Scott Rasmussen: Kavanaugh allegations fail to move public opinion |

Scott Rasmussen: Kavanaugh allegations fail to move public opinion

Despite enormous media coverage and intense discussions in official Washington, the allegations leveled against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have had little impact on public opinion (so far).

Before his confirmation hearings, a survey found that 48 percent of voters wanted their senator to confirm Kavanaugh. After the hearings, but before the accusations, 52 percent favored confirmation. Now, after the accusations, that number is 49 percent. Keep in mind that the poll has a 3-point margin of error.

Prior to the allegations, 22 percent had a “Very Favorable” opinion of the judge and 18 percent had a “Very Unfavorable” opinion. Last Wednesday, those figures are 23 percent and 21 percent, respectively.

Confirming this sense that not much has changed is the Generic Congressional Ballot. Just before the accusations against Kavanaugh were made public, Democrats had an 8-point advantage (49 percent to 41 percent). In polling since Christine Blasey Ford went public, Democrats have a 7-point lead (48 percent to 41 percent).

Collectively, the surveys confirm the notion that voters view the allegations as a political Rorschach test. Everyone is seeing what they expect (or want) to see. Those who opposed his confirmation before the allegations have another reason for wanting the nomination defeated. Those who support him haven’t seen any reason to change their minds.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in the data is that just 27 percent are following this story “Very Closely.” That’s the same modest level of interest there was before the allegations were made. It may be that most voters are just tuning out the entire dispute as little more than political gamesmanship from official Washington.

In our surveys, we didn’t ask specifically about the allegations or the credibility of either person involved. Partly, that’s because this is a fast-moving story and any specific question we asked might have been obsolete before the poll was finished.

An even larger concern stems from the modest level of interest in this story. Because most voters are not following the story very closely, our questions might offer more information than many respondents had already heard. Obviously, that could sway the answers significantly in one direction or the other.

So, in the interest of reliably understanding the deeper impact of the accusations and responses, we decided on a “less is more” approach. Rather than trying to craft questions about who said what, we decided to focus on the overall response to Kavanaugh and his nomination. The fact that we had a baseline of data from before the accusations made it possible to directly measure the impact of the allegations.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s public hearing yesterday, allowing both Kavanaugh and his accuser to make their cases, could dramatically shake up public opinion.

We plan to repeat the same bank of tracking questions before and after the committee hearings. We believe this will provide us the best possible measure of how voters interpret the credibility and the relevance of the information presented for and against the nomination.

Scott Rasmussen is the publisher of and author of “The Sun Is Still Rising: Politics Has Failed but America Will Not.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.