MyDD :: Proof of the Ideological Coalition Shift

Proof of the Ideological Coalition Shift

by Chris Bowers, Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 03:25:56 PM EST

My main contention in all of the various election post-mortems I have written on this site has been that the single greatest problem Democrats face, now that the two coalitions are primarily ideological, is the gap between the number of self-identifying conservatives and the number of self-identifying liberals. Most of my post-election arguments have revolved around this idea, to the point where regular readers might be tired of hearing about it (or maybe you are not tired of it, since to date all book club discussions have been about understanding what conservatism is, how their advantage was built, and what we can do about it). I have argued that we need to grow liberalism, and close the gap between liberals and conservatives, by bringing non-ideological reformers into the liberal coalition. I have argued that we need to grow liberalism, and close the gap between liberals and conservatives, by finally telling the truth about conservatism, and dropping our self-defeating rhetoric about how people like Bush are not "real conservatives." I have argued that we need to grow liberalism, and close the gap between liberals and conservatives, not by moving to the center, but by finally articulating and better framing the liberal worldview. At the same time, I have argued that our problems in the South are ideological, rather than cultural, and that the only way we can win there in the short term is to run a conservative. In short, I have argued that the only way to fix our problems long term is to grow liberalism and shrink conservatism. Now that the two coalitions are primarily ideological, and conservatives outnumber liberals, quite frankly I believe we have no other choice.

Now, no one can dispute that there are more self-identifying conservatives than there are self-identifying liberals, but I admit that my entire argument is based on the assumption that the two coalitions are now primarily ideological rather than regional and ethnic. To date, I have not had the hard evidence to back this assumption up, and instead I have attempted to infer it from my studies on the partisan index. However, today I finally came across exit polls for every presidential election since 1976. Looking at these polls leads me to believe that I now have the proof of this ideological coalition shift that I always desired.

Ideologies as a percent of the Electorate
     1976  1980    1984   1988 1992   1996    2000   2004
Lib   20    17	  16	18    21    19	  20	21
Mod   49    46	  42	45    49    47	  50	45
Con   31    28	  33	33    30    34	  29	34

Since 1976, the number of self-identifying liberals and the number of self-identifying conservatives as a percentage of electorate has not changed significantly. In fact, the 12.5% gap of the eight-cycle average, 19% liberal and 31.5% conservative, is almost identical to the 13% 2004 gap of 34%-21%. However, during the same time when there was very little shift among ideological self-identification, there was an enormous shift in partisan self-identification:

Party ID as a percent of the Electorate
     1976  1980    1984   1988 1992   1996    2000   2004
Dem   37    43	  38	37    38    40	  39	37
Ind   41    23	  26	26    27    22	  26	26
Rep   22    28	  35	35    35    35	  35	37

In 1976 and 1980, Democrats held a 15-point edge in partisan self-identification over Republicans. However, starting in 1984, that gap was almost entirely erased, and the margin remained nearly static at anywhere from even to a five point Democratic edge. The 1980-1988 shift, which also registered in the partisan index as the south became much more pro-RNC and the north and west became more pro-DNC, occurred at exactly the same moment when liberals began to vote in far greater numbers for the Democratic nominee, and conservatives began to vote in far greater numbers for the Republican nominee:

Democratic Share of Ideological Vote
     1976  1980    1984   1988 1992   1996    2000   2004
Lib   74    60	  71	82    68    81	  81	85
Mod   53    43	  46	51    48    57	  53	54
Con   30    23	  18	19    18    20	  17	15

Republican Share of Ideological Vote
     1976  1980    1984   1988 1992   1996    2000   2004
Lib   26    28	  29	18    14    12	  13	13
Mod   47    49	  54	49    31    33	  45	45
Con   70    73	  82	81    64    72	  82	84

In 1976, Carter received 30% of the conservative vote, and Ford received 26% of the liberal vote. However, by 1988, Dukakis received only 19% of the conservative vote, while Bush received only 18% of the liberal vote. This occurred at exactly the same moment when Republicans virtually erased the partisan self-identification gap, and when Democrats began voting for their nominee in much larger percentages than they had in the past:

