♪ <Gavin> Welcome to This Week in South Carolina.

I'm Gavin Jackson.

With the midterm elections just six weeks away, Winthrop political scientist and director of the Winthrop polls, Scott Huffmon breaks down the latest poll results focused on 11 southern states, from abortion to feelings of illegitimacy of the 2020 elections, and how it all impacts the November elections.

Scott, welcome back.

<Scott> Thanks, glad to be with you.

<Gavin> Scott, you recently released the findings of a new southern focus survey, which polled residents in 11 southern states on a variety of issues, including abortion, I want to start with abortion and look at what y'all found when it came to exceptions for abortions in these states.

<Scott> Sure, you know, our main findings are I think what, you know, most people might be surprised at, but if they thought about it, and if they think about the people they know, it might not surprise them that much.

The overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans and the majority of citizens in that two week poll, the general population, are in favor of legal abortion, especially under some circumstances.

So, for example, the number of people who are in favor of legal abortion, in the case of the health of the mother, especially the life of the mother, those are overwhelming numbers among you know, anybody, Democrat, Republican, anybody else, and the same is true with other exceptions when, you know, when you're looking at in the case of rape, for example.

So, it's not necessarily true that, hey, we're in the Bible Belt, people are automatically going to be against abortion.

They might not - nobody's in favor of abortion, but they do believe in legal abortion under at least some circumstances.

<Gavin> And then we also saw those numbers decrease somewhat for when it comes to the child's likelihood of survival, and also having some sort of birth defects there, too.

Is that surprising to see such a drop off between when we're talking about rape and incest and the life of the mother too.

Do we know if this child can survive outside of the womb?

<Scott> No, usually it's, you see the support for drop off as you go down a scale of issues, and you get down to, you know, should a woman be able to have a legal abortion if she can't afford the child, and that usually drops below 50%.

Although the, you know, the for and against it are usually equal in the 40s, and then it drops down for any reason at all, and that's when support actually truly drops below half.

So it's not surprising to see support drop as you change the conditions, but the surprising part is, yes, there are some conditions under which the overwhelming majority do want legal abortion.

I think the unsurprising part is support drops as you get less serious conditions.

<Gavin> And Scott, like you said, strong support there for exceptions, including among Republicans, and they control all the legislatures, in the states that you polled except in Virginia, there's a split there in Virginia.

Also, there's Democratic governors in Louisiana and North Carolina, but we've seen a big fight in Republicans here at the Statehouse in South Carolina over such exceptions.

We have a current proposal right now that would outlaw abortion after six weeks, with exceptions for rape and incest, up to 12 weeks with reporting to local authorities, and of course, abortions for fatal fetal anomaly and for the life and health of the mother.

So very similar to what's on the books right now in South Carolina that's in court.

So is it a winning issue right now in South Carolina to be discussing abortion, especially if these guys who are pushing for it, no exception abortion bans?

<Scott> Well, you have to remember the South Carolina legislature is heavily gerrymandered, and when you run for re-election, there's a lot of seats, sometimes a majority of seats where there's no competition in the general election.

So when you are running, you're frankly running for the primary.

And who shows up in the primary but the strongest part, the most conservative or the most liberal folks in the district.

So, when you are playing to your electorate, the truth is, a lot of times you're playing to your primary electorate, and for the Republicans in the legislature now, many of them are talking not to the general population, because they're frankly not as worried about the general election.

They are keeping their seat safe by keeping challengers away in the primaries.

Now, as far as South Carolina right now, we're a Republican plus 10 state.

Abortion being sort of the national and state issue it is, is likely to drive up participation among moderate women voters, and that could definitely eat into the lead that Republicans have and that could be a factor in things like the gubernatorial race and some of the House races, <Gavin> Yes, Scott, pick up on that gubernatorial race right there and talking about these moderate women, some of whom I've heard are very, you know, might have been voting Republican before, solid Republican, now, not so much.

How do you see that issue shaping up for the governor's race?

You know, what would Joe Cunningham, the Democrat in this race, need to do to overcome such odds to unseat Governor Henry McMaster in this strong Republican state?

