Pollster Panel Gauges Whose Voices Were Most Heard in Election Season

Matthew Hersh

On November 3, many voters, especially those in the "blue states" that make up the Northeast, woke to the realization that their beliefs were in the minority. Or so they were told. Networks harped on a "nation divided" and trumpeted the notion that those in the blue states were polar opposites to those in the red states when it came to hot-button issues like same-sex marriage, morals, and the war in Iraq.

But was that really true? Is the United States so divided that Americans living in one part of the country can no longer identify with Americans living in another region? Can there be democratic reconciliation?

Several pollsters who spoke at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Monday night offered a rousing "perhaps." The country, it turns out, is not nearly as divided as pundits like to say it is. In fact, a majority of Americans are largely concerned about the same issues, but simply set their priorities differently when they cast their votes.

In discussing, "Whose Morals? What Values?: A Review of the 2004 Presidential Election Polls," the pollsters tried to examine disparities between blue and red states in an attempt to create a more balanced interpretation of the election results. The discussion also tried to restore faith in the much-maligned polling process.

Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, said this perception of inaccuracy was largely due to what he called "the spin zone," a thinly-veiled reference to the alleged world entered by viewers watching The O'Reilly Factor. "Polls have become part of the partisan football that is so much what our elections are about in general.

"This year, polling, like so much else, got hammered and pushed back and forth on either side by either side trying to spin it." Mr. Newport also added that he had seen a decrease among voters in the belief that acceptance of polling is a "legitimate" science: "The whole idea that we're not scientists at all or that we're guessing or are partisan hacks is certainly not something a lot of us in the industry want."

But, he added, because of heightened interest in the 2004 election, interest in polls increased exponentially, in fact, he pointed out, pre-election polls proved to be more accurate than they had been in past campaign seasons.

With that, Mr. Newport pointed out that it would not have taken a lot for the election to move either way. "As Democrats like to say, it would have only taken about 70,000 votes in Ohio to have turned the election toward the Kerry column, moral values or no moral values.

However, while the media regularly pinned the moral tag on President Bush, Mr. Newport said neither candidate went into the election standing on perceived sturdy moral ground.

But ultimately, Bush voters came out in droves, rating issues like same-sex marriage and moral values higher in importance than Kerry supporters, Mr. Newport said. In one Gallup survey that listed the ten issues most important to voters, Mr. Bush's supporters placed moral values and same-sex marriage at number two and five, while those who voted for Mr. Kerry rated those same issues in the number nine and 10 spots, respectively.

Mr. Newport did point out some disparities in public opinion that he said may have underscored the perceived political division in recent years.

When asked in one voter survey if traditional values should be promoted by the government, Mr. Bush's supporters said "yes," by almost 3 to 1. That sentiment was virtually reversed with Mr. Kerry's supporters.

"This is where, I think, the distinction came in this election – not that Bush voters are more moral than Kerry voters, but that Bush voters were convinced that it is the government's role in getting involved and establishing certain values.

"This is not surprising," Mr. Newport said, citing the Constitutional amendment sought by the president to redefine a marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and issues on partial-birth abortion. Mr. Kerry's pro-choice stance on the abortion issue on the other hand, Mr. Newport said, indicated the desire to keep government out of the picture.

What was interesting, Mr. Newport said, was that while the president's supporters voted for this government interference on matters of morality, they rejected interaction when it came to traditionally social issues, such as health insurance and education. Conversely, Democrats wanted to see more interaction with the government on those social issues.

"You've got this very paradoxical, ironic situation here," Mr. Newport said.

Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News, said people also voted on consumer confidence, pointing out that since 1952 every year an incumbent ran at a time when consumer confidence was above average, the incumbent won, and when it was below average, the incumbent lost. In 2004, of course, confidence was high.

However, no incumbent president since Harry Truman was re-elected going into the summer of an election year with job approval below 50 percent, as was Mr. Bush's.

"So, one of these two chestnuts was not going to survive this election: either we were going to have a less-than-popular president re-elected since Truman or we were going to have an incumbent thrown out in a decent economy for the first time in recent history."

Groups such as "security moms" and married woman proved to be a pivotal factor in the election, Mr. Langer said. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore won among woman by 11 percentage points. In 2004, however, Mr. Kerry won that category by only three points. "Kerry did much less well among woman and that made the difference, I would suggest."

Other factors, Mr. Langer continued, did not include the 18 to 29 vote; although this group, while voting in larger numbers than in 2000, voted the same percentage-wise as they did in 2000.

Mr. Langer was one pollster who felt the rift between Americans would, indeed, increase in the next 10 years. "If we take the trends of the past 23 years, it suggests more of the divided country and the closely-fought elections."

However, he added, "closely-fought elections" could be the one thing all Americans are weary enough to be united against.