Americans Are United ... in Dissatisfaction with Their Choices
Sep 28, 2016
Results from the September RAND Presidential Election Panel Survey
Photo by Mike Segar/Reuters
In a previous report, we noted voters' increasing dissatisfaction with the two leading candidates. Here, we discuss additional indicators of dissatisfaction. In the September wave of the PEPS, collected during the two weeks preceding the first presidential debate (2,516 respondents between September 12 and September 25, 2016), we repeated several questions from the December 2015 baseline survey assessing peoples' attitudes toward political issues in the news on a scale of 1 (strongly favor) to 4 (strongly oppose). Table 1 presents the four items we asked respondents about again in September. Among the entire electorate, support changed in disadvantageous ways for two issues central to the Trump campaign between December 2015 and September 2016:
In particular, support for building a fence along the Mexican border decreased even among those people who reported that they intend to vote for Trump; since December, roughly one in five Trump voters shifted toward less-favorable attitudes about the fence. Changes in opinion on the other two issues — fighting ISIS with ground troops and increasing taxes on the highest-earning individuals — saw support both increasing and decreasing in similar amounts.
|Issue||Increased Support / Decreased Opposition (%)||Decreased Support / Increased Opposition (%)||Did Not Change Attitude (%)|
|Build a border fence||10.9 ↑||34.8 ↓||54.4|
|Provide a legal path to citizenship for illegal immigrants||33.0 ↑||15.5 ↓||51.3|
|Send ground troops to fight ISIS||22.3 ↑||28.7 ↓||48.1|
|Increase taxes on the wealthy||31.5 ↑||31.6 ↓||36.8|
NOTE: Percentages might not sum to 100 because of rounding
The favorability of both major-party candidates continues to be low; 54.1 percent of respondents indicated a "very" or "somewhat" unfavorable opinion of Clinton, and 65.3 percent of respondents did so for Trump. Similarly, 61.0 percent of respondents reported that they felt the term "honest" described Clinton "not well at all," as did 56.3 percent regarding Trump.
On average, people intending to vote for Clinton have not significantly shifted their opinion of the Democratic party.
But voter dissatisfaction extends beyond the choice of candidates. In December 2015, we asked people to rate their opinions of a variety of groups (such as Muslims, Christians, feminists, and big business) on a scale of 1 (very favorable) to 4 (very unfavorable), and in September, we asked them the same questions. Of particular note are changes in opinions toward the Democratic party and the Republican party by people intending to vote for that party's candidate. On average, people intending to vote for Clinton have not significantly shifted their opinion of the Democratic party. In exact terms, they have moved slightly away from the "favorable" end of the scale since December, decreasing their favorability score an average of 0.02 points (which is statistically equal to zero). In contrast, people reporting in September 2016 that they intend to vote for Trump have decreased their favorability rating of the Republican party by 0.09 points on the scale, meaning one in 11 have moved one point more negative, on average. When we account for potential differences in demographics (such as age, education, employment, gender, race/ethnicity, and income) or attitudes toward candidates across these two groups — those intending to vote for Clinton or Trump — we observe that Republican voters decreased their favorability ratings since December significantly more than Democrats did. Republicans shifted their rating of the Republican party an average of 0.35 points lower on the favorability scale than Democrats rated the Democratic party, with about one in three Republicans making the shift.
As shown in Figure 1, Clinton continues to maintain a significant lead over Trump and Libertarian Gary Johnson in our probabilistic poll results. Clinton had a statistically significant lead of nearly ten percentage points over Trump, up slightly from the August PEPS. Johnson collected nearly 10 percent of the popular vote, while nearly 15 percent intended to vote for someone other than these three candidates.
Interestingly, since the beginning of our data collection, more respondents have intended to vote for a Democrat than a Republican. For example, in December 2015, more people responded that they would vote for Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or another Democrat than for Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, or other Republican candidates. Table 2 presents the popular vote margins between any Democratic candidate and any Republican candidate during each PEPS wave. The Democrats' advantage has ranged from 3.6 percentage points to more than 15 percentage points.
|PEPS Wave||Any Democratic Candidate (Percentage of Popular Vote)||Any Republican Candidate (Percentage of Popular Vote)||Difference|
|December 2015||46.7||43.1||Democrat +3.6|
|March 2016||53.0||37.9||Democrat +15.1|
|August 2016||48.1||39.7||Democrat +8.4|
|September 2016||43.3||33.4||Democrat +9.9|
NOTE: Beginning in the August 2016 wave (Wave 3), we asked respondents if they would vote specifically for Clinton or Trump because they had clinched their respective party’s nomination by then. The difference in all waves except December 2015 was statistically significant.
We also asked respondents to estimate the percent chance that each candidate would win the election, and those results indicate that the voters themselves perceive a Clinton lead (see Figure 2).
The next wave of PEPS data will be collected in the days between the final presidential debate (October 19) and Election Day (November 8). The new data will enable us to measure how attitudes toward key issues and the candidates themselves changed after the debates, with just days to go until the majority of voters cast their ballots.
This RAND-initiated research was conducted by RAND Labor and Population.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.