Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
For all the talk about the "values voter," Pew Research has some interesting data from their latest poll:
With voters continuing to focus on economic issues, Barack Obama holds a slim 49% to 45% advantage over Mitt Romney in the latest Pew Research Center survey of nearly 2,400 registered voters nationwide. Obama’s lead has narrowed since last month, when he had a 12-point advantage, though it is comparable to margins from earlier this year.
More than eight-in-ten voters say the economy (86%) and jobs (84%) are very important issues in deciding who to vote for this fall. Roughly three-quarters also cite the federal budget deficit (74%), health care (74%) and education (72%) as top voting priorities. Near the bottom of the list are some of the hot-button social issues. Just 28% say that gay marriage is a very important issue, and 34% rate birth control as a top issue.
Not really surprising, with 8+% unemployment. But the list is still worth looking at:
As Ricochet's resident squish, I have to say that this ranking is pretty close to my own. I'd move taxes up, along with immigration and Iran. I'd move Medicare down (unless dismantling it counts as "high ranking concern") and I'd drop gun control to way down the list. You can't really measure my lack of interest -- or agitation, in either direction -- for birth control or gay marriage, unless you've got a very powerful microscope.
If these rankings hold, though, how is that bad for Romney?
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
Mendel
James Of England
In Ohio/ Pennsylvania? Heck, no. The suburban fiscal conservatives are already solid GOP votes. It's the pro-life union members who need to be won, and won despite a strongly anti-union message. Senator John Ashcroft electing Missouri is, likewise, more Romney friendly socially than fiscally.
Thanks, James, for again providing some granular examples to my general ponderings. The devil truly is in the details when the Electoral College gets involved.
But I have to wonder: will Reagan Democrat-type voters in the Midwest really be persuaded by social issues when the candidate looks like the anonymous suit that closed all the plants? · 4 minutes ago
Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have all recently elected Republican numbers guys to statewide office, with either business experience or strong Wall Street ties. The HHS mandate is a very big deal for women (Pennsylvania is the second most Catholic state in the union, and Ohio's swing voters are famously papist).
It's all about June for the Mid-West. The SCOTUS will tell us how loud the preachers will shout, and Wisconsin's recall will shape public views on union bashing. We should be helping Governor Walker.
Sep '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
Social issues do matter, just not in the way Pew described them. I would describe them as cultural issues. Culture is how we express our lives together; our laws (eventually) follow after them.
Romney needs to articulate a freedom and responsibility agenda, one where we do not abdicate our individual responsibilities to our families, our communities, ourselves and can thus exercise the freedom God gave us for both our happiness and the common good. Big government is an abdication of individual and local responsibility in favor of the nanny state.
A freedom & responsibility agenda can encompass all the individual issues listed. Romney can't get bogged down in the weeds of small ball. Big ideas, big issues, a real choice. If Romney, as Professor Rahe correctly stated, runs on principles , he will win a surprisingly comfortable victory.
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
James Of England
"Birth Control". If you follow the link, it's the issue with the biggest gender divide; 40% of women think it's a big issue, compared to, if I remember correctly, 43% on abortion, which is near parity on genders. Given that the biggest religious liberty issue this election is birth control, I don't blame them for having it as a single entry. · 28 minutes ago
Oh I know. But what about people such as me, a non-Catholic, who worry about that mandate more because of the precedent it sets for religious liberty violations as opposed to any concern over contraception ... it is downright fraudulent to put this in the language of the left (e.g. war on contraception) than neutral language or language reflecting religious liberty concerns.
Apr '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
Mendel
Paul A. Rahe:
Will Romney imitate Dole and McCain and hope that it falls into his lap, or will he make this a referendum on the administrative entitlements state?
This call for a big Romney reform package has been growing on Ricochet, and I have to object. Romney is often an awkward candidate, and he campaigns best when he plays to his own personal strengths.
And while Romney certainly seems to have many strengths, championing big bold ideas does not seem to belong to his quiver (please correct me if I'm wrong, James).
Voters may be attracted to strength, but are also repulsed by obvious fakers.
It depends what you mean by big bold ideas. Harding, to my mind, was one of the greatest conservative Presidents, achieving unparalleled cuts and reversing Wilson's reforms. Almost no conservatives give a darn about him, because those achievements aren't ones we care about; we say we're fiscal conservatives, but we really only get excited by morality plays and rhetoric.
On spending cuts, unions, and entitlement reform, Mitt's stronger than any nominee since Goldwater, with the record to support it. He should talk about those topics and he is.
Dec '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
The problem Rob, is that while the economy is most everybodies top concern, a healthy quantity of that number are inclined to view that in terms of beating up the geographically closest person with a nice car.
