THE PRICE OF SILENCE

Date: November 13, 2002
To: Friends of Democracy Corps
From: Stan Greenberg James Carville
Bob Shrum
RE: THE PRICE OF SILENCE A Review of What Happened and What has to Happen

The election of 2002 produced a political earthquake. Republicans took control of all the institutions of government, and that will have profound policy and political im-plications.
But 2002 was not an electoral earthquake. With the country divided down the middle, a relatively minor shift to the right – almost invisible to most analysts right up to
election eve – gave the Republicans their crucial victory.
On Election Day, Republicans won by 4 points in voting for the House of Repre-sentatives (51 to 47 percent). That produced a gain of just 4 seats in the House. In the
Senate, Democrats went from a one-seat majority to being in the minority. That repre-sents a swing of 4 points away from Democratic performance in 2000 (even), actually the
switch of around 2 percent of the voters, not a seismic change.
This small, but dramatic shift was produced by historic events, by a President who took the stage and played his part boldly, by tactics, and by money. And it was produced
by the Democrats who barely took the stage, failed to tell voters what this election was about, and failed to offer bold critiques or alternatives, particularly on the economy.

This imbalance of energy and direction produced a unique electorate, which would have been noted election night, had the traditional exit polls been available. The
2002 electorate was more Republican and much more conservative than those that showed up in the Presidential election of 2000 and the off-year election of 1998. Repub-licans
were greatly energized by their campaigns, while Democrats were not.
But, as we shall see in this memorandum, the voters could have responded differ-ently. Indeed, they were very open to new, bold ideas, even as the Democrats chose si-lence. 1
1 Page 2 3
The Price of Silence
2
As the press speculates about the President launching on his sweeping conserva-tive, pro-business agenda, it is worth noting that the voters gave him no such mandate.
The question then, is how Democrats respond to this moment. In the end, this survey shows that the 2002 voters were ready to respond to a bold Democratic critique and
agenda. That is the mandate that Democrats will have to mold in the year ahead.
This memorandum uses post-election surveys conducted for the Campaign for America's Future and for Democracy Corps. 1 These 2000 interviews, 25 minute surveys,
represent the most comprehensive look at why voters did what they did. They also give us an insight into the battleground Congressional districts and battleground US Senate
states, where the election was fought out.

9-11: The Dominant Story of 2002
The last 14 months in America have been dominated by the 9-11 attack and the war on terrorism, on its many fronts. This has shaped the mood in ways that made it dif-ficult
to challenge the Republicans, particularly when the terrorist-like events, such as snipers, and the Administration drive on Iraq carried right through the campaign's final
months. A Democratic resurgence in August was crushed by the Iraq debate and the President's late campaign, focused on Iraq and homeland security.

The entire campaign is symbolized by voter responses to the question, is the coun-try headed in the right direction or is it seriously off track? The country had little confi-dence
in the country's leadership before 9-11, but rallied to support the country and the President over the next 10 months. Voters lost confidence with the corporate scandals
and economic weakening, but then the late Iraq focus brought the country back to its original division, split evenly between right and wrong direction.

1 The Campaign for America's Future and Democracy Corps conducted surveys of 1000 respondents each
on election night and the night afterwards. The surveys included those who voted in 2002 (1763 respon-dents in the two surveys) but also Presidential year voters who failed to vote (229 respondents). Nearly all

the results presented here refer to 2002 voters. The memorandum refers, as well, to post-election studies done for National Public Radio (conducted jointly by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Public
Opinion Strategies), which of course, is not responsible for any of the editorial judgements contained in this memorandum. 2
2 Page 3 4
The Price of Silence
3
Direction
61 63 59
55 54 52

Jan-01 May-01 Sep-01 Jan-02 May-02 Sep-02
Right Direction Wrong Track
+11 -3 -6 Net Difference -12 +34 +37 +28 +21 +19 +15 +10 -10 +3 -10 +1

The sustained era of good feeling, partially restored at the end had a number of important political consequences:
. The President's job approval, driven by security issues, remained in the mid-sixties
right up the election – indeed, 64 percent for actual Election Day vot-ers.