Democratic Share of Party ID Vote
     1976  1980    1984   1988 1992   1996    2000   2004
Dem   80    67	  74	83    77    85	  87	89
Ind   48    31	  36	43    38    44	  46	49
Rep   11    11	   7	 8    10    13	   8	 6

Republican Share of Party ID Vote
     1976  1980    1984   1988 1992   1996    2000   2004
Dem   20    27	  26	17    10    10	  11	11
Ind   52    56	  64	57    32    37	  48	48
Rep   89    85	  93	92    73    81	  91	93

These tables, combined with the partisan index and state-by-state breakdown of liberals and conservatives, provide significant evidence for the following coalition shift narrative:

Carter was able to receive a large share of the conservative vote in 1976 and 1980 because at that time there were still a large number of conservative Democrats who primarily resided in the south. However, the conservative south shifted to pro-RNC partisan index at the same time that Democrats stopped receiving a significant portion of the conservative vote and at the same time that the gap between Republicans and Democrats in partisan self-identification almost disappeared. In the early 1980's, large numbers of conservative southerners stopped identifying as Democrats for regional and / ethnic reasons, and began identifying with Republicans for ideological reasons. The resulting conservative domination of the Republican Party, already a frustration for liberal Republicans like John Anderson, led to a large defection of liberals away from the Republican starting in 1988. After receiving 26% or more of the liberal vote from 1976-1984, Republicans only managed 18% in 1988, and have never surpassed 14% since that time.

In other words, the conservative southern shift into an ideological coalition only slightly preceded the non-southern liberal shift into an ideological coalition. The two coalitions, which had been primarily ideological for several decades, became almost entirely ideological as 85% of liberals and conservatives now vote for the coalition that supports their ideology. In 1976, that number was around 70%. Half of the non-ideological partisans abandoned their party, and because there are more conservatives than liberals, Republicans benefited greatly from such a shift.

We are living an ideological age. We need to recognize this, and be willing to fight an ideological war. If liberals remain significantly outnumbered by conservatives, Republicans will remain the "natural" ruling party for two generations.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

Ok chris, let's follow your line of thought (3.00 / 1)

Ok Chris, let's say your thinking here is right. That we need to grow liberalism and shrink conservatism. We would need to have more detail on what these people mean when they identify themselves so. But that's where the trouble starts. Normal people might say, I'm a liberal because I support Social Security, or I'm a conservative becuase Bush is doing what's right for the War on Terror.

I would say that the issue that grows a movement all liberals would fight for, and would apeal to the dormant strains of radical populism in the heartland and south is the idea that corporations are interfering in our governance. Those people will vote for anyone with that kind of message. There's a radical middle, and I'm not just talking about Giddens' third way. In the 70's, the heartland states' top two candidate preferences were 1.Wallace 2. Ted Kennedy.

Go figure. A whisper, a hint of populism like that gets
'em riled up.

by janfrel on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 03:50:44 PM EST

Re: Ok chris, let's follow your line of thought (2.00 / 0)

populism is the key. it's us hardworking, play-by-the-rules Americans vs the Paris Hilton's and Ken Lays of the world.

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 04:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok chris, let's follow your line of thought (3.00 / 1)

"We would need to have more detail on what these people mean when they identify themselves [as liberals or conservatives]"

Here's what I learned from Lakoff: it's not rational, it's instinctual. It all goes back to when we were apes. Conservatives are people who identify with the alpha male gorilla. Liberals are people who identify with the beta gorillas.

The conservative idea of virtue is basically what defines a good alpha-male. As the alpha male gorilla, your job is to defend the tribe. You do this by being as large and intimidating as possible, which in turn means that you eat as much as you can. This explains conservatives like to focus on defense. It also explains why they like ridiculous defense budgets: it is their modern equivalent of eating and growing. It also explains their obsession with guns.

Alpha male gorillas are the only ones who are allowed to breed with the female gorillas. If any other gorilla tries to have sex with the females, they are punished. This explains why conservatives do not want anyone else to have sex, but they themselves are constantly sleeping around.

