpenter, president of Chesapeake Beach Consulting, conducted polling in battleground states on behalf of the bipartisan group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). We wanted to see whether, and how strongly, gun issues influenced the election. We chose North Carolina (a battleground state voting for Romney), Virginia (where the NRA was active in the Senate race), and Colorado (the location of a recent mass shooting). The results were remarkably consistent.

(We conducted 500 telephone interviews in each state, November 7-8, 2012. A voter file of registered voters was used, with voters further screened for having voted in the 2012 Presidential general election. The margin of error for each survey is +/-4.4 percent.)

Despite Vast Election Spending, NRA Didn't Move The Needle & More Favor Obama Over Romney On Guns

Survey results confirm the NRA has little to show for its investment, either in voter recall or persuasion. Only about a quarter of voters in each state recalled seeing, reading or hearing something from the NRA about the Presidential (or Virginia Senate) race (27 percent in Colorado, 22 percent in North Carolina, 26 percent in Virginia). Recall in non-gun-owning households was even lower (13 percent in CO, 15 percent in NC,17 percent in VA).

And in no state did Romney best Obama on the issue. About half of Virginians trusted Obama over Romney on gun laws, while Obama led Romney among Coloradans and North Carolinians within the margin of error.

The NRA's efforts in the Virginia senate race -- spending at least $700,000 to help Republican George Allen -- produced mixed results at best. Among voters who remembered hearing from the NRA, slightly more actually said it made them more favorable about Senator-Elect Tim Kaine (34 percent) than less favorable (30 percent). The effect of NRA messaging on Republican George Allen's standing was similarly mixed (31 percent more favorable as a result, 29 percent less favorable). And those who recalled hearing the NRA's message were more likely to be in their base; they were disproportionately Republican, male and living in gun-owning households.

(Note: actual NRA spending likely exceeds these estimates. October spending reports have not yet been filed with the FEC, and the NRA is not required to disclose spending on communications deemed educational, rather than political, in nature.)

Voters Favor Stronger Gun Laws

Previous polling consistently shows (here, here, here and here) voters favor stronger gun laws, both as a general proposition, and when asked about specific reforms. Our results reinforce those findings.

Voters in the three targeted states overwhelmingly believe all gun buyers should first pass a background check, and believe sex offenders and those with domestic violence arrests shouldn't be able to carry concealed guns across state lines.

Majorities also oppose national reciprocity for concealed carry permits -- the NRA's top federal priority. The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would allow people to bring a concealed, loaded gun into any state, even if they fail to meet local permitting requirements.

Voters in gun-owning households are no different from the electorate at large on these measures.

Guns Not a Vote Driver, But Majorities Call For Reform in President's Second Term

As the nation recovers from the worst recession since the Great Depression, the economy and jobs topped voters' concerns, and few said gun policy drove their vote. Even so, a majority of voters in each of these battleground states said the candidates' position on guns was a factor in their decision.

Regardless of the role gun policy played in the election, large majorities of voters in each state want gun laws to be at least "somewhat important" of a priority for President Obama in his second term. Democrats in Virginia and Colorado were more likely than others in their state to call for reform. In North Carolina, independents are most supportive of making gun law reform a priority.

So remember these results the next time you hear about the power of the NRA. They failed to influence elections, and their agenda fails with voters.

[Update: Specified official name of NRA campaign fund.]

Republicans' Woman Problem Transcends Race

2012-11-13T19:34:41-05:00

Without a doubt a big story from last week is Republicans' "demography problem" with minority voters. Others say race (and not gender) is really the main story of the election.

But actually Republicans continue to have a gender problem that transcends race. While Romney did indeed win with white women (+14 Romney), he won by a far larger margin with white men (+27). So there is still a gender gap among whites. (The gender gap is defined as the difference between men and women's support for a candidate.)

And while the gender gap among whites was a bit smaller in this election than the gender gap among blacks and Latinos, the gender gap among all three groups rose from 2008. The chart below shows the gender gap across race for every presidential election for which we have public exit polls.

Obama's gender gap among whites in this election was lower only than Clinton in 1996 and Gore in 2000. Further, while not on the chart above, the 2012 gender gap among whites was also larger than that in the 2006 and 2010 midterms (3 and 5 points, respectively). To claim the gender problem Republicans faced in 2012 is "merely" a race problem is the denial that has actually helped cement this pattern.

