print this page

Introduction

This report summarizes the key results of a recent survey of 800 voters in nine states that are part of the nation’s Industrial Heartland: Ohio; Pennsylvania; Michigan; West Virginia; Wisconsin; Missouri; Minnesota; Iowa; and Arkansas.

All nine have been selected as battleground states in the 2004 election by the AFL-CIO sponsored Partnership for America’s Families.

Trained professionals working from a central, monitored location conducted the interviews by telephone during the evening hours of May 20 through May 22, 2003. On average, interviews required 20 minutes to complete.

The sample population – a representative cross-section of the composite electorate in these nine states – was selected randomly from an up-to-date file of all residential telephone listings in each of the nine states.

Some of these selected numbers were deliberately altered by computer, to ensure the inclusion in the sample of households with unlisted telephone numbers.

A set of charts, depicting key survey results in graphic form, follows this report.

Executive Summary

Our survey results clearly show that voters in the Industrial Heartland are deeply concerned about the recent decline in the nation’s manufacturing industries.

These voters believe that the loss of manufacturing jobs has assumed the level of a bona-fide crisis – one that should represent the number-one domestic priority for the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Public concern about the loss of manufacturing jobs is captured most fully by the idea of American jobs moving overseas – a powerful metaphor that provides the most effective way of framing this issue for public discussion.

Voters in general tend to blame other countries for the lossn jobs – including nations that pay low wages to their workers, as well as those that engage in unfair trade practices.

But these voters also believe that inaction by the federal government has been a major factor in the nation’s industrial decline.

The public feels strongly that the nation’s leaders must take a more active role in working to preserve – and create – manufacturing jobs. A strong majority of these voters say they would favor a Presidential candidate who will fight for manufacturing jobs, over one who makes tax-cutting his top priority.

Significantly, voters in these battleground states do not give President Bush good marks on this score. While voters give Bush solidly high ratings for his overall performance in office to date, they give him sharply negative rating for his handing of the economy in general, and his efforts to preserve manufacturing jobs in particular.

Voters in the heartland think it is vital that the United States remain a major manufacturing nation, and they embrace a wide range of policy proposals that would further this goal.

Voters express strong support for enforcing fair-trade agreements and cracking down on American companies that move jobs overseas. But they also express strong support for a major federal effort to foster development of new manufacturing jobs here at home.

After hearing a brief description of this proposal – and its considerable price tag – more than three-of-four voters say they favor such an initiative.

Voters are attracted to many aspects of this proposal. In particular, they like the idea that it will provide a "ladder up" to the middle class for a new generationns – especially those who lack a college degree.

Voters are drawn to the promise of this proposal to strengthen local economies, and to foster new technologies that can help reduce American dependence on Mideast oil.

Indeed, all of the positive messages offered in support of this proposal are significantly stronger than the messages offered against it. The most effective messages are the most concrete ones – those that highlight, in plain language and specific terms, the benefits that this proposal would have on individual workers, their communities, and the nation as a whole.

Support for this proposal is broad and deep; it enjoys the backing of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. As such, it offers a potent way for any Presidential candidate to appeal to voters in the Industrial Heartland in bold and meaningful terms.

Key Survey Findings

1. The public mood in the Industrial Heartland is marked by high levels of economic anxiety.

Concern about the economy is running high in the Industrial Heartland. While a plurality of voters (49%) say that the country as a whole is heading in the right direction, fully two-of-three (66%) say that the American economy is not doing well. By contrast, only 34% of voters think that economic conditions are positive.

Nor do we find a strong sense that the economy is likely to pick up any time soon. While half (49%) of all voters say they are confident that the country is headed for better economic times, almost as many (47%) think that conditions will worsen in the coming year.

These results show evidence of a sharp difference of opinion between certain key groups. Clear majorities of men (57%), college graduates (55%), and voters who earn more than $75,000 per year (57%) say they are confident the country is headed for better times – a view that is shared by an overwhelming majority of Republicans (74%).

By contrast, we find majorities of women (54%) and voters who earn less than $35,000 per year (52%) – along with a near-majority of non-college voters (49%) – who fear that tougher times lie ahead. Nearly two-of-three (66%) Democrats also espouse this pessimistic view.

