Tag: congress

The President’s Popularity and the Midterm Election

California is a battleground state in the 2018 midterm election. When it comes to determining the party that will lead the next US Congress, all eyes are on the 14 US House seats that are currently held by Republicans in the deep-blue state of California. Democrats would need to “flip” several of these seats if they have any chance of taking control of the US House, where Republicans currently now have a 26-vote margin. The party in power has typically lost some of its congressional seats in national midterm elections. Whether it is a few seats or many is closely tied to the president’s popularity. So, how is Donald Trump viewed in California at the end of his first-year anniversary in office?

The PPIC Statewide Survey has been tracking President Trump’s popularity, asking the following question in six monthly surveys in 2017, “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Donald Trump is handling his job as president of the United States?” We found majority disapproval of President Trump among California likely voters in each survey. In the January 2017 PPIC survey, conducted in his early days in office, 34% approved and 55% disapproved of his job performance. In the 2017 December PPIC survey, which is our most recent poll, 34% approved and 63% disapproved of President Trump. In the course of 2017, disapproval of the president increased as more likely voters formed opinions about his leadership.

By the end of the first year, we also found that disapproval of President Trump increased by double digits in several likely voter groups. In comparing the January 2017 PPIC survey to the December 2017 PPIC survey, disapproval increased

  • 21 points for those younger than 35 (63% to 84%)
  • 15 points among independent (i.e. no party preference) voters (50% to 65%)
  • 12 points among college graduates (62% to 74%)
  • 12 points among those who earn under $40,000 a year (57% to 69%)
  • 11 points for those who earn $80,000 or more (55% to 66%)
  • 10 points among Latinos (72% to 82%)

Moreover, from January to December 2017 disapproval became the majority response among men (49% to 58%), those age 55 and older (49% to 57%), and those with some college education (50% to 58%).

Regional trends in presidential disapproval ratings also point to a challenging environment for Republicans running in House elections this year. Predictably, there is overwhelming disapproval of President Trump in the Democratic strongholds of Los Angeles (75%) and San Francisco (73%) in the December 2017 PPIC survey. More surprisingly, over the course of 2017 disapproval of Trump’s performance increased to majority levels in Orange/San Diego (50% to 58%) and the Inland Empire (39% to 55%), where several of the House seats that are now held by Republicans are located. Coincidentally, two Republican House members in Orange/San Diego decided not to run for reelection.

There are two bright spots for Republicans in the president’s approval ratings. First, President Trump has held a solid base of support among Republican likely voters, according to a comparison of the January 2017 PPIC survey (76% approve) and the December 2017 PPIC survey (78% approve). Second, his approval increased to a majority in the Central Valley according to a comparison of the January 2017 PPIC survey (40%) and the December 2017 PPIC survey (55%). Importantly, several of the House seats now held by Republicans are in the Central Valley.

Finally, in placing the 2018 midterm election in recent historical context, it is especially noteworthy that the level of disapproval of President Trump at the end of his first year in office is relatively high compared to the past two US presidents. The December 2009 PPIC survey found that a majority of California likely voters approved of President Barack Obama (54% approve, 40% disapprove) in the midst of the Great Recession. The December 2001 PPIC survey found that overwhelming majorities approved of President George W. Bush (78% approve, 20% disapprove) in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack.

In California, the combination of presidential disapproval ratings (63%) and voter registration trends (45% Democrat to 26% Republican) sets the stage for the Republicans’ efforts to hold on to House seats to maintain control of the US Congress. However, the wildcard in the 2018 California election is the size and composition of the voter turnout—and in the 2014 midterm election, turnout hit a record low.

The PPIC Statewide Survey will be closely monitoring President Trump’s approval ratings, as well as indicators of the voters who are motivated to cast ballots in what will be a consequential election for California and the nation.

Video: Californians and Climate Change

When it comes to climate change policy, California and the federal government are on distinctly different paths. PPIC’s annual Californians and the Environment survey finds that there is a broad consensus in favor of the direction chosen by the state.

