HIT & RUN BLOG

The Public Religion Research Institute has produced an interesting “infographic” highlighting results from their Hispanic Values Survey. The survey asked Latino respondents “What is the first word or phrase that comes to your mind when you think about the Republican Party?” What they said might surprise you, especially given that Latinos voted for President Obama over Mitt Romney by a margin of 71 to 27 percent.

According to PRRI's survey, less than half of Hispanic respondents had a negative reaction to the Republican Party, instead most were neutral or positive. Even one of the responses PRRI coded as negative—that Republicans are “rich”—isn’t necessarily a bad thing since Hispanics lead the way in faith in the American Dream and the bootstrapping work ethic it entails. For instance, recent surveys have found 7 in 10 Hispanics cite education and hard work as most important for success and most believe their children will be better off than they were.

It’s worth pointing out that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush had the greatest success in narrowing the partisan voting gap among Hispanics. Arguably, Reagan and Bush represent different strains of the Republican coalition, but both had charisma, made the effort to reach out, and perhaps even genuinely cared. 

(For more on Hispanic political engagement and mobilization, check out Ricardo Ramirez's Mobilizing Opportunities)

Here are the results, coded as negative and positive by PRRI:

“What is the first word or phrase that comes to your mind when you think about the Republican Party?” 

Positive/Neutral:

• 15% conservative/traditional values
• 27% neutral/no opinion
• 2% small government/fiscal responsibility
• 3% patriotic/strong military
• 6% Other positive
• Total: 53%

Negative:

• 15% Rich/Corporate (is this necessarily bad?)
• 10% Anti-immigrant/Racist/Intolerant
• 5% Old-Fashioned/Out-of-touch
• 3% Obstructionist/Uncompromising
• 15% Other negative
• Total: 48%

Michael Sam, a defensive lineman at the University of Missouri and top N.F.L.  prospect, has just become a household name. While he has been known in the college sports world as an outstanding athlete, his new notoriety comes not solely because of his football talent but because he publically announced on Sunday that he is gay. Though Americans have become increasingly tolerant and supportive of homosexuality, many people can’t help but wonder whether Sam has damaged his career prospects by coming out in advance of the NFL draft.

However, the Reason-Rupe poll findsthat instead Americans don’t really care if their favorite athlete is gay. Seventy-seven percent of Americans say it wouldn’t make a difference and another 10 percent say they would be even more likely to support their favorite athlete. Only 12 percent say they would be less likely to support a favored sports player who came out as gay.

The National Football League has released a statement that echoes the feelings of most Americans: “We admire Michael Sam’s honesty and courage. Michael is a football player. Any player with ability and determination can succeed in the N.F.L. We look forward to welcoming and supporting Michael Sam in 2014.” But it remains to be seen whether Sam’s announcement will have any impact come draft time. Jason Collins, a former NBA player, announced that he way gay after the last season ended. Now a free-agent, he has yet to be signed by another team, although NBA commission Adam Silver says this isn’t related to his sexual orientation.

But for now, Michael Sam is feeling good. The New York Times reports that for Sam, “coming out to his team was a positive step, on a path that seems as if it will lead to the N.F.L.” The Reason-Rupe telephone poll of 1,003 Americans finds that 25 percent think having an openly gay professional athlete would be a positive development for society while most, 57 percent, say it wouldn’t make much of an impact either way.

Full details on the Reason-Rupe poll can be found here.

In tonight’s State of the Union Address, President Obama will make his case for requiring businesses to increase how much they pay minimum wage workers from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour while indexing future increases to inflation. He will also announce plans to use an executive order to mandate federal contractors for new government contracts pay their minimum wage workers at least $10.10 per hour.

Public opinion polls indicate that such a proposal at first glance will be popular among the general public. For instance, a Reason-Rupe poll found 72 percent of Americans favor raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10, while 26 percent are opposed. Support also appears to transcend partisanship, with majorities of Republicans (53 percent) as well as independents (72 percent) and Democrats (87 percent) in favor.

However, once Americans consider costs, support for a minimum wage plummets. If raising the minimum wage were to cause some employers to lay-off or hire fewer workers, 57 percent of Americans would oppose a minimum wage hike and 38 percent would favor.

Additionally, if a minimum wage increase were to harm jobs, Democrats would swing 38 points, such that half would then oppose a wage hike. Likewise, majorities of independents (53 percent) and Republicans (68 percent) would oppose raising the wage floor.