2. Voters in the heartland are deeply concerned about the lossn manufacturing jobs – and in particular, about the problem of jobs "moving overseas."

Within this overall context of economic anxiety, voters place a high premium on the need to preserve American jobs and maintain a healthy manufacturing sector.

When asked to rate the relative importance of a wide range of policy goals, voters rank jobs and manufacturing as their second and third priorities, respectively:

• 46% say it is extremely important to make health coverage more affordable;

• 42% say it is extremely important to prevent American jobs from being moved overseas; and

• 38% say it is extremely important to make sure the U.S. continues to be a major manufacturer of goods and products.

It is worth noting that we tested several variations on the broad theme of losing American jobs. The one that scored the highest – second overall – is the need to prevent American jobs from being moved overseas (42%). This response is noticeably stronger than the level of concern expressed about the need either to prevent the loss of manufacturing jobs (30%), or to create more manufacturing jobs (30%).

Clearly, the concept of moving American jobs overseas represents a powerful metaphor for voters in these battleground states. When possible, advocates for manufacturing jobs should use this metaphor as a way to frame the larger issue at hand.

Voters also express fairly high levels of concern about the need to maintain America’s leadership in technology (36%); to keep the middle class strong (34%); and to improve homeland security (32%). But these issues do not have the same high priority as the key issues of health coverage and manufacturing jobs.

In responses to a separate question, an overwhelming 79% of these voters agree that it is "very important that America continue to manufacture goods and products." Only one-of-six (17%) accept the alternative view that manufacturing is less important than having "the brain power and innovation to design and market" products globally.

This is not a partisan issue: Republicans (76%) as well as Democrats (84%) strongly agree that it is very important for the United States to continue manufacturing goods and products.

Taken together, these findings illustrate the strong levels of concern surrounding this issue, in the minds of heartland voters. These high levels of concern suggest that voters in these battleground states see the loss of manufacturing jobs as a domestic crisis – and one which requires a significant and forceful response by the federal government.

3. President Bush receives low marks for working to preserve manufacturing jobs.

Voters do not give President Bush good ratings when it comes to the issue of jobs in general – and of manufacturing jobs, in particular. Although they award the President strong ratings for his overall performance in office (66% positive and 33% negative) and his conduct of the war on terrorism (81% to 17%), they give him sub-par grades when it comes to the economy and jobs:

• Just 44% give President Bush positive marks for his efforts to strengthen the economy. Fully 54% of voters say the President is not doing a good job in this area – including 23% who say he is doing a poor job.

• Only 36% give President Bush positive marks for his effort to preserve manufacturing jobs. A clear majority – 55% – says he is not doing a good job in this area, including 21% who rate his performance as poor.

In each case, President Bush receives high marks from his fellow Republicans: 75% of GOP voters give Bush positive ratings for his efforts to strengthen the economy, and 62% rate him positively for his work in the area of preserving manufacturing jobs. But Democrats and – to a somewhat lesser extent – Independents are much tougher judges of the President’s performance in these key areas.

Four-of-five (79%) Democrats, and 58% of Independents, rate Bush negatively in the area of strengthening the economy. When it comes to preserving manufacturing jobs, 74% of Democrats and 61% of Independents say that Bush has been doing a sub-par job.

The perception that Bush has not been doing enough to preserve manufacturing jobs is not limited to the President’s critics. Fully 25% of the voters in our survey – a high figure – give Bush positive ratings for his overall performance, but rate him negatively when it comes to preserving manufacturing jobs.

4. Manufacturing jobs are a strong voting issue for voters in these battleground states.

Three-of-four (75%) voters agree with the proposition that "creating new manufacturing jobs should be the President’s top domestic priority." Fully 30% of voters strongly agree with this proposition.

This viewpoint enjoys strong bipartisan support: 81% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans – along with 71% of Independents – say that manufacturing jobs should represent the President’s top domestic priority.

In addition, more than two-of-three (68%) voters say they would be more likely to vote for a Presidential candidate whose top priority is the creation of more manufacturing jobs, than they would a candidate whose top priority is "giving a tax cut to all Americans" (23%).