Alpha male gorillas must constantly defend their position against young upstart male gorillas. They do this mainly by intimidation. This explains the conservative approach to politics - and their effectiveness at it. It also explains why conservatives are authoritatians.

Beta gorillas are primarily responsible for gathering food. This explains why liberals like to focus on the economy. Gorillas eat most of the food they gather, but if they have extra and they're not hungry, they share it with the other tribe members. This explains why we were once taken in by communism.

Beta gorillas are also responsible for raising the young. This explains why you almost always see schools and universities staffed by liberals.

So what it comes down to is this: one is not a liberal or a conservative by choice, based on policies. One is a conservative or a liberal based on one's natural inclination, based on whether one is inherently aggressive/dominant or not.

When he says that we have to convert people to liberalism, Chris isn't talking about changing people's minds on this program or that program. What he's talking about is getting them to understand the liberal worldview: the idea that nurturance and mutual support structures are a positive thing, and that being an alpha-male is overrated.

by joshyelon on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 06:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok chris, let's follow your line of thought (none / 0)

Another thing to consider is the gap between "self-identified" liberals and actual liberals. Remember, the word "liberal" has taken a rhetorical beating for the last quarter-century or so, with barely a squeak put up in its defense.

I suspect there are a lot of people who are actually liberals, but identify themselves as "moderates" because they perceive "liberal" as a bad thing to be. Even on the Left, we see echoes of this problem when people prefer monikers like "progressive" or "populist" to "liberal," which they often associate with Clinton-style centrism and triangulation.

The ideology gap exists, but it may not be as wide as it appears.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 03:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok chris, let's follow your line of thought (none / 0)

If you truly want to have fun, read the history of the mafia and some of the techniques used by them. See if you can't find a few used by corporations and the GOP today.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 10:47:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Possibly (none / 0)

But can you really discribe the state of affairs as two ideological parties. The Republicans definitely represent the conservative coalition, but can't it be argued that the democrats represent more accurately the interestes of the liberals and the moderates. In the last election Kerry won among democrats and independents. i don't have the data to support this, but I'm guessing its been that way for a while.

This perhaps explains the reletive parity of the parties at this point: the democrats pulling all the liberals, the liberal moderates, and the centrist moderates, while the Republicans pull the moderate conservatives, and all the true conservatives. This would make sense because in a two party system there would be have to be one party that naturally represents the interests of the moderates.

This is way I think it makes sense for our rhetoric to advocate an anti-ideology aspect, suggesting that we eshew ideology and are more interested in what works. This could, in a sense, be the new Liberalism we're seeking to articulate. Policy pragmaticism put to the use of Liberal values.

by descrates on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 04:43:54 PM EST

There's a natural divide between conservatives (3.00 / 1)

It's between the religious/social conservatives and the patrician/economic/corporate conservatives. Bush and Rove have paperer over this divide, but it's vulnerable to attack with ktichen table economice issues that Democrats used to stand for.

The divide in the Democratic party between the DLC and reform Democrats has a similar fault. The natural base for the DLC/McAuliffe types is based on the same corporate pork/welfare that economic conservatives appeal to. Democrats must stop trying to play both sides against the middle. We're either for the middle class or we're for corporate welfare. We're for health care for all and a minimum wage or we're for corporate welfare. The federal pie won't accomodate both sides of the issue and the Republicans have a lock on corporate pork.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 04:47:58 PM EST

Re: There's a natural divide between conservatives (2.00 / 0)

Republicans appeal to the two wings of their party through separate policies and they have basically talked fiscal cons into a shallow approval of social conseravtism and vis-a-versa. We should try to do the same. There shouldn't be a trade off among our constituencies.