Women Voters Won! But Don't Think It's All About Abortion

2012-11-12T07:16:17-05:00

As I thought might happen, Obama won Tuesday by winning women and losing men, which hasn't occurred since 1996. Obama had a 10-point gender gap in the exit polls, and Gallup's own data show the largest gender gap they've ever seen. And in many Senate races, women alone sent women candidates to the Senate. Many commentators on the left and the right thanked/blamed Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. But I'm not convinced the polling shows social issues are solely responsible for driving up the gender gap.

To be sure, social issues worked in Democrats' favor in this election. Six in ten (59%) of respondents in exit polls said abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and they broke to Obama by 2-to-1 (67%). More voters also expressed slightly more support for gay marriage (49% support, 46% oppose), with Obama doing as well with supporters as Romney did with opponents (3-to-1).

This is a big development. Recall back in 2004 exit polls a slim plurality said "moral issues" were most important to them. This provoked a lot of handwringing over Democrats' problem with "god, guns, and gays." And in 2010, exit polls showed a majority of voters opposed to abortion (53%), and Democratic House candidates did no better with pro-choice voters than with pro-life voters (48% for each).

But these results don't give Democrats a mandate to make social issues the focus of our campaigns any more than 2010's results were a mandate for Republicans to talk about social issues. That is to say: not at all.

In fact, women voters care about the same things men care about: the economy, jobs, and health care. In an election-night survey of voters nationally, with an oversample of Walmart moms, the social issues of abortion and gay marriage were distant vote drivers.

(The survey of 1600 voters and 432 Walmart moms was conducted by Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, along with my firm, Momentum Analysis, and sponsored by Walmart. Walmart moms are defined as moms with kids under 18 living at home who have shopped at a Walmart at least once in the last month. See more of our past research here. The views in this post are my own.)

The table below shows responses to an open-ended question about what issues influenced voters' decision. (Issues with fewer responses omitted from this table.) A few points stick out at me:
• The economy and jobs dominate. For everyone.
• Health care and education appears to be more important to Walmart moms than to voters overall.
• Abortion is as important to pro-life voters as to pro-choice voters. But neither position is more important than the top tier set of issues.
• Note how far down the list the deficit and Medicare are. (A topic for a whole different post.)

What three years of Walmart mom research (including nearly two dozen qualitative discussions and about a dozen different survey projects) tells me is moms want to feel their elected officials understand what their lives are like. Social issues, including a focus on social issues at the expense of the economy, run the risk of demonstrating candidates of both parties are out of touch. In focus groups, respondents frequently worried Washington "didn't have the sense of urgency" about the economy they do. In 2011 Walmart mom polling, moms worried about their household finances more than the nation's economy by 2-to-1. Among voters overall, concern was evenly divided.

And so it is the perception that Romney and Republican candidates were out of touch that mattered more than any check-off on abortion, gay marriage, or even the economy. In the official pool exit polls, a plurality said Obama's policies favor the middle class, while a majority said Romney's policies favor the rich. And a majority found Obama more in touch with people like them, while giving Romney a 1-point advantage on handling the economy.

Social issues of course are priorities for some voters. But they are not, on their own, determinative for most voters, even most women. This oft-quoted Gallup poll asked women voters about "the most important issue for women" (emphasis mine) while this Gallup poll showed a far different result when asked about the most important issue "for the country," and more closely mirrors our own election night polling. When women go to the polls, they are thinking about which candidate will fight for them personally, and that means quite a lot more than abortion. For candidates in both parties looking to continue to include women in the political conversation, this is an important lesson.

Remedial Women's Studies: The 2012 Republican Party

2012-10-25T11:44:16-04:00

Think this year's political focus on women's issues is just some overblown hype fueled by a few rogue Akins and Mourdocks? Think again. I sorted through binders full of Republican candidates, and found a real pattern. To be sure, Democrats have their own transgressions, and not all Republican electeds share these beliefs. (It's about as bad as my 2010 list.) Maybe Republican leaders around the country took the world's worst women's studies class, syllabus below:

Intro Seminar: Women's Anatomy

Abuse allegations against Nicholas Schwaderer, GOP candidate for the Montana State Legislature are unresolved (although when asked to comment he handed the phone to his mother). But here, young Schwaderer comments he has "seen some pretty scary vaginas" and wouldn't "object to the occasional blowy." He passes the phone to his mom with that mouth?