David Kordus of the PPIC survey team presented the survey to a Sacramento audience last week. Among the key findings he described:

  • Impact of global warming: A majority of Californians (66%) think global warming is already having an effect, and most think warming is a very serious threat to California’s future economy and quality of life.
  • Goals of state climate policies: A strong majority (72%) favor the law that requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. A similar majority favor proposed legislation that would require 100% of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2045.
  • Economic effects: Just 22% of Californians think the state’s actions to address global warming will result in fewer jobs. But many do expect to pay a price: 54% expect to pay more for gas.
  • Leadership: Most state residents say it’s very important that California act as a world leader in the fight against climate change, and 71% oppose President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord. Californians give the president and Congress low ratings for their handling of environmental issues—22% and 26%, respectively. Approval ratings are much higher for Governor Brown and the state legislature—51% for each. State leaders’ ratings on environmental issues have risen sharply since the governor took office in 2011.
Learn more

Read the full survey, PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment
Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey

Video: Senator Dianne Feinstein in Conversation

Underscoring her role in three contentious policy issues, California’s senior senator spoke to a Sacramento audience last week about filling the vacancy on the US Supreme Court, the dispute between Apple and the FBI, and drought relief.

Senator Dianne Feinstein urged speedy consideration of a nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the court, saying that Senate can consider and confirm a new justice within 69 days—the average time for the process has taken in the past. She acknowledged that it would not be easy.

“I wish we could go back to the days when I first went to the Senate when the belief was that every president deserves his nominations,” she told Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, at the PPIC event.

Asked about the Apple controversy, she called on the company to reconsider its position and cooperate with the FBI to access data on a phone used by one of the San Bernardino killers. “Apple is not above the laws of the United States,” she said.

She said her position on the Senate Intelligence Committee—which occupies most of her time—gives her a perspective not shared by many on the dangers posed by terrorists.

Feinstein also detailed some of the provisions in her drought-relief bill, which would fund recycling, desalination, and water storage projects, as well as ease water trading.

She closed by describing her leadership style, saying she tries to “use the time to get things done. If I can’t do them through legislation, I’ll do them another way.”

Video: PPIC Survey Examines Election Landscape

As California heads into an election year, the PPIC Statewide Survey looks at residents’ views on a broad range of issues that are already flashpoints in the presidential primary races and will likely surface in statewide campaigns next year.

PPIC research associate Lunna Lopes presented the survey’s key findings at a Sacramento briefing last week. She was joined by Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, for a question and answer session afterward. He noted a link between Californians’ “modestly optimistic view of the economy,” their belief that there is income inequality in the state, and their attitudes about which ballot issues are important. Twice as many residents say that increasing the state minimum wage is very important than say legalizing marijuana is very important.

“In California, the belief that this state is divided into the haves and have-nots—and the feeling among many Californians that they are among the have-nots—are going to be driving forces in the election,” he said. The survey briefing was held just after the mass shooting in San Bernardino, and the briefing touched on Californians’ views about gun laws. PPIC research associate David Kordus provided findings from the September survey on this issue: Compared to adults nationwide, Californians are more likely to favor stricter laws than we have now. Most also say that controlling gun ownership is more important than protecting the right of Americans to own guns.

Leon Panetta on Leadership and Crisis

In 50 years of public life, Leon Panetta said he has learned that “in a democracy, you can govern either by leadership or by crisis.”

“If for some reason the leadership is not there, then we will govern by crisis,” said Panetta, who has served as US secretary of defense, CIA director, presidential chief of staff, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and director for the Office of Civil Rights—as well as representing California’s Central Coast in Congress for 16 years.

In a wide-ranging conversation with Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, Panetta touched on global flashpoints, presidential politics, dysfunction in Washington, and electoral reform in California.

His main criticism of Washington today? “Too much in Washington is done on a crisis-by-crisis basis.” He contrasted last week’s budget agreement—a temporary solution to the threat of default and government shutdown—to earlier budget negotiations that involved two presidents, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, making tough trade-offs with members of Congress. Leadership requires taking risks and that can mean paying a political price—as the elder Bush believes he did in the 1992 election.