<Scott> Exactly, and that's the baseline to start from.

It is a strong Republican state, you know, a Republican plus 10.

So you're already having to eat into this 10 point lead.

So one of the things you need to do if you're a Democrat is, you know, paint your opposition as extremists, not just somebody who's against abortion.

Nobody wants abortion.

Everybody wishes abortion didn't have to happen.

But you need to paint your opponent as an extremist who won't allow it under any conditions, and somebody who might even outlaw contraception, and the personhood bills that come up every cycle in the South Carolina legislature that says a fertilized egg has the rights of a person, those would outlaw types of contraceptives.

So, you know, pushing that and saying this is an extreme view, is a way that you can get more moderate women on board.

It's just a very tough needle to thread without coming across as saying, you know, in a conservative state, I want, you know, free and open abortion under any circumstances, because then you might fire up the opposition.

But, you know, we've seen women, especially moderate women be important constituencies, all the way back to Bill Clinton, the soccer moms, George W. Bush, the security moms.

And so once again, women, when they turn out, tend to change elections fundamentally.

<Gavin> Scott, can you deduce anything and maybe apply it here when we look at things like that referendum in Kansas?

Or the reaction to what we just saw recently from Senator Lindsey Graham's proposal for a 15 week nationwide abortion ban?

Has any of that track trickled down to South Carolina, or is it really just gonna be Cunningham having to paint McMaster as an extremist and saying he wants no abortions and seeing how much that gains traction?

<Scott> Those are, those are pieces.

He's gonna have to show the bigger puzzle that they're part of.

What happened in Kansas, you know, we are not a state where you can pass laws via initiative.

The only way something could get on the ballot here is through a constitutional amendment.

So the legislature would have to pass a full constitutional amendment.

The next election cycle, we the people would get to vote on it.

And then if we passed it, then the next election cycle, or after they were seated, the new legislature would affirm, and that's the only way things get on the ballot for us.

And I don't think the Republicans want to put that out there.

I think you've seen several Republicans say we don't need to do what happened in Kansas, even though technically, the ballot initiative versus a constitutional amendment would be changed.

However, that can be part of a narrative to say, "Listen, when you take it to the people, they are not as extreme, and you look at what happened in Kansas.

The same is true in South Carolina.

I mean, you can build a narrative based on that.

And that's something Cunningham's gonna have to do.

<Gavin> Yeah, and I know there was no appetite to get that referendum type movement here in our state too, having watched the Senate trying to mend their version of that bill right now working through the State House.

And of course, it seems like we've kind of reached the point where it's, we're doing Heartbeat Bill 2.0 in our state right now, in terms of that six week ban, and, of course, some exceptions for rape and incest.

So I'm interested to see.

We're gonna be watching the House next week to see if they move that bill back to the Senate, where there doesn't seem to be an appetite for any more exceptions.

<Scott> You know, you just reminded me of something about branding.

So, you know, the Lindsey Graham thing is called the "Pain Capable Bill," and it's talking about the potentiality that the fetus might have reached the point where it could feel pain.

And the same is true with the so-called Heartbeat Bill.

What's actually happening, according to a physician who told me, is there's a group of cells that will become a tube, that will become a heart that have started giving electrical impulses, and that's what they're calling a heartbeat.

So, you know, a lot of this debate comes down to branding, what is late term mean?

That's not a medical term.

So both sides are jockeying for position on how to brand their message, the best way to help them.

So, you brand McMaster as an extremist.

You brand Cunningham as an abortionist, or, you know, somebody who doesn't care about the lives of the unborn.

<Gavin> Yeah, that heartbeat like you're saying, I mean, you can't even detect that by ultrasound until about 17 weeks or so when it's actually fully developed and pumping and functioning instead of just cardiac impulses, electric activity.

So, a lot going on there too, and including, like, moving the goalposts.

When we talk about late term abortion, you know, we're talking about 20 weeks before, which was viability, and now we're saying that's, that's late term.

So it's interesting to see how everything's starting to shift right now as these issues are coming to the fore more so in this post Roe world.

<Scott> Well, once the court actually weighed in, all of a sudden it was time to put up or shut up.