This is most obvious on foreign policy. We have to find a way of satisfying the hawks and the doves. And it can be done. If the republicans could get both the realists and the neocons on board, than I don't see why we shouldn't be able to do the same in our foreign policy and in other areas of debate.

by descrates on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 06:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting, but ... (none / 0)

If not for a screwed-up ballot design in Palm Beach County 2000, President Gore just got re-elected, and the only wailing and despair is heard from the soulless minions of the GOP. The Democratic Party's fortunes were double hammer-struck on Nov. 7, 2000, and Sept. 11, 2001. had Gore been in the chair on 9-11, we rule the country for the next 20 years. But noooo.

by tuffie on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 04:49:14 PM EST

Re: Interesting, but ... (2.00 / 0)

That's definitely a best case senerio alternate history. Even if Gore had not been robbed, I still don't think it would have cleared up the partisan divide. Personally, I think 4 years of Bush has put us further down the road to electoral majority than 4 years of Gore would have.

by descrates on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 06:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about those Indi stats (2.00 / 0)

Chris its not a bad thesis you are writting here. However, what you tend to ignore and the real problem with having an idealogical debate based on a two party system is that even if the Democrats and the Republicans really truly represented the left and right respectively, what do the people in the middle do.

Sound familiar? This is supposedly where elections are won right? because the middle doesn't have anywhere to go. They get torn apart during an election because of one stance or another that either party takes on a variety of issues.

Both parties are really truly moderate in their own way. Idealogy is either strong or weak. By virtue of the stats you cite, it seems that moderates are torn down the middle, and we lost this year because of republicans getting more of the democratic vote.

It is a combination of many things and to think that it is solely based on idealogy is simplistic.

I am a firm believer that media has a whole lot to do with it. The fact is that more moderates listen to conservative talk radio. If those people vote they will vote Bush based solely on Hannity's cute way of stating that he is right and common sense tells you to be a republican.

Finally, if you are stating that idealogy is behind voters intentions, then I don't think the Democrats have a chance with Liberals. Most liberals, like conservatives, don't like to compromise (i.e. safety from terrorists for human rights like the Patriot act). If that is the case, only a truly liberal candidate on all fronts can be proper for liberals, ie. Nader. Kerry may have been liberal by Washington standards, but in no way was he liberal by definition.

A strong third party would be the best thing to happen to this country, because what we trully all want and the only way we would truly be happy is if legislation was geared more towards the middle of the political spectrum. Otherwise we are just better off seceding from the union.

by media in trouble on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 05:20:42 PM EST

Re: What about those Indi stats (2.00 / 0)

So have we muddied Chris's water adequately enough yet?

The perenial political science debate, motivate the base or go for the center.

by descrates on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 06:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about those Indi stats (none / 0)

Is it possible to do both at the same time by moving the center leftward?

That's the trick the Republicans have perfected -- keep moving the center to the right, so ideas that were considered crazy at one time - like privatizing the public school system -- are now pushed even by some Democrats, while other issues that have been accepted by just about everyone else in the world (even by US politicians from Truman to Ted Kennedy in the 1970s) -- universal health care, say; or full-employment policies -- are now at the margins of political debate.

So we need our own system of think tanks, media outreach, and grassroots organizing to put our values and ideas back on the table.

by tgeraghty on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 01:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about those Indi stats (none / 0)

I suspect there are several types of moderates. First, there are liberals who self-identify as moderates because "everyone knows" liberals are "bad." Second, there are the reformers - the people Chris says we should try to bring to our side, but who've been bamboozled over the last couple of decades by faux "reforms" from the GOP hawked by the SCLM. Third, there are people who are just confused - they are probably either true liberals or true conservatives, but don't see clear differences between the parties (the media, as well as "centrist" groups like the DLC, are probably responsible for a good deal of this segment). And finally, there are "true" moderates who take some liberal positions and some conservative ones.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 03:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Teixeria has some interesting research out today.. (none / 0)

that could add to this discussion.
Link.

by descrates on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 08:21:21 PM EST

I've said it before... (none / 0)

...and I'll say it again, controversial though it may be. We need to seize the high ground on an issues the South cares about on a local level, like immigration reform, and use it to push a populist agenda of protecting worker's wages and rights from BushCo's agenda of flooding the labor market with people who are willing to work under slave conditions and serve the desire of corporate America to gut wages, working conditions and benefits. The standard argument that "we'll alienate the Hispanic vote" just doesn't wash -- 89% of Hispanics support greater controls of immigration. Before you blast me...read more here.

by firedoglake on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 08:38:40 PM EST

chimerical transvestite chameleons (none / 0)

The problem I have with this is that there is no coherent conservative ideology anymore, nor is there a coherent liberal ideology that I can make out. I'd suggest that the shift here can be attributed to people identifying more with the party than with any particular ideology.

