Two significant takeaways emerged from these groups: 1. The sheer magnitude of the deficit and debt numbers are virtually incomprehensible for voters, and 2. Their fears are largely intuitive and, as focus group participants, had a difficult time volunteering what specifically underlies their fears about growing deficits and mounting debt. When the magnitude of the debt was made more comprehensible, specifically when numbers are put in per household terms (i.e., total federal obligation of $546,000 per household, rather than total of $6 trillion in federal debt), or in context of how those figures are projected to dramatically increase over a short period of time - i.e., doubling the debt over the next five years and tripling the debt in ten years, these voters' concerns intensified.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Ed Gillespie and Whit Ayres
DATE: September 11, 2009
RE: Key Findings From August Focus
Groups
An extensive round of focus groups (five pairs)
during August with Independents who voted for President Obama last November, but
who are undecided on the congressional generic ballot, provided revealing
insights about voters' concerns over the economy, government spending, mounting
Federal debt and government intervention into the private
sector.
VIEWS OF THE ECONOMY
These voters remain very anxious about the
state of the economy, with adjectives like "nervous," "uncertain," "stressful"
and "hurting" permeating the discussions, tempered only occasionally with more
optimistic expressions like "trying to bounce back" and "about to turn around."
However, ten months after the presidential
election and eight months since the Inauguration, these Independent Obama voters
demonstrated great patience with the President, and give him credit for trying
to improve the bad economy, which they still see as him
inheriting.
These voters clearly separate their feelings
about him personally from their much more negative feelings about policies his
Administration and Congress are pursuing. And they see congressional leaders,
specifically House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in
a harshly negative light.
Consequently, criticizing the policies of the
Democratic Congress is likely to resonate much more strongly with persuadable
individuals than criticizing "President Obama's policies."
While specific probing of the GOP brand was not included,
the participants did not bring up any GOP leaders or ideas, suggesting that
voters do not yet see the Republicans in Congress as offering alternatives. It
was also clear from the groups that the assertion of "too much, too soon, too
fast" has penetrated public perception, reinforced by perceptions of the
stimulus bill and the "cash for clunkers" program, which is widely seen as
poorly managed by the Federal Government.
MOUNTING FEDERAL DEFICITS AND DEBT
As quantitative data have consistently shown,
there is great concern over increasing deficits and mounting Federal debt.
Based on that data and feedback from these voters, this is the greatest concern
about the current majority's legislative agenda.
Two significant takeaways emerged from these groups:
1. The sheer magnitude of the deficit and debt numbers are virtually
incomprehensible for voters, and 2. Their fears are largely intuitive and, as
focus group participants, had a difficult time volunteering what specifically
underlies their fears about growing deficits and mounting debt.
When the magnitude of the debt was made more
comprehensible, specifically when numbers are put in per household terms (i.e.,
total federal obligation of $546,000 per household, rather than total of $6
trillion in federal debt), or in context of how those figures are projected to
dramatically increase over a short period of time - i.e., doubling the debt over
the next five years and tripling the debt in ten years, these voters' concerns
intensified.
Talking about Federal debt in more comprehensible terms
will have much greater impact than talking in terms of "trillions of
dollars."
And when specific effects of the debt were raised, voters
readily grasped them:
· Their paramount concern was that the mounting
Federal debt will mean their children and grandchildren will not enjoy the same
levels of opportunity that past American generations have enjoyed, and that
future generations will inherit a less prosperous nation than current
generations inherited from past generations. (Interestingly, younger voters
were least concerned about this, assuming that technology would ultimately
prevail.)
They also believe that Americans will eventually pay for
mounting Federal debt one of four ways:
· Broad-based tax increases,
· Cuts in future government services (resonant with
younger voters, who were skeptical they would see any benefit from Social
Security, and older voters, who fear cuts in Medicare),
· Inflation or,
· China having a greater controlling or even
ownership stake in our economy.
While voters are unlikely to offer these impacts on their
own, raising them in the debate will likely intensify public opposition to new
Federal spending programs.