Panetta said that as CIA director, he saw President Obama demonstrate leadership in the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, an operation fraught with risk. Despite good evidence that the al-Qaeda leader was in the compound—including confirmation that the laundry hung on the clothesline matched up with bin Laden’s family—there was no certainty he was there.

A majority of members of National Security Council thought the mission was too risky. The president asked Panetta’s advice. Panetta told him about a method he had used to make decisions as a member of Congress: “If I had a tough issue I’d ask myself, what if I asked an ordinary citizen in my district, ‘If you knew what I know, what would you do on this issue?’ And I think that if I told an ordinary citizen that we had the best evidence on the location of bin Laden since Tora Bora, then I think the average citizen would say, ‘You have to do this.’”

The next morning Obama made the decision. The mission was a go.

“Tough decision. Leadership. Taking a risk,” said Panetta. “But ultimately, that’s what it takes to be president of the United States. That’s what it takes to be a member of Congress.

Other highlights from Panetta’s remarks:

  • Of all the global threats, what does he worry about most? “Cyber-attack.”
  • What does he think of Republican presidential candidates who promote their lack of experience in government? “Deep down, people know that you don’t want to elect a snake-oil salesman.”
  • Who’s to blame for the logjam in Congress? “You can’t reach this level of dysfunction and not have both parties share a little bit of the blame.”
  • What’s the difference between Washington and California? “I feel pretty good about California.”

Video: Survey Looks at Taxes and Pensions

As interest groups work to turn their ideas into initiatives for next year’s statewide ballot, the September PPIC Statewide Survey examined Californians’ views in two areas that may be put before voters in 2016: taxes and public employee pension reform.

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, and Dean Bonner, associate survey director, presented the findings at a briefing in Sacramento last week.

Among the survey findings:

  • Half of likely voters favor extending the tax increases in Proposition 30 temporarily, but just a third favor making them permanent.

  • There is bipartisan support for raising taxes on cigarette purchases.

  • A majority of likely voters favor changing Proposition 13 to tax commercial properties according to their current market value.

  • Solid majorities of Californians see public pension spending as a problem, and most think voters should weigh in on changes to the system.

  • Most likely voters favor placing new public employees in a defined contribution system, similar to a 401(k) plan, rather than a defined benefits system.

The survey shows that Californians give their state leaders—the governor, legislature, and their own legislators—high approval ratings at the close of the legislative session. Baldassare offered his explanation at the briefing: there was little drama around the budget, the economy’s going well, and very few respondents in the survey mentioned fiscal issues as the most important ones.

Congress, on the other hand fares far less well in Californians’ eyes. Its 17% rating is not only much lower than the ratings likely voters give their state leaders, it is much lower than those of President Obama, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and Californians’ own representative in the US House.

“Congress is a government institution that needs work, according to most Californians,” Baldassare said.

Californians and Congress

The recent announcement of Speaker Boehner’s resignation comes at a time when national approval ratings of the US Congress are in the teens (14% in September Gallup Poll). With the early talk of majority leader Kevin McCarthy stepping into the Speaker position, what are Californians saying about the powerful federal institution that the congressman from Bakersfield is well-positioned to lead?

In the latest PPIC Statewide Survey, we asked Californians to rate eight state and federal elected leaders and legislative bodies—interviewing was completed just before Pope Francis’ speech to Congress and Speaker Boehner’s surprise announcement. California likely voters give their lowest approval by far to the US Congress. Just 17 percent say they approve of the way the US Congress is handling its job.

Surprisingly, there is overwhelming consensus about Congress even in this era of hyper-partisanship. In the recent PPIC Statewide Survey, California likely voters of different political stripes are united in their low approval of Congress. By contrast, other political figures in Washington elicit highly partisan responses—including President Obama, Senator Boxer, and Senator Feinstein. Remarkably, approval among Republican likely voters of President Obama (13%) and Senator Boxer (15%)—both Democrats—is about the same as approval of Congress (17%), while Republican approval of Senator Feinstein (27%) and Governor Brown (29%) is higher than approval of Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Republicans (36%) are less likely than Democrats (62%) and independents (50%) to approve of their own House representatives—this may be related to their low approval of a Congress controlled by their party.