We've had a generation of people growing up being told that Dems are liberal and Reeps are conservative. Consequence: if your folks voted for Dems, you're more likely to call yourself a liberal; if they voted for Reeps, you're probably a conservative. Ask people to provide a concrete definition of either and the "coalition" falls apart.

The real divide I see is between rhetoric (talk) and policy (action), every time: Rhetoric sells, policy buys. The vast majority of us (on both sides) are too busy or disinterested to follow the policy, so we just buy the rhetoric.

When the PotUS talks about "liberating" a country from a tyrant, he sells a war, because even though most people don't like war, they like freedom. That's not conservative rhetoric, it's universal. It's human.

When the administration enacts policies which allow corporations to run off with $billions intended for defense and reconstruction and take virtual control of the economy and resources of anothe country, it buys support from the people who fund the electoral process. That's not conservative policy, it's bribery, theft, and fraud.

As a matter of fact, on many issues the administration has co-opted the rhetoric of liberal ideology to promote corporatist interests: promising tax cuts for the poor and middle class (is this liberal or conservative?) and delivering perpetual interest liabilities; promising prescription drugs for seniors (lib or con?) and delivering a geyser of drug company profiteering; "saving" Social Security (?) by replacing a guarantee with a gamble; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

So how do you fight their ideology when it's your ideology? Take the opposite position, just to have something to argue about? "I hate freedom!" "Let the poor starve!" "Screw seniors!" Or do you show hypocrisy for what it is?

The real problem is that those who dare to call a crime a crime are buried by the partisan corporate media, whose support is also bought and paid for by administration policy. In this state of affairs, the upper hand goes to the better PR machine, which will always be the side that pays better.

I'd suggest it's not just impractical, it's impossible to fight them on these terms. The Dems will never come back unless they find a way to speak the truth effectively and have that message survive.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 08:51:48 PM EST

This analysis assumes that no largescale (none / 0)

events (economic, national security, etc) will undermine the national political dynamics have emerged over the past several decades (really since the 68 realignment towardst the post-Goldwater GOP.)

Despite Mr. Bush's avowed commitment to dismantling social security and permanently shifting the burden of taxation from the wealthy to the middle class, the poles are shifting again, and America is on the verge of a new populist era.

Whatever major economic shocks do or don't occur over the next decade (a collapse in the dollar, a severe decline in the housing market, a new equities bubble, and who knows what else), the fact is that 77 million baby boomers will begin retiring and collecting entitlement benefits, and one way or another younger Americans will be paying the tab. The medicare shortfall alone is projected to be more than 50 trillion.

The only way to cover the coming shortfall, and pay for the multi-trillion dollar "war on terror," and pay for what will likely be a multi-trillion dollar investment in our infrastructure (which has been sorely neglected over the past several decades) plus everything else, and even begin to fantasize about balancing the budget, is by massively raising taxes (you can't keep borrowing billions a day forever.) And since the late 1960s, the burden of taxation has shifted dramatically from the wealthiest and corporations to the middle class (the effective rate of taxation fell from 60-some percent for the wealthiest in the late Johnson years to 30-some percent by the mid-70s, and to 20-some percent by the mid-80s.)

The question is whether the GOP will be willing to double the taxes on the wealthy, as will likely be required to rescue the country from bankruptcy. There simply won't be any alternatives, and it seems entirely unclear that the Republicans, when faced with this crisis, will demonstrate a modicum of responsibility.

by robinthehood on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 09:46:42 PM EST

Economic Populism (none / 0)