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE
ECONOMY
It's important to recognize not only the anxiety voters
feel over the current state of the economy, but the extent to which many voters
were shaken to their core by the near collapse of the financial markets last
October. It has made them much more open to government agencies playing a
"protector" and policing role, particularly in the financial
markets.
However, they do not share liberals' penchants for
"transforming" our economy away from a market-based economy to a more government
controlled one.
Voters were asked to circle one of two statements that came
closest to their views:
The U.S. economy is too fueled by a cycle of boom and bust,
where the rich have gotten extremely wealthy but ordinary workers have not seen
their incomes or wages go up. It's time for structural changes that bring about
greater government control to even out those economic cycles and provide greater
stability.
or...
The ups and downs of business cycles in a market economy
are frustrating and at times even frightening, but if the Federal Government
tries to manage business cycles it runs the risk of stifling the kind of
innovation and long-term growth that has made America's prosperity the envy of
the world.
Opponents of greater government intervention in the
economy need to acknowledge the anxiety caused by the current recession and last
Fall's financial crisis, as well as the desire for the Federal Government to
ensure a level playing field. Forcefully asserting that continuing to expand
the federal government's control of the private sector will ultimately stifle
innovation, limit economic growth, and threaten our long-term prosperity will
likely have a significant impact on the public debate.
CONCLUSION
A qualitative analysis of the views of the
independent-minded Obama voters reinforce what quantitative surveys have
consistently shown: America remains a center-right country in which most voters
are leery of too much Federal involvement in our economy.







Nothing surprising here. It's very much the conventional wisdom for anyone outside of DC/NY or LA/SF.
Another personality that has high negatives is Rham Emanuel. He's seen as highly partisan, strident, far left, opportunistic, power hungry — the list goes on. If Democrats loose badly in 2010, look for him to be an early casualty.
Another personality that has high negatives is Rham Emanuel. He's seen as highly partisan, strident, far left, opportunistic, power hungry — the list goes on. If Democrats loose badly in 2010, look for him to be an early casualty.
His name is Rahm. Far left? In Glenn Beck's world? Rahm Emanuel is anything but far left. He's a Blue Dog. Do you know what that means? It means he's a DINO corporate whore.
That's irrelevant. The OP was talking perception; because Rahm is viewed as an extremely partisan hatchetman in a far left admin, where policy has been largely driven by the likes of crazy-eyes Pelosi, he's perceived as far left. He may in fact be a Blue Dog and just prostituting himself; but that has consequences.
I don't think any independent even knows who Rahm Emanuel is... after all, they are independents... completely politically unaware of anything outside a headline or soundbyte.
Okay, I'm pretty sure "convinced swingable voters everywhere are talking about the White House Chief of Staff" is the new definition for "in a bubble."
So, GOP pollsters ask a bunch of leading questions predicated with distortions about their opponents, and lo and behold, they get the responses they were pushing for... what a surprise!!
The reason why indies may be souring on Democrats is simple... the Democrats are looking pretty incompetent at the moment... bickering amongst themselves.. unable to get anything through congress... If, at some point, that situation improves, and the Democratic party looks to be in as much control as they were early in the year, their standing will improve with independents.
Interesting memo. The problem with that, of course, is that if Obama is still personally very popular among Independents then he can go out and campaign for these endangered Congressmen. In the process he can drum up the newer Obama voters (young and minorities, especially), and he can assuage some of the fears of Indies over the particular Democrats.
This is EXACTLY what Bush did in 2002. The GOP Congress was deeply unpopular. But just a year after 9/11 and with talk of war in Iraq ramping up support among the GOP base, Bush was able to stifle any potential Democratic gains.
Maybe the Republicans can get a bit of political gain with this strategy. However, if they do it would be based purely on ignorance of the electorate.
Anyone who's been paying attention knows that the Republicans don't control spending any better than Democrats. They just tend to prefer other types of massive spending, cutting spending on social programs, but increasing military spending, for instance. To make matters worse, they typically cut taxes while not controlling spending (and leave military spending off the balance sheets), exacerbating the debt problem.
I don't know where this idea that the GOP is better at controlling spending came from, but it's not from any actual events that have occurred in recent history. If they want to win over independents (at least the ones with brains), their actions need to align better with their rhetoric.