balderdash111

Very much a long, disorganized, verbal diarhea rant.

Thoughts?

We are bitterly disappointed that John Kerry lost the presidential election, and that the Republicans had such a strong showing overall.

Let's look at the facts:

**George Bush won the popular vote by roughly 3.5 million votes. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote by roughly 500,000 votes.

**Republicans won (and Democrats lost) 4 seats in the Senate (as of this writing, the Florida seat is still undecided, but leaning towards the Republicans, so this may soon be 5). That may not seem like much, but the practical effect is a change from a 2-3 vote divide (depending on how the one independent votes) to a 10-11 vote divide.

**Republicans picked up at least 4 votes in the House, stretching an already wide divide even wider.

Why?

Why have the Republicans been so successful in this election and others over the past ten years? Remember, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in 1996, the Republicans have been doing very well – taking control of the presidency, Congress and a healthy majority of governorships.

I have been asking friends and colleagues this question and the most frequent answers revolve around some common themes: fear (inspired by dishonest Republican fearmongering), voters being misled and lied to by the administration, voters not being informed about the issues and the facts, voters being closed-minded Bible thumping bigots, voters being stupid sheep, etc.

But I don’t buy any of those explanations. It’s too pat, too easy, too superior. Lots of smart people vote Republican as well, and they aren’t all Halliburton employees or otherwise financially motivated (e.g., by tax cuts for the rich). There are plenty of middle-American, well-educated people who consistently vote Republican. So what is going on?

Is America a conservative country?

Last night, Bob Novak, a conservative commentator and columnist, explained the results by saying that the United States is a conservative country and that the Democrats have not accepted that fact. At first, this seems like a logical conclusion. The Republican Party is now -- pretty much officially -- the conservative party. Yes, there are some token conservative Democrat politicians and there might be a liberal Republican politician still alive somewhere, but you don't see them very much unless they are trotted out by the other party. So that must mean the country has accepted the conservative ideology.

According to poll results, though, this is way off the mark. Roughly 33% of the population considers itself "conservative." By the same polls, roughly 20% of the country considers itself "liberal" and the remainder – roughly 40-45% of the country, identifies itself as "moderate."

Some polls allow finer points of analysis by allowing people to pick use a spectrum from "very liberal," "liberal," "moderate," etc., and these numbers more or less hold up. For example, I grabbed a handful of polls to put together this analysis, and, for the one I am looking at (which came from the Economist) if you combine "very liberal" with "liberal" you get 23% and if you combine "very conservative" with "conservative" you get 29%. "Moderate" came in at 38% and "don't know" came in at 10%. The numbers will vary by a few points from poll to poll, but the rough breakdown remains the same.

Here are a few more tidbits on how people identify their own affiliation and what that meant for the election:


(This is from The National Review)

So, you cannot attribute the Republicans' success to a majority of the population identifying itself as conservative. At best, it accounts for about 60% of the Republican vote. Where does the other 40% come from?

Assuming that very few self-described liberals vote Republican (though some do every time), there are two possibilities:

1)The Republicans are convincing many moderates to vote for them, or
2) A good portion of the moderates are actually conservatives but do not want to identify themselves that way to pollsters.

It is probably a little bit of both, but I think the first theory accounts for more of the votes than the second one.

Again, though, why? Part of it may be that there are some very visible Republican moderates out there (Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger and John McCain, to name a few), which gives moderates some cover when they vote for a conservative Republican candidate. But that can't be all of it. The Democrats haven't run a real liberal candidate in decades, opting instead for moderate after moderate (Kerry was more liberal than many, but by no means a raving leftie), while the Republicans have consistently pushed aside moderate presidential candidates in favor of avowed conservatives. Shouldn't that make moderates gravitate towards the Democrats? Well, it hasn't.

I don’t pretend to have an answer to this question, but clearly Democratic victory depends on either making more people believe in “liberal” values, or in getting more of the moderate vote in elections.

The religious vote

In the most recent election, churchgoers overwhelmingly voted Republican, at least among Christian voters, with a nearly 20 point spread for protestants (Kerry does much better with Jews and “Other”, taking roughly 75% in each case, and with those who say they have no religion, taking 68%). Christians accounted for 81% of the voters this year, so this is a huge advantage.