The 53 members of the California House delegation may take some solace in the fact that Californians are much more approving of their own representatives to the US House than of the Congress as a whole. And California’s US senators have approval ratings around 50 percent. Still, the California State Legislature has recovered from several years of low approval ratings while the US Congress has not. Moreover, the members of the California congressional delegation are working in an institution that is mostly seen as not doing its job. This raises doubts about their political futures, especially given the top-two primary—which takes away the certainty that candidates from both major parties will appear on the November ballot—and more competitive elections through independent legislative redistricting.

Low approval ratings of the US Congress have been a consistent feature in PPIC Statewide Surveys throughout this decade. Approval ratings of Congress among California’s likely voters have been in the mid-teens each September since the Republicans (and Speaker Boehner) took control of the House in January 2011. Under Democratic control (and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, beginning in January 2007), approval ratings were somewhat higher. This could be partly because the California electorate leans Democratic, but it is worth noting that approval ratings of Congress under Republican leadership 10 years ago were higher than they are today.

Clearly, low approval of Congress is a national phenomenon tied to intense media focus on legislative gridlock and government shutdowns. But Californians do have fundamental policy disagreements with the current Congress that also affect their views of its job performance. Specifically, the recent PPIC Statewide Survey finds that Californians are more likely than people nationwide to express support for immigration reform, abortion rights, and stricter gun laws. The actions of Congress in recent years are at odds with California public opinion in all three of these controversial policy domains.

In the California context, immigration reform stands out as a special case. Sixty-nine percent of California likely voters—compared to 60 percent of adults in a national ABC News/Washington Post Poll in July—say that undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States should be allowed to live and work here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. Moreover, majorities of likely voters across party groups (83% Democrats, 66% independents, 51% Republicans) support a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the US legally. Importantly, 68 percent of those likely voters disapprove of Congress want there to be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the US legally. And among likely voters who support a way for undocumented immigrants to state in the US legally, 77 percent disapprove of Congress.

The next Speaker will face the major challenge—critical to the nation’s future—of restoring public trust and confidence in Congress. Our poll sheds light on the need for Congress to show leadership in addressing the complex problem of immigration, which is surfacing early and often as the defining issue for the Republican presidential candidates. The view from California is that the path to higher approval of Congress runs through immigration reform. It won’t be easy, but there is a way forward for a new leader who seeks to improve perceptions of the way that the Congress handles its job.

Video: Senator Boxer Comes to PPIC

In more than 20 years in the US Senate, Barbara Boxer said there have been good changes (more women today) and bad (the “chasm” that divides the parties). But sometimes, despite the gridlock and insults, there is common ground, she told an audience at PPIC yesterday. She and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell found it in teaming up on a multi-year highway bill.

“Working with Mitch McConnell was unexpected,” she said. “We actually hadn’t talked too much in 20 years.” Bringing senators from both parties to an agreement—particularly on how to pay for the bill—was tough. But the bill got the votes. It passed the Senate and is now pending in the House.

Boxer told this story and others in a wide-ranging conversation with Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s president and CEO, that touched on climate change, California water policy, the presidential race, and the nuclear deal with Iran.What’s next? For the record, Boxer says she is not retiring. She’s just not running for Senate again.

The Election Was Hard on California Democrats, Too

It’s pretty obvious that Democrats had a bad night nationally in last Tuesday’s election. They lost most of the close gubernatorial contests, lost control of a number of state legislative chambers, lost seats in the House of Representatives, and lost control of the U.S. Senate.

On the surface, it would appear that California stood against this tide. At the time of this writing, the Democrats have lost a few seats in the legislature and the congressional delegation, but they once again swept the statewide offices, from governor to secretary of state. Unlike the rest of the country, where the conversation is about which party controls the legislature, in California the conversation is about whether the Democrats will have a supermajority.