Economic populism. Economic populism is the key for the Democrats going forward. With internet fundraising now the new campaign financing reality (and with the left now no longer dependent on coporate money), Dems can turn their fire against the Fortune 500 companies and against upperclass and corporate greed. Such a stance will be extremely popular with voters, and will be very, very politically strategic. (Jesse Ventura and Ross Perot tapped into such economic populism in the 90s). The focus should be in a clear and non-hedged way on ending unfair outsourcing, abolishing corporate welfare, and on universal health care for everyone. This anti-corporate rhetoric will resonate with the non-college educated white working class folks that Judis and Texeira talk so much about in their piece -- which is excellent, and very much worth reading. These white working class folks will feel a sense of solidarity once again with Dems, and they will know where Dems stand, as there will be no political downside for Democrats when they embrace fiery economic populism. To make this economic populism focus work, Democrats need a straight talking, charismatic speaker in 2008. Clinton had it, Howard Dean has it, Edwards has it, Kerry does not. In 2008, Dems need a NON-intellectual candidate. The timing is ripe for such an economic populism. People are growing tired of trade deficits, outsourcing, spiraling health care costs, sluggish hiring, tax cuts for the wealthy, the ballooning budget deficit, and the weakening dollar. The ringing Democratic defense of Social Security of the next six months can dovetail perfectly with this economic populism as well. The villain in this scenario --Fortune 500 CEOs, anti-unionist elements, and the upperclass. So many Dem bloggers have been talking in the past month about how Democrats need to speak more clearly about what they believe in. THIS is the area where Dems need to focus in the next several years: economic populism. Economic populism is the area where Democrats can speak clearly and loudly about what they believe in, to great effect, on a winning issue. Speaking more vehemently about multilateralism or the seperation of church and state (which would seem to be the natural inclination for most members of the Democratic base if they were going to speaking more loudly on either foreign policy or on the culture war) are not political winners with non college educated whites. Economic populism is more than a winner for Democrats with the white working class right now, it's a political boon, a political home-run.

by JT on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 12:08:49 AM EST

Re: Economic Populism (none / 0)

so do you mean that kerry's main message about the rich getting tax breaks while the lower and middle class bore more of the burden didn't work why?

economic populism?

not during war time. and propaganda and pr is the only way dems will get back.

its not ideology, its marketing.

and unfortunately the dems are usually more worried about losing voters than gaining them. their pr is always worried about offending people.

kerry was the classic flip flopper right? because he didnt want to offend the anti-war guys, and he didn't want to upset the pro-war people.

its choose or loose. and the democrats cant hardly ever make up their mind.

and when it comes to policy its the same.

here we are sitting on top of a medicare/medicaid elephant,
the social security privatizers are going apeshit on it.

where are the democrats?

probably waiting on the focus group data.

by media in trouble on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 02:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Convincing (none / 0)

I agree that Repubs succeed less in 'getting people to vote against their economic(class) interest' and more in 'getting people to vote their ideological interest'.

Americans, esp struggling middle class, like to perceive themselves and America as being about hard work, building a fortune against the odds, against the best efforts of circumstances and un-American interests to hold one back. This is the ideology.

Repubs sell, 'It's us against the world, but we win because we are better, truer, more American.' This sells toasters and candidates! A direct, targeted, continuous, coordinated message broadcasting machine blasts this 24/7, and people love it. If the world is exploding in flames, people will just turn up the volume on this message.

And why not? We've all got to survive and we need to be confident about something in order to do that!

Dems need to be able to talk in the lingo of people, their at-home vernacular, so that a conversation will take place. And that will include some kind of acknowledgement of more conservative, tentative, slow-going cultural ideas. But from there it's really about presenting a practical, rousing ideology, a modernized American dream, that can hold up under the fire of current global and domestic circumstances.

by jimpol on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 12:28:51 AM EST

Dems won State races in Colorado-NPR story (none / 0)

How did they do it? It is a lesson we must study to win back Southern states. They emphasized how extreme right shift current Repubs are, the ECONOMY, and employed local grassroot volunteers.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4239363

by jasmine on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 02:46:58 AM EST

Re: Dems won State races in Colorado-NPR story (none / 0)