. After 9-11, voters started viewing Republicans more positively than Democ-rats.
While concern about the economy grew at the end and confidence dropped, the Republicans finished this election with greater standing than the

Democrats. A few weeks before Election Day, their advantage was a net 3 degrees, which grew to a 6-degree advantage on Election Day (56.8 degrees
on our thermometer scale, compared to 50.3 degrees). 2
. The Republicans emerged, not surprisingly, with a strong advantage on keep-ing
America secure. A 16-point Republican advantage grew to about 25 points for most of the year, but jumped to 40 points on Election Day. As we

shall see, support for the President and the war on terrorism helped create an electorate energized by security issues.

2 In our thermometer scale, we ask voters to rate their feelings toward a person or entity on a scale of zero
to 100 with zero being a very cold unfavorable feeling and 100 being a very warm favorable feeling. 3
3 Page 4 5
The Price of Silence
4
Party Thermometers
54 53 54
51

Thus, when we asked those who voted or considered voting Republican, what was most important in that decision, the top two reasons were to support the war on terrorism
and a strong military (34 percent) and to support President Bush (31 percent); another 19 percent said to speed up action on homeland security. These obviously came ahead of
taxes and other aspects of the Republican agenda. (The NPR survey found the same pat-tern, asking in an open-end format, asking what you heard that made you feel more fa-vorable
about the Republicans in the last week.) 4
4 Page 5 6
The Price of Silence
5
8
13
13

Military Action in Iraq
Corporate Abuses
Homeland Security
Oppose Abortion
Social Security
Rx Drugs for Srs.
Cut Taxes
President Bush
War on Terrorism & Strong Military

"Let me read you a list of reasons to vote for the Republican candidate for Congress. Which THREE describe the best reasons for you personally in this election to support or consider the Republican candidate? '
The late Republican campaign focused on George Bush, Iraq, homeland security, and other issues energized conservatives and help change the character of the Election
Day electorate. Nothing comparable was happening on the Democratic side. We already noted the surge on security. But in the last month, the likely electorate began to include
more pro-gun voters (up 4 points); on Election Day, there were suddenly more pro-life voters (up 4 points from the norm). This is part of a surge of strong Republican identifi-ers.
On Election Day, 28 percent of voters were "strong" Republicans, up about 3 points in the last month and up around 5 points from the summer. The number of "strong" De-mocrats
actually declined a few points to 19 percent. But that means there was a 9-point gap in intense party support on Election Day.

The Republicans achieved this late mobilization despite the fact that the tradi-tional cultural issues – guns and abortion – were not very high up on reasons to vote Re-publican
this year. This contrasts sharply with 2000 when the cultural issues were domi-nant. Republican intensity was driven by a conservative President, emphasizing family
values and patriotism, who was able to campaign on Iraq and security.
In the end, 39 percent of the actual voters self-identified as Republicans, 3 percent more than in 2000 and 1998. The Democratic portion fell to 35 percent (down from 39
percent in 2000 and 37 percent in 1998). That alone could more than account for the shift witnessed at the polls.

There was an even bigger increase in self-identified conservatives in the elector-ate, 41 percent, compared to approximately 30 percent two and four years ago. That re- 5
5 Page 6 7
The Price of Silence
6
flects the increased conservatism of this post-9-11 period and the conservative energy reflected in turnout on Election Day. 3
Muddying Issues: Prescription Drugs and Social Security
The Republicans set out to muddy a number of issues, particularly prescription drugs and to some extent Social Security. Bob Borosage, Director of Campaign for
America's Future, called it "cross-dressing." Whatever it is called, the Republican strat-egy, buttressed by massive special interest money, was successful.