In both scenarios, the fact that Republicans are more likely to oppose raising the minimum wage is partly driven by their belief that doing so would harm employment. Indeed, a majority (54 percent) of Republicans believe raising the minimum wage would reduce jobs; however, this is a view only shared by 39 percent of Americans overall. Instead 69 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of independents believe Congress can raise the minimum wage with no adverse effects on employment.

While most Americans support a higher minimum wage, a majority also don’t believe workers should expect minimum wage jobs to be long-term positions. Instead, 61 percent view minimum wage jobs as stepping-stones to help lower skilled or younger workers gain skills. (It’s relevant to note here that some economists have found minimum wage increases actually disincentivize higher education and training). In contrast, a quarter primarily view minimum wage jobs as long-term positions for established workers to support their families.

Partisans also split on this issue, with majorities of Republicans (77 percent) and independents (56 percent) viewing minimum wage jobs as stepping stones compared to 50 percent of Democrats.

Public attitudes on raising the minimum wage correlates highly with whether Americans accept the premise that government should set a minimum wage in the first place: 73 percent say government should set a minimum wage and 24 percent oppose, nearly identical to the shares supporting a wage increase. Partisan breakdowns are also statistically identical to preferences to raise the minimum wage. This suggests that if Americans accept the initial argument that government should play a role in setting wage floors, then there will be little opposition to raising the floor higher.

Nevertheless, if Americans become convinced that raising the minimum wage will harm employment, they will push back on the initial premise and the proposal to raise the wage.

Read more about Reason-Rupe findings on the minimum wage here.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed 1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.

While Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has survived his crack-smoking controversy (at least for now), Rep. Trey Radel of Florida has resigned from Congress after being caught buying cocaine from an undercover federal agent in October. “It is my belief that professionally I cannot fully and effectively serve as a United States Representative,” said Radel in his resignation letter. If he was concerned about losing the support of his constituents, he had good reason. 

The December Reason-Rupe poll found that 85 percent of Americans would no longer support a politician they had previously supported if he/she occasionally used cocaine. Only 13 percent of poll respondents said they would still support a politician who used cocaine occasionally.

Americans are much more forgiving on marijuana use. The same Reason-Rupe poll found that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, would continue to support a politician if he or she occasionally used marijuana in his or her personal time while 43 percent would withdraw their support.

The percentage of Americans who would still support an elected official who occasionally used marijuana is roughly the same as those who support legalizing the drug (49 percent). Given that few Americans favor legalizing cocaine, their reaction to Trey Radel is hardly surprising.  Although it’s worth pointing out that while 13 percent said they’d continue to support their elected official if they smoked cocaine, only 4 percent say the drug should be legalized.

The public’s lack of tolerance for cocaine use by their elected officials cuts across party lines but partisan differences emerge when the drug in question is marijuana. Majorities of Democrats (58 percent) and independents (54 percent) would continue to support a politician whom they previously supported if he/she used marijuana occasionally while only 41 percent of Republicans would do the same. Instead, 54 percent of Republicans would retract their support if they discovered their favored politician was caught using marijuana.

As previous Reason-Rupe poll results have shown, younger Americans are considerably more tolerant of drug use in general, so not surprisingly they are more likely than older Americans to say they would continue to support a politician whom they previously endorsed if he or she used marijuana occasionally. For instance, 73 percent of 18-24 year olds would continue to support their favored politicians caught with pot, compared to 35 percent of seniors.

Similarly, those with higher levels of education also are more likely to continue supporting their favored politicians who smoke marijuana. While 48 percent of those with high school diplomas or less would continue to support their favored candidate, nearly two-thirds of post-graduates would do the same.

However, even young people and post-grads make a sharp distinction between marijuana and cocaine. For instance, 65 percent of those under 35 would continue to support a politician who used marijuana from time to time while just 18 percent would continue to support a politician who used cocaine. By comparison, 44 percent of Americans ages 55 and over would continue to support an official who used marijuana while just six percent would continue to support a politician who used cocaine. Similarly for education, while 64 percent of post grads would continue to endorse marijuana-smoking politicians, only 14 percent would do the same for a cocaine user.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed 1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.

The Brookings Institute has released scores ranking how effective members of Congress were in 2013. And by “effective” they mean how effective congresspersons were at getting their proposed legislation through committee, a major hurdle in the legislative process. What they find may surprise you.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was the most efficient Senator, which means Cruz got the highest percentage of his proposed bills through committee (7 out of 8). Compare this to Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) who proposed 61 pieces of legislation and literally none of them made it through committee.