Jan '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
After taking that Pew Political Quiz that King Prawn posted earlier today(13 for 13), I'm not sure if what Pew is producing is all that meaningful.
I guessing all of us would have listed the economy/jobs as the top issue - why wouldn't they try and probe those polled as to what course of action they feel would lead to more hiring. For those that listed Medicare as an issue, are they worried about long/medium term sustainability?
When I look at those results, I see more unanswered questions than answers.
Mar '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
James Of England
On spending cuts, unions, and entitlement reform, Mitt's stronger than any nominee since Goldwater, with the record to support it. He should talk about those topics and he is.
As evidenced by Paul's and Rob's comments on this thread, when Romney talks about spending cuts and entitlement reform the message apparently gets lost somewhere along the way. Let's hope he can communicate his track record better going forward than he has to date.
Nov '10
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
Rob: with all due respect, you're essentially attacking a straw man with this post.
The hundred ton elephant in the room that you're completely overlooking is why on earth a rank demagogue socialist who is spending us into oblivion and actively worsening the economic situation could possibly still be receiving 49% favorable ratings. Gay marriage is a symptom, and only at the margins a cause, of decline.
That a culture thinks gay marriage is no big deal and thinks it's something to which we can accommodate ourselves through historical and "evolving standards of decency" (William Voegeli), is also a culture that has become almost irrevocably slavish in its passions.
Nov '10
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
I guess I would consider myself a values voter. But for me this election turns on the principals of limited government. I think Romney squeeks out a narrow win if he constantly hammers Obama on growth in spending, the deficit, the failed economic policies, etc. I think that is what matters to the middle of the road crowd. I can't tell you how many moderates I've spoken too in the last six months who voted for Obama but are not going to vote for him again, primarily because of those reasons. And I live in the second most liberal county in Washington state, second only to King county (that's where Seattle is, fyi). Well, Island County may be more liberal, but they are too stoned to actually vote. So I think it is good for Romney if he stays on message. I don't agree with Paul that Romney wins in Reagan fashion, but Mr. Rahe is a ton smarter than I am so maybe I should reconsider.
Apr '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
Mendel
James Of England
On spending cuts, unions, and entitlement reform, Mitt's stronger than any nominee since Goldwater, with the record to support it. He should talk about those topics and he is.
As evidenced by Paul's and Rob's comments on this thread, when Romney talks about spending cuts and entitlement reform the message apparently gets lost somewhere along the way. Let's hope he can communicate his track record better going forward than he has to date. ·
That's why I referenced Harding. I could have talked about Bush 41, too, whose spending cuts were primarily responsible for the balanced budget of the 1990s.
Mitt talks about cutting a cabinet department to reduce government, a feat never before achieved in American history, and people suggest he's talking small ball because it's only one department. Romney's slogans and preaching have been about cutting spending from day one of the campaign, and Rob still asks what he'd have a mandate to do. He'd want to do some stuff that doesn't fall under the category of cutting back government, (foreign policy stuff, defense increases, judges), but nothing that needs a mandate.
Apr '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
I should note, though, that the inability to hear Mitt speak on spending is a malady confined to conservatives. Polls suggest that independent voters get that Mitt's big on spending cuts.
In talking to independents/ Democrats about this, they frequently bring up the claim that Republicans spend just as badly as Democrats, referencing Bush and Reagan. To this, I find that it's a pretty effective rebuttal to ask them if Romney seems more like W. and Reagan to them, like a spender, or more like H.W., Coolidge, and Harding, spending cutters. It doesn't persuade everyone, but it persuades a lot of people and it makes everyone stop and pause, at least.
Nov '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
Nobody is going to vote for Romney based on social issues, if they do, and if they think Romney has any commitment to them, they're, frankly, deluding themselves. Mitt Romney, with regards to social issues (and probably everything else) is just going to say what he needs to say to win.
Mar '12
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
I have very strong feelings about the "pro-life" issue, but I regret to say that it will not be important in shaping my vote this year. Not that the issue is unimportant, but the disappointment of the Reagan-Bush years left me extremely skeptical of "pro-life" candidates. I was disgusted enough that eventually I voted for Clinton. The point is that just because someone no longer votes pro-life doesn't mean that we wouldn't vote pro-life if there were a reasonable hope of getting something done. Many of us would be quite eager in fact, which I doubt this poll reflects. However, I agree with Mollie on this point:
We used to take "religious freedom" for granted! Obama angered me by gratuitously turning it into an issue for the first time. I will be voting a straight Republican ticket this time around.
Edited on April 25, 2012 at 3:11amRe: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
Mendel
Rob Long
Will Romney run onbig change, or will he try to play it safe? If the latter, then even if he wins he'll be hamstrung and stymied throughout his term.
Any Republican president gunning for big changes in the next term would be hamstrung because there is nowhere near enough public support yet. Bush ran and won in 2004 on Social Security reform, but without public acquiesence that mandate and $3.50 was barely enough to buy him a non-alcoholic beer. · 1 hour ago
I fear you are correct.
Apr '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
He was willing to fight pretty hard and pretty successfully for religious liberty in Massachusetts, against embryonic stem cell research, and against SSM, which dominated his administration for a while.He stood firmly on a pro-family welfare reform platform running against Ted Kennedy (mostly the stuff that got passed a couple of years later, but also less positive treatment for single mothers).
He's always been keen on English immersion and other immigration issues, and successfully supported that position as governor. He successfully defended school choice against determined opposition. I know it only reinforces your dislike of the man, Fred, but Mitt's regularly fought for unpopular social conservative issues, and sometimes prevailed. There's a reason so many social conservative leaders and institutions backed him this time and the last, despite a tendency towards problems with Mormons.
Nov '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
James Of England
He was willing to fight pretty hard and pretty successfully for religious liberty
That's great.
Thing about Mitt Romney is he'll happily sell you out if next week if it's politically convenient. So, every time he takes a stand on something, just remember there's an asterisk next to it, and a footer at the bottom that says "this week."
And I don't dislike the man, we just have a fundamental disagreement about the role of the state and it's power.
Apr '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
Fred Cole
James Of England
He was willing to fight pretty hard and pretty successfully for religious liberty
That's great.
Thing about Mitt Romney is he'll happily sell you out if next week if it's politically convenient. So, every time he takes a stand on something, just remember there's an asterisk next to it, and a footer at the bottom that says "this week."
And I don't dislike the man, we just have a fundamental disagreement about the role of the state and it's power. · 59 minutes ago
He shifted on abortion from "neither pro-choice nor pro-life" to "pro-life", although even during the politically neutral period he was strongly pro-life in his episcopal capacity and was sufficiently obviously pro-life that pro-life groups supported him and pro-choice groups consistently opposed him. He's always treated gays well, and always opposed SSM.
He's shifted on fewer things than most politicians. Sadly Ted Kennedy came up with "Multiple Choice Mitt" to describe his abortion stance, and McCain endlessly called him a flip flopper. The accusation lacks substance, though, and certainly has nothing like the content you ascribe to it.
Mar '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
Robert Lux:
That a culture thinks gay marriage is no big deal and thinks it's something to which we can accommodate ourselves through historical and "evolving standards of decency" (William Voegeli), is also a culture that has become almost irrevocably slavish in its passions. · 3 hours ago
This is what the economics and libertarian types don't get about social issues. They're not a sideshow. They're very much both a cause of and symptoms of our decline. Only a fool would think that the health of culture doesn't matter (and on this, there are a lot of fools). One of the reasons we have problems with acceptance of big government and entitlement programs is precisely because we became a less moral people. A moral people wouldn't expect others to do for them what they should do for themselves. A moral people wouldn't vote themselves benefits at the expense of their richer neighbors up on the hill. A moral people wouldn't surrender in silence when the immoral are "offended" . All of these attitudes directly lead to bigger, more powerful, more expensive government.
To put it bluntly, acceptance of immorality and societal decay costs money.
Nov '11
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
James Of England
He's shifted on fewer things than most politicians. Sadly Ted Kennedy came up with "Multiple Choice Mitt" to describe his abortion stance, and McCain endlessly called him a flip flopper. The accusation lacks substance, though, and certainly has nothing like the content you ascribe to it.
The thing that lacks substance is Mitt Romney. He ideas are retreads, his speeches are tired predictable boiler plate and his notions of state power are clearly statist. The only big idea he ever put into place was RomneyCare.
Wake me when he says or does something original, bold or, at a bare minimum, interesting. The only virtue he has, and the reason people will vote for him in November, is that he's not Barack Obama.
(And he's barely that.)
Re: Who Really Cares About Social Issues?
James Of England
He shifted on abortion from "neither pro-choice nor pro-life" to "pro-life", although even during the politically neutral period he was strongly pro-life in his episcopal capacity and was sufficiently obviously pro-life that pro-life groups supported him and pro-choice groups consistently opposed him. He's always treated gays well, and always opposed SSM.
Even if there was such a thing as "neither pro-life nor pro-choice," which I doubt, that didn't describe Mitt. He supported the pro-choice political cause, vehemently defended it, explained why, etc.
Then he changed his mind. This is a move in the right direction.