What Voters Said in 2002, and What It Means for 2004
Celinda Lake, President, Lake Snell Perry Associates

Politicians have misread the electorate in recent years, resulting in some surprising election results, according to respected pollster Celinda Lake. Her research suggests there were three major factors that explain how Republicans took control of Congress and widened their majority in the House following the 2002 mid-term elections.

Turnout was the single most influencing factor, Lake said. Republican turnout was stronger than Democratic turnout last year, a surprising and unusual phenomenon for a mid-term election. Usually it is the party out of power that does a better job of getting out its supporters, Lake noted. Half of the states had higher than normal turnout, half less than normal. Higher turnout among specific groups—including NRA members, born-again Christians and voters who identify themselves as Republicans—helped many successful Republican congressional candidates.

A second influencing factor was the lack of a national message among Democrats. Republicans did a better job of identifying their party’s national issues, Lake’s research showed. Democrats ran more often on local issues that often failed to motivate voters.

A third factor was President Bush’s then high approval ratings. Lake noted that historically the party of the incumbent president loses a number of congressional seats in a mid-term election. The exception, proven last year, is when the White House has approval ratings that exceed 60%.

Lake noted that there was an unusually high number of voters who made up their minds in the last few days before the election; many voters even reconsidered their positions during the same time frame. The key deciding factor for these voters, Lake’s research showed, was President Bush’s exceptionally high approval ratings.

Voters who were most concerned about terrorism voted overwhelmingly Republican, Lake noted, while most voters concerned about the economy voted Democratic. The failure of Democrats to clearly define their economic platform, however, was a key indicator of how independents decided to vote. According to Lake, voters clearly understood that Republicans’ economic priority was cutting taxes, but were unable to identify Democrats’ economic priority.

Lake said politicians could learn two important lessons from the 2002 elections. First, turnout remains the highest priority. Second, encouraging turnout without having a clear message on key issues is a wasted effort. Republicans last year did a better job in both getting out their supporters and giving undecided voters a clear message.

Lake then reviewed her latest polling data regarding the possibility of war with Iraq, and discussed how that situation could influence congressional action in 2003. She noted that, unlike previous polls, women and men equally support war against Iraq.

If war were not the dominant issue today, health care would be the voters’ highest priority. Most Americans, however, has been unable to decide which party has a position on topics such as prescription drug coverage that is closest to their own beliefs.

Voters’ number one economic concerns, Lake said, are stagnating income and rising costs—particularly rising health care costs. Although job loss is also a concern, voters are more concerned about suffering a decline in the quality of their benefits (especially health insurance) if they change jobs, or the loss of their benefits entirely.

Voters are not prepared to blame President Bush for the poor economy, citing instead the business cycle and possibility of war with Iraq as key reasons for current conditions. Only 20% of voters thought Democrats had a clear idea of what to do about the economy.

Lake’s research shows each party is rated strong on specific issues, positions that have changed in the last decade:

• Voters give Democrats a big edge on coping with environmental and energy issues, both of which are less important than the economy and national security.
• Voters overwhelmingly believe Republicans are stronger on national security.
• Voters rate both parties well on education—a significant improvement for Republicans. They believe Bush is, as he suggests, the “education president.”
• Voters rate both parties poorly on their dealings with corporations.

Lake recently asked voters what they are most worried about. Most express great anxiety about the direction of the country and their personal security. During such times voters historically are more deferential to the president and incumbents in Congress. However, voters turned their anger against incumbent governors, many of whom lost in 2002.

As for the 2004 elections, Lake suggests watching for trends based on gender and age. Last year men voted overwhelmingly Republican; women split their vote between the two parties. Seniors, many of whom moved to the Republican Party in the 2000 elections, began to switch back to Democrats in 2002, and are among the most concerned individuals when asked about the possibility of war in the Middle East. Young voters, whose turnout remains extremely low, tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

Celinda Lake is president of Lake Snell Perry and Associates, a research-based strategy firm. Lake is one of the Democratic Party's leading political strategists, serving as tactician and senior advisor to the national party committees, dozens of Democratic incumbents and challengers at all levels of the electoral process, and democratic parties in several Eastern European countries and South Africa. Lake and her firm are known for cutting edge research on issues including the economy, health care, the environment and education. They work for a number of institutions including AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, The White House Project, Human Rights Campaign, Emily’s List, the PEW Charitable Trusts and the Kaiser Foundation. Lake is a pollster for U.S. News and World Report.