Democrats were not wrong-headed to think they could make progress on health care and retirement issues. The biggest reasons to vote Democratic were Social Security
(33 percent) and prescription drugs (29 percent). And indeed, Democrats on Election Day stood well above the Republicans on health care (+ 19 points), prescription drugs
(+ 18 points) and Social Security (+ 9 points).

0 2040
Stop Deficits
Limit Corporate Abuse
Support War on Terrorism
Oppose GOP Tax Cuts
Cut taxes for Middle Class
Protect Environment
Right to Choose
Oppose War w/ Iraq
Weak Economy

"Let me read you a list of reasons to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress. Which THREE describe the best reasons for you personally in this election to support or consider the Democratic candidate? '
But the Democratic advantage on these issues was muted by Republican legisla-tive and campaign tactics and money. While Democrats preserved their advantage on
Election Day on many issues, including the budget, their margin dropped 3 points on pre-3

We are also checking with VNS exit polling to make sure there is not any wording differences that might account for these results. 6
6 Page 7 8
The Price of Silence
7
scription drugs, 7 points on Social Security, and 7 on education, compared to the Democ-racy Corps pre-election poll conducted October 22-24, 2002.
Social Security was still a defining issue in the election: 55 percent of voters said Republicans and Democrats differed on the issue, compared to 32 percent who thought
both were trying to protect it. Privatization helped crystallize the issue, though Republi-can efforts to eschew privatization and to attack Democrats for taxing Social Security,
reduced the Democratic advantage.
The prescription drugs issue, on the other hand, was neutralized. A plurality of the 2002 voters (43 percent) said both parties were supporting prescription drug benefits
for seniors; only one-third said the parties disagreed on this issue. The Pharma campaign clearly achieved its cynical goal.

In one of the most striking findings in the survey, we found that getting prescrip-tion drug coverage for seniors and protecting Social Security were the 4 th and 5 th most
important reasons to vote Republican.

The Lost Economy
The voters thought that the economy was the decisive issue in the election. Only the Democrats did not notice. This is one of the biggest fumbles in election history.

Voters thought the economy was sick: 70 percent said it was in only fair or poor shape. That was also true in the battleground Senate and congressional contests.
Voters insisted, by a 57 to 35 percent, that the economy was the most important issue in their vote, more than the war on terrorism and Iraq. This was no less true in this
year's electoral battlegrounds.
But on Election Day 2002, the voters were no more likely to turn to the Democ-rats than Republicans on handling the economy. In fact, Republicans were ahead by 2
points.
Maybe Republicans had better economic ideas in 2002. Plausible, but the data does not support that. In fact, the voters seemed hungry for an identifiable Democratic
posture on the economy. In the post-election surveys, Democratic economic ideas trounced Republican ones. The Republicans had no mandate.

What the Republicans had going into this election was clarity of thinking. Re-markably, they enjoyed a 25-point advantage over the Democrats on "having clear ideas
on what they want to do." But that seemed to apply mainly to the President's clear de-termination on security issues, not the economy. 7
7 Page 8 9
The Price of Silence
8
On the economy, voters went to the polls, troubled by what was happening around them, determined to vote the issue, but faced with the muddle of politicians, particularly
Democrats, who never spoke clearly on the economy. Two-thirds of the voters said the candidates this year did not set out clear positions on how to deal with the economy.

"Now I'm going to read you a pair of statements. As I read each pair, please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own views, even if neither is exactly right."
+42

In the survey for Campaign for America's Future, we simulated two Democratic economic messages against a strong Republican one. The Republican message, focused
on the weak economy and high taxes, committed to make the tax cuts permanent, lower taxes on corporations and small businesses, and simplify the tax code to cut red tape.
About half the voters (52 percent) favored the approach, but that scored 17 points lower than either Democratic economic message.

One Democratic message focused on canceling the scheduled tax cuts and cutting taxes for low and middle income families, investing in school construction and homeland
security, and extending unemployment benefits: 69 percent favored this proposal, 43 per-cent strongly.

