It’s one of the crucial puzzling questions for Democrats in American politics: Why is the political system so unresponsive to gun violence? Expanded background checks routinely receive greater than 80 percent or 90 percent support in polling. Yet gun control laws normally gets stymied in Washington and Republicans never appear to pay a political price for his or her opposition.
There have been countless explanations offered about why political reality seems so at odds with the polling, including the facility of the gun lobby; the importance of single-issue voters; and the outsize influence of rural states within the Senate.
But there’s one other possibility, one which is perhaps probably the most sobering of all for gun control supporters: Their problem may be the voters, not only politicians or special interests.
When voters in 4 Democratic-leaning states got the chance to enact expanded gun background checks into law, the overwhelming support suggested by national surveys was nowhere to be found. As an alternative, the initiative and referendum ends in Maine, California, Washington and Nevada were nearly equivalent to those of the 2016 presidential election, all the way in which all the way down to the results of individual counties.
Hillary Clinton fared higher on the ballot box than expanded background checks in the identical states, most on the identical day among the many same voters.
The same old theories for America’s conservative gun politics don’t explain the poor showings. The supporters of the initiatives outspent the all-powerful gun lobby. All manner of voters, not only single-issue voters or politicians, got an equal say. The Senate was not in charge; indeed, the outcomes suggested that a national referendum on background checks would have lost. And while the query on every ballot was different and every campaign fought in another way as well, the ultimate results were largely indistinguishable from each other.
To make sure, background checks could prove more politically resonant in 2022 or in the long run than they were in 2016. Public support for brand new gun restrictions tends to rise within the wake of mass shootings. There may be already evidence that public support for stricter gun laws has surged again within the aftermath of the killings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas. While the general public’s support for brand new restrictions tends to subside thereafter, these shootings or one other could still produce a long-lasting shift in public opinion.
However the poor results for background checks suggest that public opinion is probably not the unequivocal ally of gun control that the polling makes it seem.
The likelihood that one of the crucial popular policies in polling could run behind Mrs. Clinton on the ballot box raises essential questions on the utility of issue polling, which asks voters whether or not they support or oppose certain policies. While these questions probably tell us something about public opinion, it might tell us quite a bit less in regards to the political landscape than many assume.
For Democrats, the story is each unsettling and familiar. Progressives have long been emboldened by national survey results that show overwhelming support for his or her policy priorities, only to seek out they don’t necessarily translate to Washington laws and to popularity on Election Day or beyond. President Biden’s major policy initiatives are popular, for instance, yet voters say he has not achieved much and his approval rankings have sunk into the low 40s.
The lack of Democrats to capitalize on an apparent policy majority has fueled intraparty recriminations about messaging and strategy. These debates often assume that Democrats must fare higher but that they get in the way in which of their very own popular agenda. Alternately, progressives fear that conservatives — through television and social media — can use scare tactics about socialism and demographic change to sever the connection between public opinion and political outcomes.
All of those theories could have merit, but the outcomes of referendums add one other possibility: The apparent progressive political majority within the polls might just be illusory. It simply may not exist for practical purposes. And the tendency for referendum results of all ideological colours to underperform the polls may betray an neglected dimension of public opinion: an inclination to err toward the establishment.
It might be improper to say that the outcomes simply prove the polls “improper,” strictly speaking. Initiative and referendum results should not an ideal or easy measure of public opinion. The text of the initiatives is different and more complex than a straightforward national poll query. Some voters who may support a proposal within the abstract may ultimately come to oppose its detail. The context may be very different as well. The vote follows a referendum campaign that may shift public opinion.
And the act of voting to enact an initiative into law carries much more responsibility and consequence than a carefree response on a survey. When unsure, many citizens may adopt a lowercase “c” conservative position within the ballot box. All together, it is not any surprise that initiatives and referendums are inclined to underperform their support within the polls.
However the difference between the poll findings and the gun referendum results is very large. It’s an order of magnitude larger than on other issues, including other referendums in the identical states on the identical day on hot-button topics like raising the minimum wage, expanding Medicaid or legalizing marijuana. These initiatives all fared much better in Trump country than background checks, although they might have been expected to receive less support based on the polls.
Those polls have shortcomings of their very own. Many citizens hold relatively weak views about specific policy items. They could be especially prone to say they “support” policies in a survey, where “acquiescence bias” can lead respondents to agree with what’s being asked of them. Those attitudes might shift quickly once a difficulty receives sustained political attention.
“Once we see that initiatives consistently underperform lopsided issue polling, then that means that there’s a common pattern at work,” said John Sides, a professor at Vanderbilt who has researched public opinion polling in ballot initiatives. “When seemingly popular proposals are subjected to counterarguments in a competitive campaign and when voters have the responsibility of fixing policy (as opposed to simply answering survey questions), then the outcomes differ.”
The outcomes of other poll questions on gun control might help explain why the arguments against background checks have proved so resonant. Americans split roughly equally on whether gun laws must be stricter. Lower than half say they’re dissatisfied with the nation’s gun laws because they’re not strict enough. The general public splits roughly evenly on whether Democrats or Republicans will be trusted more on guns. Even the National Rifle Association has been fairly popular.
The findings suggest that whatever large majority appears to exist for background checks is vulnerable to evaporate in a campaign, as Republican-leaning voters who support gun rights can quickly be swayed with appeals to their more abstract and deeply felt concern on the difficulty.
Gun control opponents should not the one ones who profit from this phenomenon. Health care reform started off as popular, until the Inexpensive Care Act was actually proposed and debated. Carbon taxes earn broad national support, but carbon tax initiatives in environmentally friendly Washington State lost twice decisively.
Liberals can profit, too. Voter identification requirements and parental notification for abortion receive overwhelming support within the polls, but moderate and liberal voters who back abortion or voting rights can quickly be convinced that these modest initiatives pose a more fundamental threat to voting or abortion rights. These initiatives have underperformed on the ballot box by nearly as much as background checks.
Still, a broad challenge to the utility of issue polling is more inconvenient for progressives than conservatives. Democrats have a more expansive legislative agenda than Republicans, and public polling has often given them confidence within the political wisdom of their agenda. If the general public’s operational liberalism functions only in an interview with a pollster, not on the ballot box, it might not count for much.