It was okay, now, you've gotten what you've been saying you've wanted for a very long time, for decades now.

How are you going to craft these bills that you've said you are going to do?

And all of a sudden they've discovered the real devil is in the detail.

<Gavin> So Scott, you've been working with other colleagues trying to understand the Republican Party better, specifically, those pro Trump Make America Great Again or MAGA Republicans, and, of course, the also America First Republicans.

Can you broadly kind of define what those ideologies are and what you're looking for in trying to define what the current Republican Party is?

<Scott> Sure, you know, so what we did was we asked, if somebody said they were Republican, we asked them to rate themselves on three scales, so they could identify as strong or weak MAGA Republican Make America Great Again, strong or weak America First Republican, strong or weak traditional Republican.

The America First, we just sort of started thinking about that, because the now soon to be ex Congressman Madison Cawthorn, one of my colleagues, that's his congressman, stopped referring to himself as a Trump Republican and started referring to himself as an America First Republican.

So we wanted to see if that was some type of rebranding.

And it really isn't.

Basically, the first thing to realize is there's just a ton of overlap between MAGA Republicans and certainly America First Republicans, but there is a strong amount of overlap between Trump or MAGA Republicans and traditional Republicans.

And so we did this before Joe Biden's speech where he talked about a subgroup within Republicans, the MAGA Republicans who are a danger.

Well, the truth is, there is no bright line between Trump MAGA Republicans and traditional Republicans.

There's a lot of overlap.

Certainly, there are people who identify as traditional Republicans who are not MAGA Republicans, but the overwhelming majority identify as both.

It is not some bright line dividing sub sect of the party.

However, if you compare people who are strong Trump Republicans, strong MAGA Republicans, with people who don't identify as strong MAGA Republicans, then you begin to see differences within the Republican Party.

<Gavin> And we'll delve more into some of those details in a moment, specifically when you talk about not being a bright line of differentiation here.

One of your questions was, "Do you believe that the results of the 2020 presidential election were fair and accurate?

70% of MAGA Republicans said no, 67% of America First Republicans said no.

And 63% of traditional Republicans said no.

So really everyone says no, they don't believe what happened to the 2020 presidential election was fair and accurate.

We've talked about this before, but it's interesting to see that you have the traditional Republicans jumping into that as well.

So, how concerning is this to see that when it's pretty much the majority of the Republican Party saying, "We don't believe in fair and accurate elections anymore"?

<Scott> Yeah, the color is all the same there, just slight shade differences.

It's overwhelming, you know, disbelief in the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

And we see the echoes of this, because, you know, coming back to us now, as some candidates around the country, who were pro Trump candidates who won their primaries who are now going to be in the general election, refusing to say whether or not they would accept the results, if they lost.

A lot of these folks who don't believe in the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election can't imagine that they would lose, they think the only way they can lose is by you know, fraud.

And that goes back to one of the problems we're facing with polarization here in the South, and we see it in this poll, but in the nation as a whole.

People live in these silos, and they only interact with folks like them.

They are afraid to interact with folks who are different from them.

They're afraid they're going to be attacked.

So they have these echo chambers, where everybody they know agrees with them, and they can't possibly believe that there's a large number of people who feel differently than they do.

So when results seem to go against what their direct observation tells them, they question the legitimacy, and that is just one more symptom of the huge amount of polarization that we're seeing across the South, but in the nation as a whole.

<Gavin> Yes, Scott, it reminds me of some recent reports I've been seeing about just how some of these Republican Senate and gubernatorial candidates have said that they won't commit to agreeing that the election results, they won't commit to accepting the election results this November, talking about what you were just mentioning there.

So again, it's a pretty dangerous concept here that we're kind of getting into this post truth era where people aren't going to believe what's real and fair, because they don't like the results of it, like you said.

<Scott> Yeah, absolutely.

And that's that's when Joe Biden comes out and says, "Oh, it's a danger to our democracy," and so forth.

There are echoes of truth in that.

He's certainly trying to talk to his base.

But when you have people who are saying, "I am participating in a system, but I won't believe this system is legitimate unless I win," then that is not democracy as we've tried to have it for the past couple 100 years.

