Schantz: Candidates shifting on stances

PLATTSBURGH — The matter of presidential candidates changing positions on issues has been gaining a lot of attention lately, and that is normal says one longtime political observer.

“The issue of Kamala Harris changing political views has been in the news with myriad reports focusing on her changed positions on such issues as fracking, private health insurance, and plastic straws,” SUNY Plattsburgh Political Science Professor Dr. Harvey Schantz said.

“Likewise Donald Trump has been known to change his views on issues, particularly on those surrounding abortion and women’s health care.”

Consistency

Schantz took some time to dissect some recent polling on the matter concerning the positions of Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican candidate former president Donald Trump.

Despite media focus on candidate inconsistency, one half of American adults feel that both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are consistent in their positions on important issues of public policy, Schantz said.

In a YouGov Poll of American adults conducted on Aug. 27, 47% percent felt that Harris was consistent in “her positions on important issues,” including 25% who judged her “very consistent” and 22% as “somewhat consistent.”

But 38% of voters agree with partisan and media reports of inconsistency and find Harris inconsistent in her views, including 8% as “not very consistent” and 30% as “not at all consistent.”

A total of 15% of respondents were “not sure” about her consistency.

In a related YouGov Poll conducted on Aug. 28, 50% of adults viewed Trump as consistent, including 30% as “very consistent” and 20% as “somewhat consistent,” Schantz said. However 40% of adults found Trump to be inconsistent, including 12% “not very consistent” and 28% “not at all consistent.”

There were 10% of respondents “not sure” about his consistency of views.

Evaluations of candidate consistency broke along party lines with each group viewing their presidential nominee as consistent and the opposing candidate as moving around on the issues. The twin polls found 86% of Democrats and 87% of Republicans viewed their candidate as either very or somewhat consistent, but only 15% of Republicans saw Harris as consistent and only 22% of Democrats found Trump to be consistent, Schantz said.

“Judging from these partisan responses, consistency is viewed as admirable and inconsistency is viewed as a shortcoming,” he said.

“But from the point of view of a politician an issue is quite often a tool to be used to gain votes at the next election and thus it is wise for a politician to change positions on issues and emphasize issues that redound to their electoral benefit.”

Schantz theorized that such changes may be necessitated by changing constituencies, such as moving up from a House district to a full state to serve as governor or as a U.S. Senator, or running nationwide for the presidency.

Changes may be necessitated as well by having to run for a party nomination, which draws Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right, as compared to the general election which encourages many, but not all, politicians to move to the ideological center.

Effective Communication

While it is natural for politicians to change their views as their political career proceeds, the public often expects to receive an explanation as to why the politician has evolved in their political views. Schantz said.

“Both Harris and Trump, however, did not satisfy the general public in this regard,” he said.

One third of voters felt that Harris had effectively “communicated her reasons” for shifting positions with 16% saying “very effectively” and 17% saying “somewhat effectively.” But at the same time, 35% of the public said that Harris has not effectively offered her reasons, with 9% “not very effectively” and 26% “not at all effectively.”

With Trump, 34 percent of the public found Trump to have effectively communicated his reasoning, with 18% “very effectively” and 16% “somewhat effectively.” But 41% of the public viewed Trump as not effectively explaining his changes, with 12% “not very effectively” and 29% “not at all effectively.”

“Partisans generally credited their candidate as effectively explaining their policy changes while denigrating the stories offered by the opposition,” Schantz said.

Most partisans felt that their candidate effectively explained their shifts, with 66% of Democrats agreeing that Harris had either “very” or ”somewhat effectively” “communicated reasons for doing so,” and a similar 65% of Republicans agreed that Trump had done so as well.

But 64% of both Democrats and Republicans agreed that the opposition candidate had either communicated “not very effectively” or “not at all effectively,” Schantz said.

Political Advantage

More often than not, the public felt that both Harris and Trump changed views in hope of gaining a “political advantage,” rather than due to having “genuinely reconsidered” the issues.

More precisely, 42% of the public felt that “political advantage” was the prime motivation for Harris as compared to 25% who felt that she “genuinely reconsidered” the issues at hand, Schantz said.

Similarly, 45% of the public felt that Trump was motivated by advantage as compared to only 23% who felt that he had genuinely reconsidered his positions.

On NBC television’s Meet the Press, on Sunday, Sept. 8, Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, vouched for Kamala Harris’s progressive bona fides but noted that she has become more moderate as of late in order to win the election.

“I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election,” Sanders had said.

Again, partisans of both stripes saw their candidate in a better light than the opposition, Schantz said.

A total of 50% of Democrats felt that Harris had genuinely reconsidered the issues whereas only 5% of Democrats felt that Trump did.

On the other hand, 48% of Republicans felt that Trump had genuinely reconsidered the issues and only 5% of the Republicans felt Harris was genuine in her change.

“Candidate evolution on the issues of the day is to be expected, given the march of events, their political learning, and changing constituencies. Inconsistent candidates are oftentimes motivated by political considerations and are boosted by loyal party electorates that back their candidate,” Schantz said.

___

(c)2024 the Press-Republican (Plattsburgh, N.Y.)

Visit the Press-Republican (Plattsburgh, N.Y.) at pressrepublican.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.