More than four-of-five (84%) Democrats and 68% of Independents say they would be more inclined to vote for a Presidential candidate whose top priority is the creation of more manufacturing jobs. A majority of Republicans (51%, compared to 39% who would favor the tax-cut candidate) also say they would be more inclined to support the manufacturing-jobs candidate.

The high political salience of this issue indicates that there is a significant potential opening for any Presidential candidate who decides to highlight the issue of manufacturing jobs, and who advocates forceful government action to address the problem.

5. Voters tend to blame other countries for the lossn manufacturing jobs, but they also fault inaction by our leaders in Washington.

In assessing blame for the declinen manufacturing, voters tend to place most of the blame overseas:

• 81% say that competition from developing countries with low labor costs is a major factor in the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs;

• 72% say unfair competition – from countries that abuse their workers and damage the environment – is a major factor; and

• 67% say unfair trade practices by other countries are also a major factor in the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

In addition, another 71% say that high health-care costs in the U.S. reduce the competitiveness of U.S. firms and lead to the loss of manufacturing jobs. Two other domestic factors are also seen as significant causes in the decline of U.S. manufacturing:

• 62% of voters blame inaction by our leaders in Washington; and

• 60% blame bad planning by American corporations.

Interestingly, these are the only two areas in which we find significant disagreement along partisan lines: Republicans are noticeably less likely than Democrats or Independents to blame either the federal government, or American corporate leaders, for the lossn manufacturing jobs. In all of the other areas we tested, Republicans and Democrats are in general agreement about the reasons for the declinen manufacturing.

Overall, we find that non-college voters are somewhat more likely than college graduates to blame the declinen manufacturing on other countries, and significantly more likely to blame it on inaction by the federal government.

More than two-of-three (68%) non-college voters say that government inaction is a major factor in the loss of manufacturing jobs. While a majority of college graduates also endorse this view, the proportion is noticeably lower (53%).

Significantly, voters in these battleground states do not tend to blame American workers for the declinen manufacturing: only 28% say that a lack of skilled workers is a major factor contributing to this problem. And only 37% of voters see restrictive environmental regulations as a significant cause of the manufacturing sector’s decline.

Taken together, these responses show that voters in the Industrial Heartland understand and acknowledge the extent to which foreign competition has eroded the nation’s manufacturing base.

But many of these voters – particularly Democrats and non-college voters – also believe the federal government could have done more to head off this problem. As a result, they believe that large-scale federal action will be needed to address what they now see as a full-blown crisis.

6. The public strongly supports a major federal effort to invest in new manufacturing jobs.

In considering ways to reverse the declinen manufacturing, voters in the heartland see merit in a number of possible steps:

• 66% strongly favor enforcing fair trade agreements with countries like China;

• 59% strongly favor health-care reforms to reduce health-care costs for American manufacturers; and

• 56% strongly favor tough new laws to discourage American companies from moving jobs overseas.

In general, we find noticeably higher levels of support for these proposals among non-college voters than we do among college graduates. Non-college voters (69%) are nine points more likely than college graduates (60%) to say they strongly favor fair trade agreements, and the margin of difference is even greater on several other proposals:

• Health-care reforms (14 points more strong support among non-college voters);

• Laws to discourage American companies from moving jobs overseas (+21 points); and

• Buy-American procurement reform (+22 points).

Voters also express strong support for a proposed major investment by the federal government to help create new manufacturing jobs by fostering development of new technologies that would make help make America energy independent and also help to protect the environment. Respondents were told that such a federal effort could cost taxpayers from $200 to $300 billion over the next ten years, and would create up to one million new manufacturing jobs in the private sector.

After hearing this description – and its price tag – voters in these battleground states voice support for such a government initiative by an overwhelming majority of 78% to 14%.

This proposal receives strong expressions of support from voters in every state in our survey and from every partisan background. While 83% of Democrats favor this proposal, so too do 78% of Republicans and 73% of Independents.

In contrast to some of the other proposal discussed above, we do not see a major difference in support levels for this idea among college graduates and non-college voters. While 80% of non-college voters say they favor a major federal investment in manufacturing jobs, fully 75% of college graduates say likewise.

7. The public reacts strongly to factual information that illustrates the severity of the crisis in American manufacturing.

Voters in the heartland express high levels of concern in response to several pieces of factual information about the current crisis in the American manufacturing sector.