Using another metric to define productivity, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had the highest number of their bills make it through committee, 13 and 11 respectively. Thinking about this another way for instance, Rand Paul was 4x as effective at getting bills through committee than the average Senator would be expected to.

It may surprise some that Paul and Cruz, two senators dubbed tea party “wacko birds” could be so effective in getting their legislation through committee. It demonstrates that while these Senators are often defined by their willingness to take ideological stances on issues, albeit different stances at times, they are also willing to engage with the actual political process in efforts to make changes.

Here are some examples of what Rand Paul has gotten through committee:

The Fourth Amendment Restoration Act is an effort to prevent US government agencies from searching Americans’ phone records without a warrant based on probable cause.

The National Right-to-Work Act, would repeal existing law in efforts to reduce the use of coerced union membership as a condition of employment.

The Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act essentially tells the President that Congress will not accept any executive orders, signing statements, or expenditures of federal funds on projects or programs not appropriated to the executive branch.

The Default Protection Act outlines priorities for federal government obligations if the debt limit is reached, including paying the interest and principal on public debt, paying benefits to members of the Armed Forces, and paying Social Security and Medicare.

Aside from getting bills through committee, examining simply the number of bills proposed, Democratic senators and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) took 9 of the 10 top slots, while Vitter, the lone Republican, was first in proposing the highest number of bills. (In the Republican-controlled house, Democrats also took a higher share of the top slots with 7 of the top 10 bill proposers compared to 3 in 10 being Republicans.) 

The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds that most Americans do not think the government should prohibit people from playing violent video games. While surely Americans believe different standards should apply to children than adults, 66 percent of Americans think government should allow people to play violent video games, while 31 percent say the government should prohibit this activity.

Support for the freedom to play violent video games is highly correlated with age. Eighty-two percent of people under age 35 and 70 percent of those ages 35-43 say the government should allow people to play violent video games while just half, 50 percent, of Americans ages 55 and over agree.

Unmarried men (83 percent) are considerably more likely than married men (68 percent) and both married and unmarried women (64 percent) to oppose a government ban on violent video games. In general, men are more likely to favor allowing violent video games than women, by a margin of 72 to 61 percent, nevertheless majorities of both support allowing it.

Income is also correlated with public opinion on violent video games. For instance, among Americans making less than $30,000 a year, 46 percent want the government to prohibit Americans from playing violent video games, compared to 26 percent among those making more than $30,000 a year. Seventy-one percent of those making more than $30,000 a year and 52 percent of those making less, oppose banning video games.

Majorities of political groups favor allowing violent video games, although some are more supportive than others. Independents who lean Republican are the most likely to believe violent video games should be allowed (77 percent) compared to 61 percent of Democrats. Roughly two-thirds of non-partisan independents and Democratic-leaning independents oppose a ban as do 70 percent of Republicans. Nearly eight in 10 self-identified libertarians say the government should allow this activity while just over half of progressives feel the same (78 percent to 56 percent).

Asked about their own video game use, 65 percent of respondents told Reason-Rupe they rarely or never play video games, while 34 percent said they play frequently or occasionally.  Among those who report playing frequently, 82 percent say government should allow violent video games, while 17 percent want them prohibited. In contrast, among those who never play video games 54 percent say they should be allowed and 42 percent say they should be banned.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed 1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.

Correction: This post has corrected the colors in the bottom graph to match the graph legend.

CNN reports that trans fat intake among American consumers has decreased from 4.6 grams per day in 2003 to about 1 gram per day in 2012. Moreover, the Grocery Manufacturers Associations has stated “Since 2005, food manufacturers have voluntarily lowered the amounts of trans fats in their food products by over 73%.” Despite voluntary action to reduce trans fat intake, the FDA still thinks government intervention is needed.

However, latest Reason-Rupe poll finds 71 percent of Americans think the government should allow people to buy foods with trans fats, if they so choose. Less than a quarter, 24 percent, believe the government should prohibit people from buying these types of foods.

Independents who lean Republican are the most likely to say trans fats should be allowed (82 percent) compared to 66 percent of Democrats. Nevertheless, majorities of all political groups favor allowing trans fats, also including 67 percent of non-partisan independents, 76 percent of regular Republicans and 68 percent of independents who lean Democratic.

