More on Rasmussen, Immigration & Third Parties

Immigration IVR Polls Legacy blog posts Measurement Issues

Today, thanks to  pollster Scott Rasmussen, we have an update on that hypothetical third-party/immigration question he asked a few weeks ago on one of his automated surveys.  Largely the result of a dialogue on that question involving Mickey Kaus and yours truly, Rasmussen today released new results from a similar hypothetical third-party question, this one involving a third party candidate "promising government-backed universal health care."   This latest result shows that support for such a candidate is nearly as high (28%) as support for a hypothetical third party candidate calling for an "enforcement policy" on immigration (31%).  However, the individuals supporting the respective imaginary candidates were very different.  According to Rasmussen:

While the immigration candidate drew equally from both parties, the Universal Health Care candidate cost the Democratic candidate 18 percentage points while the Republican lost just six.

Thus, Rasmussen presents us with bit more empirical evidence that

Immigration cuts across the typical partisan and ideological lines, [and thus] may have more potential to shake up political status quo than other issues.

So let’s give Scott Rasmussen credit for "showing responsiveness to Web commentary rare in a pollster," as Kaus puts it (along with his own thoughts on the meaning of the latest results). 

Let’s also point out that the disagreement here between MP, Kaus and Rasmussen is less than meets the eye.   I intended my last post largely to point out that similarly large numbers of Americans have expressed enthusiasm for the notion of a third party without a specific issue attached.  So the level of support for the hypothetical candidates in Rasmussen’s questions may be a bit generic, although MP certainly concedes that attitudes on immigration tend to create more division within the party coalitions than between them (as noted in previous posts, the Pew Typology study has remarkably rich data on this point).  MP also agrees with Rasmussen that that the support for third parties on his two questions "probably reflects unhappiness with both parties on particular issues rather than a true opportunity for a third party." 

MP will also concede that in one respect, the immigration issue bears some resemblance to issues that have historically led to the formation of third parties and sometimes even led to party realignment.  Now, I make no pretense of expertise on the history of third party formation and realignments (and I invite those who teach and study it to chime in here with their comments).  However, I once wrote an undergraduate thesis on party realignment, and this discussion reminds me of the theoretical model that Political Scientist James L. Sundquist wrote about in 1973: 

A party system that divides people into two contending political groups on the basis of their attitudes and beliefs about one set of public issues is disturbed by a new issue (or cluster of related issues).  The new issue cleaves the electorate on a different line and hence divides each of the parties internally . . . Either at the outset or as it gathers momentum, the new issue comes to be of such paramount political concern to some proportion of the voters that if it encounters resistance from the parties with which they are affiliated, it overrides all considerations that form the basis of their attachment to those parties.  (From Sundquist, Dynamics of the Party System, pp. 35).

Sundquist theorized that under these conditions, the commitment of the "single issue groups" within each party will override the "centrists" who want to preserve party unity, thus leading to formation of new parties and, possibly, to party realignment. 

I am convinced that immigration policy currently divides both Democrats and Republicans.  I am not convinced that immigration has yet become an issue of as "paramount political concern" as the issues Sundquist wrote about.   

My caution here is that Rasmussen’s hypothetical question format has the practical effect of giving such paramount importance to immigration (or universal health care) whether voters feel that way or not.  The structure of the question asks, in effect, what if immigration policy (or some other issue) were the only issue involved in your decision?  Even then, only the imaginary third party candidate gets a clearly identified position (see the comment by "NAR" on my original post).  That’s a pretty artificial test. 

Now, MP does not object to such artificial tests.  Campaign pollsters do them all the time.  The trick is to keep the results in perspective.   The more hypothetical and artificial the test, the less likely it is to predict a real outcome. 

It would be a bit less aftificial, for example to test a hypothetical match-up with actual names attached and the positions of all three candidates described.  For example, why not ask about a hypothetical race for president between Hillary Clinton the Democrat, John McCain the Republican and Pat Buchanan running as a third party candidate.  Then read their respective positions on immigration and ask the question again.  Yes, still a bit artificial, but possibly more enlightening.

Mark Blumenthal

Mark Blumenthal is the principal at MysteryPollster, LLC. With decades of experience in polling using traditional and innovative online methods, he is uniquely positioned to advise survey researchers, progressive organizations and candidates and the public at-large on how to adapt to polling’s ongoing reinvention. He was previously head of election polling at SurveyMonkey, senior polling editor for The Huffington Post, co-founder of Pollster.com and a long-time campaign consultant who conducted and analyzed political polls and focus groups for Democratic party candidates.