Women of a certain age know you can't tell if you're pregnant until about two weeks after conception. Online, it's even called "the two-week wait." In Arizona, they've found a workaround: HB 2036. It bans abortions for fetuses older than 20 weeks (making it one of the strictest laws in the country), and starts the clock as much as two weeks before conception. Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill.

In Virginia, legislators and extremist Governor Bob McDonnell made national news by supporting a bill subjecting pregnant women to a forced transvaginal ultrasound. Doctors could not object, nor could patients. Supportive legislator Todd Gilbert argued that most abortions are "lifestyle conveniences." After drawing unwanted attention, legislators said they didn't realize the ultrasounds would be transvaginal. But if you don't know enough about women's bodies to know how early ultrasounds are performed, then you probably (read: definitely) shouldn't be legislating them.

Also in Virginia, Republican Delegate Bob Marshall reports that God has a special punishment for women who have had abortions: disabled children. Science reports back: Marshall is wrong.

It was an unbelievable oversight for Congressman Darrell Issa's (CA-49) Oversight committee to not ask a single woman to testify at a hearing about restricting access to birth control. After Sandra Fluke was denied the right to speak, the personal attacks began. Most of them wrongfully accused her of wanting birth control coverage for herself to prevent pregnancy. In fact, she was discussing a friend's medical condition requiring hormonal birth control for treatment.

Special Guest Lecturers: The Class of 2010 (Don't Say You Weren't Warned!)

Congressman Joe Walsh (IL-8) has made the spotlight by repeatedly trashing his opponent, screaming at a constituent, and saying there is no scientific need for a "life of the mother" abortion exception. Despite being an embarrassment to his party, outside groups have spent over $1M on his behalf, more than for almost any other Republican House candidate.

"Family-values" Congressman Scott DesJarlais (TN-4) taped himself trying to convince his mistress to have an abortion. This is not simply salacious; it exposes the hypocrisy of DesJarlais' extreme pro-life stance.

Florida Congressmen Allen West (FL-22) continues to make news, with dismissive attitudes toward women as a recurring theme.

Study Group Topic: "I'm OK, you're not"

Some lawmakers are quick to judge others harshly or with suspicion. Indiana Senator Patricia Miller introduced a law requiring anyone seeking fertility treatments to first get government approval. Miller's bill explains "approval" might include personality tests and information about "hobbies and talents" and church activities. Does developing extreme legislation creating major government overreach count as a hobby, or a talent? (Disclosure: my firm works with some Democratic Indiana State Senate candidates.)

In Arkansas, Republican candidate (and former legislator) Charlie Fuqua released a book saying the bible permits the death penalty for "rebellious children." He also says we should expel all Muslims from the country. He can start an extremist legislator book club with some of his fellow Arkansas Republicans.

Arizona Republican legislators fought for a bill requiring women to submit a medical claim to their employer if they needed birth control for any non-medical reasons. In defense of the bill, Republican State Representative Debbie Lesko said, "I believe we live in America...[not] the Soviet Union." Never mind that no one lives in the Soviet Union anymore, Lesko fails to see many American women might find it even more onerous to provide their bosses with such personal information.

Public Speaking Training: Bad Jokes

Those who know me know I like to work blue. But when Scott Brown, Jim Sensenbrenner, Herman Cain, Mike Huckabee, and (of course) Todd Akin all make fun of women figures for their appearance, voice, ladylikeness or princessy-ness, I see red. And so it's fair to ask: has any male figure (aside from, unfairly, Chris Christie) received such treatment?

Legal Seminar 1: Workplace Discrimination

There's more to the equal pay debate than Lilly Ledbetter. All Republicans in the Senate opposed the Paycheck Fairness Act, which goes beyond Lilly Ledbetter.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker repealed part of the state's equal pay law that made it easier for people to argue their case before lower courts.