Consistent with other survey results, voters express their greatest concern about health-care costs: 77% of voters express a high level of concern after being told that American health-care costs are rising 10% to 15% each year, making it harder for American firms to compete in the global market. Almost half (45%) of all voters say that hearing this information leaves them extremely concerned.

Interestingly, this fact registers much more clearly than another informational nugget that also cites the issue of health-care costs. Only 42% of voters express a high level of concern – and only 20% say they are extremely concerned – after being told that health-care costs add $650 to the cost of an American-made car.

The difference in these responses is attributable mainly to the fact that the second piece of information does not explicitly relate high health-care costs to American competitiveness in the global marketplace. Without such an explicit link, the $650 statistic may be an interesting factoid, but it does not clearly explain why American health-care costs are costing American jobs.

Four other facts also elicit strong concern on the part of voters in the battleground states:

• 72% of voters express concern after hearing that 18%n manufacturing workers earn poverty-level wages;

• 71% of voters express concern after hearing that the United States has lost 11% of its manufacturing jobs in the last two years; and

• 70% of voters express concern after hearing that manufacturing jobs account for 90% of all jobs lost in the current recession.

In almost every case, non-college voters express levels of concern that are noticeably higher than those voiced by college graduates. In general, college graduates seem less troubled by many of the consequences of globalization – including the burgeoning trade deficit and the loss of manufacturing jobs.

8. The strongest messages in support of the manufacturing-jobs proposal are those that emphasize the concrete benefits of this plan for workers and communities.

We tested voter reactions to a wide range of statements expressing both support for, and opposition to, the proposal for a major federal investment in manufacturing jobs. Each survey respondent heard eight messages in favor of this proposal and seven messages against it.

On balance, voters responded much more favorably to arguments in favor of this proposal. In particular, voters expressed strongly positive reactions to three messages:

• This proposal would provide a chance for those without a college education to make a good living (58% very strong);

• This proposal would generate new tax revenues to help local communities improve schools, public safety, and other services (58%); and

• This proposal would lead to the development of alternative-energy technologies that would reduce our dependence on Mideast oil (57%).

What these messages have in common is that they clearly outline concrete benefits of the manufacturing-jobs proposal. In spelling out how this proposal would benefit the non-college worker, or the community in which he or she lives – as well as the national interest, in terms or reducing dependence on Mideast oil – these messages translate a hypothetical policy proposal into real-world terms.

Voters also express positive reactions to several other messages that are somewhat less concrete, including those that note the historical importance of manufacturing in American society (55%) and the preferability of creating manufacturing jobs instead of tax cuts (53%).

Voters are somewhat less impressed with messages that highlight national defense (44%); reduced reliance on foreign investment (41%); and the number of union jobs that would be created (41%).

9. Messages against the manufacturing-jobs proposal do not score as well those offered in its support.

Of the seven messages we tested against this proposal, none scored nearly as well as any of these positive messages. The three highest-scoring messages elicited strong responses from fewer than a quarter of all voters:

• America cannot and should not try to compete with low-wage countries, such as China and Malaysia (24% very strong);

• Federal resources could better be spent on retraining workers for high-tech jobs (23%); and  

• The free market – rather than the government – should decide which industries succeed, and which do not (22%).

It should be noted, however, that the strongest of these messages still scores much lower than the two weakest messages offered in support of the manufacturing-jobs proposal, each of which is rated very strong by 41% of the voters in our survey.

10. Support for the manufacturing-jobs proposal remains strong after voters have heard a full and balanced discussion of the issue.

After hearing a full and balanced discussion of this issue, almost three-of-four voters – 74% – continue to say they support this proposal to make a dramatic federal investment in the creation of manufacturing jobs.

Support levels for this proposal remain high among both college graduates (68%) and non-college voters (78%). This plan also retains considerable bipartisan popularity: 83% of Democrats, 70% of Republicans, and 68% of Independents say that they would favor a major federal investment to help create a million new manufacturing jobs.

The solidity of support for this proposal – evinced by the lack of movement away from it during the course of our survey – indicates that it is an idea with strong and wide-ranging appeal to voters all across these battleground states.

Survey of Voters in the Industrial Heartland - Charts and Graphs (large file)