Another Democratic message proposed postponing any new tax cuts, focusing on reining in spending, balancing the budget, and encouraging long-term growth: 69 percent
favored this approach, 46 percent strongly. 4
4 In the battleground states and districts, the same pattern was true on these economic proposals: 50 percent
favored the Republican tax cut economic approach, compared to 70 percent favoring each of the Democ-ratic approaches. 8
8 Page 9 10
The Price of Silence
9
Without judging which economic course Democrats should have taken, it seems that any serious Democratic approach on the economy would have dominated those sim-ple
anti-tax proposals advanced by the Republicans.
In the Democracy Corps survey, we forced the choice on taxes.
The Democrat says, we should roll back the tax cut for the top one per-cent scheduled to take place a few years from now and use the funds
now to fund middle class tax cuts, investments in education and to help with prescription drugs.

The Republican says, we should make President Bush's tax cuts perma-nent but in addition, cut taxes for individuals and abolish corporate
taxes to spur the economy and put money back in people's pockets.
The voters – who supported the Republicans by 3 points in the congressional elections – favored the Democrats on this tax issue by 10 points.

Clearly, the Republicans broke even on the economy, the lead voting issue, only because the Democrats remained silent. If Republicans interpret that as a mandate, then
hopefully the Democratic silence will come to an end.

The Lost Grip
This was not an election that is likely to re-align anything among voters, given the marginal shift to the Republicans. But Republicans got their critical gains because of
their success in nationalizing the election and creating conservative energy around the President and security issues. Democrats lost ground mainly because of a loss of energy
and some slippage in key groups.
As we pointed out earlier, the biggest change was in the Republican and conser-vative composition of the actual voting electorate on November 5 th .

This year, the Democrats proved somewhat weaker with women, winning by only 2 percent, compared to 8 points in 2000 (and 5 in 1998).
Democrats lost seniors by 5 points. That is considerably lower than in 2000 when Democrats fought the prescription drug battle and won by 4 points. Still, Democrats had
lost seniors by 10 points in 1998, reflecting the pull back of seniors on values issues.
While union households held up their percentage of the off-year electorate (21 percent), Democratic support was down by 5 points. Still, Democrats won 55 percent of
voters in union households. 9
9 Page 10 11
The Price of Silence
10
Democrats remain weak among married voters, losing the women by 12 points and the men by 19. They lost men aged 50 years and under by 13 points. They lost rural
areas by 24 points. There is no evidence, however, that the shifts this year were produced by further erosion with the married, younger men or the rural areas.

What is striking is that how the great middle of the electorate remains contested, in 2002 and beyond. Democrats won in large and smaller cities but split evenly in the
suburban areas and trailed only by a few points in smaller towns. Democrats ran well with voters earning under $30,000 and Republicans ran comparably with voters earning
over $75,000. But in the great middle of the income spectrum, Democrats broke even with those earning between $30,000 and $50,000, and trailed by a few points among
those earning $50,000-$ 75,000.
The great bulk of the electorate, it seems, remained fairly divided, prepared to respond differently to different times, different choices and different agendas.

Future for Democratic Boldness
The same voters who applauded George Bush and who stood frustrated on the economic issue are prepared to respond to a new Democratic boldness. In a special set of
questions, we explored how these same voters would vote for President and how they would respond to a set of sweeping Republican and Democratic proposals on the key
questions facing the country.
Voters affirmed their views about the security situation in this election and were frustrated in their desires on the economy, but that was about 2002, not 2004. When
asked how they intend to vote for President, just 48 percent chose Bush over a generic Democratic nominee. From our point of view, that suggests voters indeed had a limited
mandate in mind, at least with regard to the President. 10
10 Page 11 12
The Price of Silence
11
2004 Presidential Vote
39
48

