Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Live Blog: Andrew Kohut (Pew Research Center) On the 2008 Elections

Bookmark and Share

12:05pm. Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center is speaking this afternoon at the Humphrey Institute in the first of two events today. This speech is entitled, "What to Watch in the 2008 Elections." Kohut is one of the nation's leading authorities on public opinion research and he is the Director of the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. Dean Atwood began with some introductory remarks heralding Kohut's pollster credentials.

12:15 p.m.Kohut begins by stating that the Democratic Party will have an advantage in 2008. Kohut has tracked trends in 'political values' for the past 20 years. The current political landscape, according to this research is more favorable for the Democrats. For example, there was increased support for the government to take care of those who can't take care of themselves as well as an increase concern of income inequality (the latter of which is the hallmark of John Edwards' campaign).

12:20 p.m. Kohut also states there is growing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle (though not gay marriage). Social trends that used to favor the Republicans thus seem to be moderating. The latest trends in party identification are also trending Democratic - up from 43-43 a few years ago to 50-35 today. This shift, however, is not predicated on a more positive view of Democrats, but a more negative view of Republicans.

12:25 p.m. Kohut discusses how this presidential election is about change - with significant discontent among the public with regards to the direction of the nation and President Bush.

12:30 p.m. Despite these trends, Kohut states that horserace polls show Rudy Giuliani and John McCain running close to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Kohut finds that most Americans don't view the leading Republican candidates as traditional Republicans. The dliemma, for the Republicans, is whether or not these perceived 'moderate' Republicans can win the nomination. The key to this election, says Kohut, are independent voters -- who are decidedly leaning Democratic at this point in time.

12:40 p.m.Kohut does not believe there is a strong likelihood of a 3rd party candidate running a strong campaign in the 2008 presidential election, despite the call for great change in the country. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, says Kohut, is not going to make disaffected Republicans any happier, and Democratic voters seem reasonably happy with their crop of candidates, so there is little base of support for the Mayor.

12:45 p.m.Larry Jacobs now moderates a question and answer session with Kohut. Kohut states that there is an increase in secularism now, at its lowest level since 1987, after an increase in the 1990s. Kohut also states it is going to be difficult for the eventual Republican nominee to rebrand the party.

1:05 p.m. Kohut states the advantage President Bush and the Republican Party had on terrorism and security issues in 2004 has largely dissipated.

Previous post: Smart Politics Live Blogging at Andrew Kohut (Pew Research Center) Events
Next post: Live Blog: Andrew Kohut (Pew Research Center) On Global Attitudes Towards the U.S.

1 Comment


  • I read your column in the NY Times today. It was a very good analysis of all the possible things that could have gone wrong with the polling. However, you missed one possibility: voter fraud. Fully 81 percent of the votes were cast on electronic voting machines that have been proven to be easily hackable. The entire system is operated by one operator, John Silvestro and his small private business. LHS Associates, has exclusive programming contracts for ALL New Hampshire voting machines.

    Is it really a functional analysis to ignore the elephant in the room that has potentially disrupted the last two presidential elections? And most of this controversy has revolved around the Diebold 1.94w optical scan system, which was the system used in New Hampshire? Is it really probable that ALL of the polls could be so accurate in with all the other candidates and so wrong with Clinton and Obama? I think not. (See HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy; voteFraud.org; BlackBoxVoting.org;)

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting