March 2016

Campaign Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the US

The 2016 presidential campaign has exposed deep disagreements between – and within – the two parties on a range of major policy issues. But these divisions go well beyond the issues and extend to fundamentally different visions of the way that life in the United States has changed.

Overall, 46% of registered voters say that life in America today is worse than it was 50 years ago “for people like them,” while 34% say life is better and 14% think it is about the same. Republican and Republican-leaning voters are more than twice as likely as Democratic voters to say life in this country has gotten worse over the past half-century for people like them (66% to 28%). Among GOP voters, fully 75% of those who support Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination say life for people like them has gotten worse, compared with 63% of Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) supporters and 54% of those who back Gov John Kasich (R-OH). While Democratic voters generally express more positive views of how life in the US has changed over the past 50 years, those who favor Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are more negative (34% say life has gotten worse) than those who support Hillary Clinton (22%).

The major issues that have emerged in the presidential campaign reveal divisions within the two parties in different ways. But for the most part, the gaps are much wider among Republican voters than among Democrats, especially when it comes to opinions about immigrants and immigration policy, government scrutiny of Muslims in the United States, and abortion and other social issues. As they were in January, registered voters are generally skeptical that any of the presidential candidates would make a good president.

Super PACs and Trump’s Wife: How a Photo Dispute Highlights Weakness in Campaign Finance Rules

There’s no evidence to support Donald Trump’s claim that Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) played a role in a super PAC’s attack on his wife. But federal rules barring coordination between candidates and the super PACs that support them have been so rarely enforced that even if Trump were right, it’s uncertain the Sen Cruz campaign would be penalized.

The question arose the week of March 21, when a super PAC called “Make America Awesome” rolled out a digital ad targeting Utah voters that featured Trump’s wife, Melania, posing nude for the British edition of GQ magazine more than 15 years ago. “Meet Melania Trump. Your next first lady,” the ad read. “Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.” Trump accused Sen Cruz, or his campaign, of buying the photo from the magazine and providing it to the PAC. Trump has offered nothing to back up the claim. The Sen Cruz camp said it had no involvement in the ad. A representative for the PAC accused Trump of concocting a “weird conspiracy theory.” And the original photographer denied giving approval for anyone but GQ to use the photo. Suppose, though, that evidence does emerge to show a link. It would be up to the Federal Election Commission, which is supposed to police the conduct of campaigns and political action committees, to determine if it is illegal for a candidate to buy or produce content that a super PAC then parlays into an ad. If history is any guide, it’s not a sure bet the FEC would do anything about it.