And in Missouri, Republican legislators in both chambers voted to weaken workplace discrimination legislation, making it harder for people to prove discrimination based on gender, pregnancy, race and disability. Even after a spirited debate on the floor. Governor Nixon vetoed the bill, which was sponsored by State Representative Kevin Elmer (Disclosure: my firm works with some Democratic Missouri State House candidates.)

Legal Seminar 2: Domestic Violence

Normally, Congress reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act without much fuss. But not in this current hyper-politicized environment. Republicans in the House voted against extending VAWA protections to LGBT women or undocumented immigrants, led by Congresswoman Sandy Adams (FL-24). Apparently some abuse victims are less deserving of protection from violence. Republicans also voted against stronger confidentiality protections for victims. A tougher version of the bill passed the Senate, so not surprisingly the bill is now stalled. Watch how far Senate candidate Republican Connie Mack (FL-14) will go to avoid talking about the bill.

In New Hampshire, Republican legislators fought to gut protections for domestic violence victims, by requiring police to personally witness the crime (as opposed to evidence of a crime) before making an arrest without a warrant. Law enforcement opposed, but politicians pressed on. (The final bill, sponsored by Dan Itse, died in committee.)

Everyone Gets an F in Rape

We've saved the worst for last. Congressman Todd Akin may be the Lindsay Lohan of rape-comment train wrecks, but there are plenty of other starlets following in his footsteps. But just as a refresher, Akin said the body "shuts down" after a "legitimate rape." Fellow experts Congressman Steve King (IA-5) and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6) agreed.

Have you heard the one about how "some girls rape easy"? You haven't? Well, Wisconsin Republican State Representative Roger Rivard says if a girl gets pregnant during consensual sex, she may then say she was raped. Funny, right? Wait, Rivard would like us to know that was actually advice from his dad, and so maybe this whole thing was "kind of taken out of context." (The right context being the 19th Century.) Mr. Rape Easy has been endorsed by the Family Research Council's Wisconsin affiliate because of his commitment to "traditional families."

And who will "put yourself in a father's position," wondered Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith? He uses his own family's personal story to equate pregnancy out of wedlock and rape, and asks a reporter for sympathy.

What's worse, sexual assault, or illegal immigration? Massachusetts State Representative Ryan Fattman thinks he has the answer. When specifically asked about illegal immigrant rape victims, he said: "if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward."

In Kansas, Republican State Representative Pete DeGraaf said women should "plan ahead" for an abortion from a birth control failure or rape. After all, he said, he carries a spare tire in his car. Maybe if more women planned ahead, we'd have fewer representatives like Pete DeGraaf.

And when the New Hampshire legislature tried to scrub the phrase "mentally defective" from the state's sexual assault law, Republican State Representative Ken Kreis objected, noting a recent victim in the news "had her entire life to get used to being called 'defective.'"

Of course, just this week Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said in a debate pregnancy from rape is a "gift from God." What if you're a rape victim who disagrees with Mourdock's view? Well, I'm sure someone that extreme has no chance of getting elected, or won't get the help of his party. Oh wait.

Homework: Defeat Romney/Ryan

Who is in charge of this class anyway, the students, or the instructors? Regardless, we'd be wise to abandon Romney and Ryan; they seem uncomfortable with the subject matter. And I have some suggested remedial reading. Let's start with Our Bodies Ourselves, and Free to Be You & Me. As classics from over five decades ago, they might be the right first step for Republican candidates hoping to get caught up on women's issues.

A Volatile Race, But a More Stable Gender Gap

2012-10-16T15:53:50-04:00

The presidential horserace has been bouncing around since Labor Day. A stronger Democratic convention, Romney's 47 percent calamity, Obama's lackluster debate, and Biden's strong performance have all contributed to a fluid race. But contrary to some coverage and Democratic handwringing, one thing that hasn't moved as much is the gender gap.

The gender gap is the difference between male and female support for a candidate. (It is not how much a candidate leads with women.) So using this definition, the gender gap has stabilized over the last few weeks. The woman-powered Obama surge I noted here leveled off. When Obama lost ground after Denver, he lost ground equally with both men and women. Even in the much-discussed USA Today/Gallup poll, Obama benefits from an 8-point gender gap nationally. Below is a chart of the gender gap from just before the conventions until now, using publicly available national polls from major outlets that release results by gender. Of course, different polls show different gaps, but overall this trend is much more stable than the horserace, looking at Huffington Post's own trendline.