Reason-Rupe finds public opinion is similar on the sale of caffeinated energy drinks. Seventy-six percent of Americans say the government should allow people to purchase so-called energy drinks that also contain caffeine, while 21 percent want government to prohibit people from buying them.

Additionally, the February 2013 Reason-Rupe poll found that 71 percent of Americans think the sale of soft drinks larger than 16 ounces in theaters, restaurants, and other venues should be allowed. This survey also asked whether caffeinated energy drinks should be allowed, but prefaced the question with a statement about purported concerns over the drinks’ safety. In this instance, 59 percent of respondents said that caffeinated energy drinks should be allowed, while 26 percent disagreed.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed 1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.

Time magazine says, "Regulations of electronic cigarettes are expected to be a top priority for states and cities in 2014." Indeed, many districts have placed or are considering placing bans on the tobacco-free nicotine delivery devices and the Food and Drug Administration plans this month to issue guidelines regulating e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. But Americans don’t want the government interfering with people’s ability to use e-cigarettes.

The new Reason-Rupe poll finds that 62 percent of Americans think the government should allow people to use tobacco-free electronic cigarettes in public places while 34 percent say the government should prohibit this activity.

Non-partisan independents (66 percent) and independents who lean Republican (68 percent) are more likely than Democrats (58 percent) to think government should allow people to use e-cigarettes in public places. Nevertheless, majorities of all political groups think electronic cigarettes should be allowed, including 63 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents who lean Democratic.

Self-identified libertarians are 22 points more likely than self-identified liberals to say the government should allow this activity (77 percent to 55 percent).

Older Americans are much more opposed than younger Americans to e-cigarette use in public.  Forty-two percent of people ages 55 and over favor a government ban on the public use of e-cigarettes while just 29 percent of Americans under age 35 agree.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed 1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.

When Gallup first began asking the question in 1965 only 35 percent of Americans said “big government” would be the biggest threat to the country in the future. Since then, that number has soared to 72 percent in Gallup’s most recent poll.  In stark contrast, only 21 percent say “big business” is the greatest threat to the nation’s future.

The prior record for “big government” was 65 percent in 1999, but concern receded in the early 2000s in the wake of 9/11. However, since 2009 with bailouts, stimulus spending, quantitative easing, NSA spying, IRS targeting, AP wiretapping, and probably most importantly the Affordable Care Act, concern has skyrocketed more than 20 points to 72 percent.

Particularly surprising is that even a majority of Democrats (56 percent) agree that “big government” poses the greatest threat to the nation’s future, even during the tenure of an incumbent Democratic president. Nevertheless, substantially more Republicans (92 percent) and independents (71) are concerned about the expanding scope of government power. Significant differences in partisan perception were not always common in American politics, particularly during the Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan administrations. Major differences emerged between 1986 and 2000, and then again after 2005.

Today, only 21 percent of Americans perceive “big business” as the biggest threat. While anxiety about corporations has fluctuated over the past 50 years, Americans have consistently remained more concerned about government power.

In the wake of corporate scandals in the early 2000s and government’s response to the 9/11 attacks, anxiety over business and governmental power coalesced. In 2002 38 percent of Americans were most concerned about big business compared to 47 percent who were concerned about government.

These data suggest that public worry over governmental power will continue to fluctuate but will likely continue to rise. Not only that, but the public will continue to identify government, not corporations, as the country’s biggest threat.

Read more about Gallup’s poll here.

The Wall Street Journal reports that if fully legalized, by 2020 online gambling will generate the same amount of revenue as Las Vegas and Atlantic City combined: $9.3 billion. While online gambling can be made legal at the state level, Congress is considering several bills to legalize it nationwide. The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds that a solid majority (65 percent) of Americans favor legalizing online gambling, while 32 percent think government should prohibit people from gambling in online poker games.

Majorities of all partisans favor allowing Americans to play online poker, but independents who lean Republican were even more likely to favor (75 percent) allowing people to play online poker and Democrats were the least likely to favor (58 percent). Regular Republicans (66 percent), non-partisan Independents (68 percent) and independent-leaning Democrats (65 percent) also favor legalizing online poker.

Lower-income Americans and those with a high school degree or less are most likely to favor banning online gambling (41 percent), but still 56 percent would favor legalization. In comparison, only 21 percent of post-graduates and 31 percent of high income Americans favor the ban, (73 percent and 66 percent favor legalization respectively).

Support for legalized online gambling decline with age; roughly 70 percent Americans under 55 favor legalization compared to 56 percent of those over 55.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed 1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.