Hoover Daily Report

ObamaCare and the Independent Vote

via Wall Street Journal
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The Wall Street Journal

*JUNE 19, 2010

ObamaCare and the Independent Vote
Voter opposition hasn't changed, and it could be decisive in November.

By David Brady, Daniel Kessler And Douglas Rivers

The Democrats made a strategic choice to pass health reform even though they knew it did not have majority support. They assumed passage would generate a positive initial response from the media—which it did. They also hoped that, with time, voters would see reform in a more favorable light, and that health care would not pose an issue in the midterm elections. Were the Democrats right? If our polling is correct, they were not.

In January, we asked voters in 11 states that could have competitive Senate races in November—Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania—how they felt about health reform and how they were likely to vote. The polls were conducted by YouGov using a panel of Internet users selected to represent registered voters in each state. We found widespread opposition to reform—and to the Democratic senators who voted in favor of it.

Last month, we went back to the same voters and asked the same questions. We found that public opinion about health reform is roughly stable, and opposition to reform appears to be an important determinant of voting intention in the midterm elections—particularly for political independents.

In January, a majority in each of the 11 states opposed health reform. Not surprisingly, public opinion was more favorable in the more liberal states. Voters in Connecticut opposed reform by a margin of 55% to 45%, whereas voters in Louisiana opposed reform 63% to 37%. In key battleground states like Colorado and Ohio, voters opposed reform 58% to 42%.

By the end of May, opposition had generally declined, although the declines were small and not statistically significant. Notably, health reform's biggest gains have come in the most liberal states, where election outcomes are less in doubt. Opinion about reform in Connecticut is now evenly split at 50/50; opinion in Louisiana went more negative, to 64% against and 36% for. In battleground states, opposition to reform has hardly budged. Voters in Colorado and Ohio still oppose reform 56% to 44% and 57% to 43%, respectively.

To determine how this is likely to affect the midterms, we used a statistical model to isolate the independent impact of people's opinion about health reform, one factor among many of their candidate preferences. In our model, we controlled for people's party identification; their self-reported ideology and 2008 presidential vote; their current opinion about President Obama; and an extensive set of demographic characteristics, including age, gender, race, income, education, state of residence and health-insurance status.

In both January and May, opinion about reform had a statistically significant and electorally important impact on intention to vote against the Democratic candidate for Senate. Voters who opposed health reform were around 20 percentage points more likely to vote for the Republican candidate.

We also asked the standard generic ballot question, "If the 2010 elections for the House of Representatives were held today, would you vote Democrat or Republican?" If anything, the effect of health reform on House races is even larger than the 20 point effect on Senate races. In January, voters who opposed health reform were 24 points more likely to vote Republican; by May, they were 44 points more likely. This is consistent with Charles Franklin's analysis in Pollster.com showing that, for the first time since 1994, Republicans lead in the generic ballot.

These estimates mask important differences among voters and among states. Back to Colorado and Ohio. Even if Mr. Obama could convince every self-identified Republican in these states to favor his health-reform plan, our model predicts that he would not switch many votes. The same holds for Republicans. Even if they could convince every self-identified Democrat to oppose health reform, very few Democrats would change their mind at the ballot box.

In contrast, independents' views about health reform have a much greater effect on their vote intention. If, in either Colorado or Ohio, the president could swing independents' opinion about health reform in his favor, our model predicts that the Democratic candidate for Senate could pick up as much as six additional percentage points of the independent vote.

In Colorado, this would mean that independents would split 56% to 44% for the Democrat rather than 50/50; in Ohio, it would mean that independents would split 52% to 48% rather than 57% to 43% for the Republican. In a close race, this could be enough to put the Democrat in the lead. Given the stability of public opinion in close states, our analysis suggests that the president faces an uphill battle.

Mr. Brady is a professor of political science at Stanford University and deputy director of the Hoover Institution. Mr. Kessler is a professor of business and law at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Rivers is a professor of political science at Stanford, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and president of YouGov Polimetrix.