<Gavin> So, then you mentioned this too, people who are in their silos.

People don't want to talk as much for fear of being harassed, and you broke that down too in this poll: 41% of people say they feel that they could not express their political opinions out of fear of being verbally attacked or harassed.

And it's interesting to note that Republicans and Democrats feel the same way about that.

So, we can't even talk about this, and that's one of the ways to fix problems.

So, I mean, how do you see us going forward to remedy the situation?

And what are some maybe more findings you saw from that question itself?

<Scott> Well, you know, let me back up because you've hit on it.

The way to solve the problem is to interact.

What we discovered is when people of different races interact, then racism tends to drop.

When non LGBT people interact with lesbians and gays and bisexuals, then prejudice against them tends to drop.

It is actually experiencing and interacting with people who are different than us that tear down those silo walls.

But the reality is, we're so afraid of interacting with other people for fear of attack, we're making those walls thicker rather than chiseling through them.

And in fact, the more passionate you feel, the thicker you're making those walls.

We broke that data down further among strong MAGA Republicans and not strong MAGA Republicans, and the MAGA Republicans, they said over 50%, over half of them were afraid of talking and saying things out loud for fear of being attacked by others.

So the ability of non MAGA folks to interact with MAGA folks is diminishing.

So we are going to see the tribes begin to close in.

And if you think that MAGA Republicans are a minority within the party, let me remind you of that overlap, how much overlap there is between people who call themselves traditional Republicans and people who call themselves MAGA Republicans.

And those are the folks who are most afraid that others are going to attack them for their views, so they're not going to interact.

And as you pointed out, interacting and listening, actually listening to other folks and their opinions and reasoning is the only way we're going to overcome this.

And right now, I'm not sure when the pendulum is gonna swing back to a point where we actually believe in the legitimacy of each other's opinions, if we have trouble believing in the legitimacy of elections.

<Gavin> I was hoping to have an answer that question, because I was gonna ask you that, but that's unfortunate you don't have a crystal ball there, and neither do I, but I want to ask you just kind of stay with that, though.

I mean, you teach classes at Winthrop University.

You see the students.

You interact with them.

I'm sure there are some fun debates in your classroom.

How do you tell students, how do you tell other people outside of the classroom to interact with folks they disagree with, or if they want to educate or discuss things and have it in a civil way where they can actually maybe have a connection and break through some of these barriers?

<Scott> Well, for a little bit of bad news, I actually usually start out with data that demonstrates how hard it is to change someone's mind.

If someone is emotionally invested in having an opinion about something, there is research that proves you can show them facts.

You can be a fact checker and show them data, and they will double down on their opinion.

So the, you know, what that says is, oh, my gosh, will people not listen to facts?

That's correct.

They will not listen to facts, because they won't believe your facts.

But that tells us something about the way you interact.

If the way you're interacting is to say you're wrong, and here's the proof that you're wrong, then immediately their defenses are going to go up, and you may say, "But my data is legitimate."

That doesn't matter.

Their defenses have already gone up.

So the best way to start a debate is to explain things with kind of those I statements: I feel that such and such because... and not start attacking their opinion.

And you may not feel that you are throwing an attack, but if you're challenging what they believe on the basis of facts that you say prove they're wrong, then you're doing the exact opposite of saying, "Well, I believe because..." So, you have to start from a point of mutual respect, and that's what, in the national debate, we do not have.

<Gavin> Yeah, difficult times in this post truth era.

Like we're talking about, even when you have the facts, it's a matter of just how you phrase it.

So I want to move on to some discrimination findings you found in this survey too, going back to what we're talking about, in terms of fearing each other, put up these walls and doubling down on some of our stances.

Black people, Muslims, and gay and lesbian people are cited as being the most discriminated against, based on your polling, with 77% each saying there's a lot or some discrimination, discrimination against each of these groups in our society today.

Meanwhile, groups facing the lowest amount of discrimination include white people at 47%, and men at 41%.

Anything surprising about these numbers, or is this pretty consistent with polling you've done in the past?