Personally, I think the Sunbelt will be a better place to compete for than the South, mainly because it will be more competitive than the South. I think we can take over most of the Sun Belt and split up parts of the South. The South and Sunbelt are the fastest growing areas and as the population shifts, much of it is moves fromt the North and Midwest. I tend to feel Florida was an anomaly this year (or fraud...one of the two) and future elections will be closer or see a shift towards Blue. Same with Carolina and Virginia. As Blue staters move to Red states, we will see more purple states or light blue.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Thu Dec 23, 2004 at 11:00:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Economic Populism (none / 0)

The reason Kerry's main economic populism message about tax breaks for the rich didn't work, was because Kerry is a millionaire Skull and Bones Yale graduate from Boston, Taxachusetts. Propaganda and PR are the key -- the way you win the propaganda and pr war is with a candidate that speaks the language and in the vernacular of middle America. Bill Clinton, LBJ, Harry Truman: economic populists who made the sale. The home states of these Presidents: Arkansas, Texas, Missouri. Like it or not, geography matters. There are many non college educated whites in places like Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, and northern Florida that are suspicious of Northeastern liberalism. Kerry's foreign policy resume and military service in the end did more to hurt him than help him. The fact that Kerry is from the Northeast did more to hurt Kerry than his military service did to help him. From a pr perspective, it's easier to tag Kerry as liberal than it is to tag Bill Clinton as a liberal, simply based on the states the two of them were from. Another blogger wrote that economic populism won't work during wartime. Well, wartime/terrorism is here to stay -- for the next decade at least. I don't see even a plurality of Democrats taking to supporting pre-emptive war or new missile systems. If Democrats aren't going to be for pre-emptive war, then there is no way to get to the right of Bush on foreign policy. Foreign policy and the culture war are not enormous winners for Democrats right now. The only other choice then is economic issues. The way you win on economic populist issues is to to 'talk in the lingo of people, in their at-home vernacular, so that a conversation will take place.' To be able to talk the lingo of people, the candidate is critical. The candidate in question is what political marketing is completely dependent upon. For 2008, Edwards, Bayh, someone like this. A NON-intellectual plain speaking nominee from a Southern, Western, or border state. The way you get Democratic candidates out from under the focus group spell is to enable them to talk passionately about issues they believe in. Economic issues are ones that Democrats can talk passionately about, and that will also be very popular with non college educated whites.

by JT on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 03:40:05 PM EST

You've ignored the majority coalition: moderates (none / 0)

It's sometimes seems amazingly easy for folks on both the political extremities to cast the situation as a strictly binary choice between liberal and conservative. Such a black and white / us and them mentality is what I'd expect from bush and his bible thumpers, but I would hope for more subtlety from progressives. Guess my naivete is showing. The reality is idealogues of any ilk tend to be much more like their polar opposites than they'd often care to admit.

The fact that has been convieniently ignored here is that, as your data indicates, the majority of Americans cosider themselves moderate. As one of those many, though probably somewhat left of center, I feel their pain in not fitting comfortably in either party, at least since Clinton's Presidency.

What happened this election is a suffiencient number of these disenfranchised felt slightly more comfortable voting for bush; for a variety of reasons but largely due to 9/11. Kerry just lost the trust battle for the center. Moderates on the whole made the rather lousy choice of embracing a administration that was well right of their views
as opposed to one that was well left of them because they'd rather have a beer with bush. When neither choice is very appealing, people will make theirs for startlingly facile reasons.

So it's the parties that have left the people, not the other way around. As a consensus builder Clinton was apparently an anomoly. Since the old party machines have lost much of the influence they excercised back when the conventions were actually politcal events as opposed to coronations, the Primaries have come to serve as processses that promote extremes. This is because it's mostly die hard party activists who are not representative of the mainstream electorate that select the candidates. As a result we the majority are left with the choice of the more radical and reactionary minorities or to choose to sit this one one out. Some choice.

I'm not giving up though. There's already many signs that we Democrats have concluded we must appeal to the center to govern; Harry Reid's election as minority leader for example. Barring any catastrophic turns of fate before 2008 (with bush no sure thing there, of course) I think it's more likely we'll annoint an anti-hillary like Bayh than the dark lady of the 3rd consecutive loss herself. But one can only hope.

Peace

by ringmaster on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 01:33:54 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.