But voters, no doubt frustrated by this year's failure to address key problems, re-spond to bold Democratic proposals on health care, retirement, the economy, global en-gagement,
corporate responsibility and tax reform. For the most part, this same electorate that tilted the country into the hands of the Republicans prefers the Democrats on the ma-jor
unaddressed issues.
On health care, two-thirds of the voters (and over three-quarters of the non-voters) say they feel much more or somewhat more positive about the Democrat after
hearing their proposal; 41 percent felt much more positive. The Democrat spoke out boldly on the health care crisis, moving to achieve universal health coverage, prescription
drugs for seniors and patients rights.
On energy security, a remarkable 71 percent of this year's voters said they were more positive about a Democrat who was determined to achieve energy security and in-dependence
from Middle East oil by turning to car efficiency, cleaner and new energy sources, including solar, and financial incentives for new technology. This Democrat
scored 18 points more positive than a Republican seeking energy independence through increased domestic production.

On the economy and taxes, 60 percent say they are more positive about a Democ-rat who wants to cancel the tax cut for the top 1 percent, cut taxes for the middle class
now, and invest in school construction and homeland security. That Democrat scores 18 points higher than a Republican who wants to make the tax cuts permanent. 11
11 Page 12
The Price of Silence
12
On Social Security, a Democrat who is determined to protect Social Security against borrowing and privatization is received positively by 62 percent, well above the
Republican who wants to be bold and create private accounts to give people more control over their money (48 percent).

On global engagement, a Democrat speaking about the need for multilateralism and warning of a "go-it-alone" foreign policy is received positively by 62 percent, 6
points higher than the reception for a Republican insisting on waging the war on terror-ism, alone if necessary, to defend America's security.

On radical tax reform, a Democratic progressive proposal to simplify the tax structure and get rid of loopholes and deductions, including those favoring corporations,
is received positively by 56 percent. Again, that does better than a Republican advocat-ing a flat tax (47 percent).

These various Democratic proposals score well above a Democratic candidate who advocates bi-partisanship, a focus on deficit reduction, to achieve higher business
investment, more employment and growth. While wanting to delay the tax cut, the candi-date supports tax credits for education and new technology. Just 55 percent say they feel
positively about this Democratic candidate.
Without trying to judge which bold proposals Democrats should advance, we simply want to underscore that this was an electorate hungry for Democrats who speak
out and address the country's greatest problems. In light of what happened after 9-11 and with the Democrats silent on the economy, they gave the edge to the Republicans, but not
a mandate. Once again, this is still the Democrats' moment. 12

Page Navigation Panel

As the women Members of Congress said on Capital Hill concerning the ouster of Republican Senator Packwood on modest charge (certainly modest compared to Billyjeff Clinton, whom the Dems protected),

"They don't get it."
Carville, et al, claim the reason was that the Democrats "did not speak boldly." Don't they receive any newspapers? Can't they read? Clinton (him) spoke "boldly" in district after district, for candidate after candidate. And they ALL lost, except for Gray Davis, who was deep in the toilet, but his opponent's campaign was even deeper in the toilet.
Mary Landrieu, who is losing an historic race in Louisiana even as we speak, had the good sense not to permit the "leading" Democrat, Clinton (him) to come anywhere near her state as she tries to survive her association with "bold" Democrats at the national level.
In short, when you are dead wrong and the people do not agree with you, turning up the volume on your megaphones will NOT obtain better results. "It's the message, stupid." Until the Democrats change direction as a political party, the MORE they get their message out, the MORE races they will lose.
This memo, in effect, urges the Democrats to hurry as they approach the political cliff as clueless lemmings. Our best tactic in the presence of this self-destructive behavior is to pop some popcorn, pour a cold one, watch, and cheer.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest UPI column, "Enrons Are Everywhere"

Click for latest book, "to Restore Trust in America"

a democrat president ( elected in 2004

Like who? Americans like and trust Bush and his family. Which Dem is either likeable or able to pull the wool over our eyes like clintoon did?
There would have to be a serious failure in the war on terrorism AND a crumpling economy to give any one of the current crop of Dem contenders a chance against Bush.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Pages 1--12 from Microsoft Word - The Price of Silence.doc

Page Navigation Panel