<Scott> This is fairly consistent, you know, you look at some of the data and to flip it around, you know, a lot of folks who say, "Well, do we all feel like victims?"

And when you look, for example, the number of men who say men are discriminated against, and the number of whites who say whites are discriminated against, then, you know, then you're looking at, okay, are people feeling like victims?

Or are they facing legitimate discrimination?

And how do we know whether or not it's perception, or legitimate discrimination?

So, in general, these trends tend to follow national trends about how much discrimination people feel that they experience, but everybody sees there's some group within all of these that see themselves as the object of discrimination.

And of course, you know, you can read the news and decide which ones are actually facing discrimination or which ones are not based on what you believe discrimination to be.

<Gavin> It's just those echo chambers too and maybe taking some of that news, that small piece of the news, and then trying to extrapolate it into something bigger.

But you did also find that 40% of Southern black respondents, and 20% of Southern white respondents say they have been discriminated against in the past year.

So, interesting there to see that as well.

<Scott> Well, and that, you know, what we see and what we personally experience, so if you look at it, it's 94% of African Americans believe that blacks experience some or a lot of discrimination, and they may see it around them, even if they aren't experiencing it themselves every day, because one way to look at that is okay, it may be a plurality, but there's not an overwhelming number of African Americans who say, "I have personally experienced discrimination."

But that doesn't mean they haven't witnessed it.

And the same with whites saying, "Well, okay."

There's only some who actually say, "I've personally experienced discrimination," but a larger number feel that they are witnessing it, or that they perceive that it's going on around them.

And that's the difference between the perception or what you see happening around you versus what is directly happening to you, and how you integrate those two.

Is my experience representative of what's happening to other people like me, or is what's happening to me an exception?

And what generally happens to everybody else, they experienced discrimination, even if I haven't personally.

<Gavin> And Scott, we have about less than three minutes left.

I want to ask you about church and state polling that you did too.

Several questions involving religion in the federal government, including that the United States should be declared a Christian nation, whether the government should advocate Christian values, allow symbols, religious symbols in public places and prayer in schools.

But one of the biggest responses you had was 49% of people agreeing that church and state should be separate.

But it does seem like in some debates I've been witnessing too, specifically this abortion debate, that there's a lot of creep, a lot of morality creep into this debate.

Were those findings surprising?

Why did you poll on this data, specifically?

<Scott> Those questions grouped together, and let me go back and correct slightly.

It's not about just prayer in school, which is completely legal right now, by the way.

It's completely legal for a student to pray in school.

There's Meet Me at the Pole prayers.

Students can lead prayers.

It just can't be led by a teacher.

What we hast is prayers read over the intercom.

And there's a number of people who would like prayers read over the intercom.

And, again, I personally doubt.

It's Islamic prayers that they're wanting to be read over the intercom.

But this trend that I'm looking at, all those questions together are called Christian nationalism questions.

There has been a trend in American politics of the conflation of Christianity which is the dominant religion and a nationalism that goes beyond patriotism.

It's not just love your country, its belief in the God given right of your country to be dominant.

And then you combine that with religious beliefs.

So, these questions all together, come from research by scholars like Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, who have looked into Christian nationalism.

And what you see is, even though you see a large number saying, "No, keep the wall up between church and state," the interesting thing to do is look at those often minorities, but very strong minorities, who take the Christian nationalist view of each one of those questions.

So a lot of times, the people who say, "No, the wall between church and state should absolutely be down," they also say all laws should be based on Christian values, the United States should be made a Christian nation, and the success of the United States is directly because of God's blessing.

That's American exceptionalism.

So, you combine all those into Christian nationalist views, and that's how you should look at this data and read it and try and get a handle on what's happening.

<Gavin> Theocracy versus what we have with democracy here, in a republic.

So Scott, super interesting findings there in your Southern focus survey.

And again, that's Dr. Scott Huffmon.

He's a professor of political science at Winthrop University, and he's the Director of the Winthrop Poll.

Thanks again, Scott.

<Scott> Always my pleasure.

<Gavin> For South Carolina ETV, I'm Gavin Jackson.

Be well, South Carolina ♪