Here's why the gender gap is important. In the current climate, with an 8-10 point gender gap, Obama could win even if he loses men. This hasn't happened since 1996, when official exit polls show Clinton won by 16 points among women, and Dole just barely eked out a 1-point advantage among men. (Gallup's last pre-election poll shows Clinton winning with both genders.) That was also the year with the largest gender gap.

So, tonight, it's crucial for both candidates to address women's concerns. I'll be in Milwaukee, watching the debate with swing-voting Walmart moms who will be dialing as they watch, and discussing the debate afterwards. (The session is part of ongoing bipartisan research conducted by my firm, Momentum Analysis, along with the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, and sponsored by Walmart. Read more about our work here.)

In a similar group during the first debate, Walmart moms felt many of their most important issues weren't discussed. Whoever wins this election will need to win over women, and winning over women means talking to them. One thing we know for sure is women are listening.

Republicans Alienate Women on Abortion, Role of Government

2012-10-11T16:45:13-04:00

With Mitt Romney's latest double-talk on abortion and Obama's post-debate slump, women are again in the news. Some conflate a discussion about women voters with a discussion about abortion. And the right often argues that women will vote based on the economy, not abortion. Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway reminded us a few months ago that no poll has shown abortion to be a top-tier concern for women, and so a battle for women voters should be more expansive.

I agree there is far more to earning women's votes than checking a box on abortion. And abortion does take a backseat to the economy and jobs. Nonetheless, the Republican position costs them support, as abortion is far more important to women than men. In September, Pew showed abortion to be the issue with the largest gender difference in importance. And this Pew poll shows nearly half of women say it will be "very important" to their vote this year. They are also even more likely than men to favor Obama on this issue.

This also means the right finds itself increasingly on the wrong side of public opinion on the role of government. In a Gallup poll from yesterday, a majority now say "the government should not favor any particular set of values" as opposed to "promote traditional values." (With majorities of white voters and independents agreeing, according to crosstabs Gallup kindly provided.) CNN found something similar. The current CNN and Gallup figures are new highs for a question tracked since 1993.

This, perhaps, coincides with Pew's recent finding that more Americans have no religious affiliation than ever before. This unaffiliated group is overwhelmingly pro-choice (72 percent). They are also twice as likely as the public overall to believe "religion losing its influence on American life" to be a good thing.

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham (SC) worried that "we're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business in the long term." Nothing highlights this more than Romney and Ryan's inconsistent and increasingly marginal views on abortion.

Women Are Behind the Obama Surge

2012-09-21T15:39:44-04:00

As you may have heard, it's been a bad week for Mitt Romney. And while he's taken a tumble in the polls, nationally it's still a fairly close race. But both nationwide and in some key swing states, Obama's lead among women has widened considerably. Women are behind the Obama surge.

National polling averages, like Huffington Post's own model, show a 3-point race. Other polls show a wider race, and in some, like Gallup's tracking in swing states, the race is tighter. Individual swing states, like Virginia and Ohio, also show a clear Obama lead.

Most of this movement has come from women voters. The chart below shows Obama's margin over Romney broken out by gender in public polls from August 20 through today (all telephone or IVR public polls I could easily find are included; none were left out). Not only do women consistently give Obama the edge, the gender gap in Obama's performance seems to be widening.

Similarly, individual swing state polls show major Obama advantages among women. This Fox News poll in Ohio shows 57 percent of women voting for Obama -- a 23-point advantage! -- compared to a 10-point deficit among men. This week a Washington Post survey in Virginia showed something similar: a 19-point Obama advantage among women, and a 6-point deficit among men. The latest Purple Poll in a dozen swing states shows a 12-point Obama advantage among women, and a 2-point deficit among men.

The gender gap in the most recent Pew poll is +10 (defined as the difference between men and women's support for Obama). In 2008, Obama benefited from a 7-point gap. A double-digit gender gap would be larger than that of most past presidential races. And while a large gap doesn't always lead to a Democratic victory, this year it would, as Obama has led Romney more often than not.