But scratch just beneath the surface, and it turns out California is not so different after all. A clean statewide sweep is not the best measure of performance, since those races can hinge more on candidate personalities or other idiosyncrasies than the lower-profile contests down-ballot do.

A better test is to compare Democratic performance in assembly and congressional races to races in the same districts two years ago. (State senate races can’t be compared this way because these districts were drawn differently this year.) The graph below shows the relationship between the Democratic vote share in this year’s assembly and congressional elections and the same two years ago, for races contested by both parties in both years (which means none of the same-party contests made possible by the new “top two” primary are included). The diagonal line marks no change: points above the line are districts where the Democrats did better, and points below are districts where they did worse. In the overwhelming majority of races, the Democratic candidate did worse this year. Moreover, this was true whether the Democrat won a large share of the vote in 2012 (farther to the right on the graph) or a small share (farther to the left).

Democrats in California’s congressional races also performed about as well as Democrats in other states. The second graph below compares California House races to others. The cloud of grey circles represents House races in other states, and as we can see, the California races fall well within it. This shows that Democrats in California did about as badly this year as Democratic candidates everywhere else.

It was a tough cycle for Democrats for a lot of reasons—their president is unpopular, the economy’s growth has not reached a broad swath of the electorate, and the president’s party is usually punished at least a little bit in midterm elections. But the story that California Democrats somehow avoided the fate of the rest of their party, at least for down-ballot races, doesn’t receive much support from the data.

Electoral Reforms Face New Test

California’s political reforms—redistricting and the top-two primary—were meant to shake up the status quo through radically redrawn voting districts and a primary system that let voters choose any candidate of any party, and advanced the top two candidates (also regardless of party) to the fall election.

The first time out the gate, in 2012, the reforms didn’t disappoint: numerous incumbents retired, many seats were open, and a lot more candidates threw their hats in the ring. It was the shot across the establishment’s bow that supporters had been looking for.

Things are calmer in this year’s legislative and congressional races. The most obvious sign: an unusually large number of candidates facing no formal opposition. There were eight such races in 2012 and an average of 7 under the previous primary system. Today there are 20.

These candidates may not remain completely uncontested, since there are reasons to think we may see more write-in candidates this time around. The deadline for filing as a write-in—at least one whose votes are actually counted—comes after the normal candidate filing deadline. Under the top two, potential write-ins can wait to see whether a heavyweight ends up uncontested and then jump into the race for less money and effort. As the only other candidate, these write-ins will be guaranteed a spot in the fall campaign. This was not a popular approach in 2012, but candidates are still learning the system, so we may be seeing this strategy coming into its own. We will know more once the official write-in list is announced later this month.

In 2012, there were also a number of incumbents who faced challengers from within their own party. This was a sign, in part, of the better odds facing those challengers under the top two system: so long as they finished at least in second place, they would get another chance to topple the incumbent in the fall campaign. Nonetheless, only a handful of these challenged incumbents lost. Perhaps as a result, fewer incumbents overall face an intra-party challenge this time: 28% this year compared to 42% in 2012. And with only a couple exceptions, even those incumbents facing an intra-party contest are in a dominant financial position.

Finally, there are fewer open seats this year. In 2012, an extraordinarily large number of incumbents chose to retire or run for another office, leaving nine seats open for the U.S. House and 35 open for the state assembly (open seats for the state senate were more in line with past experience). This year, there are six open seats for the U.S. House—still high by historical standards, but less so. And the 23 open seats for the assembly aren’t all that many, at least in the era of term limits.

However, the seats that have come open are hotly contested, as open seats usually are. The great majority of these races feature at least three candidates, and a few have far more than that—with the prize going to Congressional District 33, where no fewer than 18 candidates are vying to replace retiring incumbent Henry Waxman. Moreover, fundraising in these races is much more evenly distributed across a range of candidates.

We are still early in the election cycle, and between the primary and the general there are still plenty of opportunities for surprises. But so far, it looks like the revolution, such as it was, is coming to a close, and a new status quo may be settling into place.