There also seems to be direct correlation between actual church attendance and Republican voters. Those who attend church weekly went 61% to Bush, while Kerry took 53% of those who go to church occasionally, and 63% of those who never go to church.

Why? Are Christians more conservative? Not according to a statistic I heard on the radio today. There, it was claimed that there are just as many self-described liberals in the church audience as there are conservatives.

Of course, the Southern, born-again evangelicals and devout Catholics tend to be very socially conservative, but that classification certainly does not apply to all Christian denominations.

Bush talked a good deal about faith during the campaign. Did that trigger a groundswell of support among Christians? Possibly. Kerry talked about faith, too, but I got the sense he was just going through the motions. Or maybe I just wanted that to be the case.

So what is going on? Again, it looks like the Republican success with moderates must be doing the trick. I don’t know why, but the Democrats sure need to find out.

Are Republicans ignorant?

No, no and emphatically no. Sure, some are, but I would wager there are just as many undereducated Democrats as Republicans, and the statistics bear this out. Bush won across every education level from high school graduate through college graduate. Kerry only won among those with graduate degrees. The two tied among those who had no high school at all.

Yes, I suppose you could say that the really smart people prefer Kerry, but that does not mean those who vote Bush are stupid. Even so, the margins across each education level are 8 points or less.

So you can’t say that people vote Republican because they are ignorant.

Are Republicans all rich?

The education statistics should answer that question, but here is the real data: Bush won among those who earn more than $50,000 a year (56%), and Kerry won among those who make less than $50,000 a year (55%). While these translate to roughly 10 point margins in each case, it certainly does not explain the election by itself.

Is it about security and terrorism?

You might argue that security and terrorism pushed Bush into the winner’s column this year (though, interestingly, it was not the number one issue identified by voters, it was identified as the key issue by only 19% of those polled – more on that later), and was a big help to those Republicans who were elected in 2002. That is probably true (and you can have your own opinion over whether people who are worried about terrorism are making the right choice in voting for Bush – I happen to think Kerry would do an equal or better job of it). That said, it’s a fairly new issue, and can’t explain what went on in the 1990s, or why Bush got elected in 2000.

“Moral Values”

Let’s look at what people identified as the “most important issue.” While there was no clear top choice, “moral values” came in highest with 22%, followed by economy/jobs (20%), terrorism (19%), and Iraq (15%).

Bush won big among those identifying moral values and terrorism (81% and 86%, respectively), while Kerry won big among those identifying the economy/jobs and Iraq (80% and 73%, respectively).

But what does “moral values” mean? Some say it is a proxy for opposition to gay marriage and civil unions (though 60% of the country favors those options – see below). While that certainly helped get people to the polls (through clever placement of gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in key states), I don't think the gay marriage issue is what swung this election, so I don't think that's the only thing people think of when they talk about "moral values". I think it is really more of a vague catch-all for a number of issues, ranging from abortion to gay marriage to stem cells to affirmative action to prayer in schools.

Again, what does it all mean? Does the population think Kerry has different moral values than the rest of the population? Obviously those who think this is an important issue think so, based on the results.

Are there just more Republicans?

Nope. Democrats and Republicans can each claim 37% of the voters this election. 26% of voters identified themselves as Independent.

Summing up

Well, I seriously doubt anyone has gotten this far, so I will sum up:

**You can’t dismiss Republican voters as ignorant sheep.

**You can say that Republicans do very well among regular churchgoers.

**I don’t know what it is about Bush and the Republican party that people seem to like, but there is something going on that Democrats need to understand. Whether it is coming up with a more effective counter to Republican campaign strategies or trying harder to make the Democratic case to the people, the Democrats need to do something.


Other notes of interest

Just a few additional points about the election:

**The Republican gains in the House have a lot to do with the unprecedented mid-decade redistricting that took place in Texas last year. That redistricting was engineered by Republicans looking to create 4 new Republican safe seats out of what used to be Democratic seats. And it worked.

**Bush has been proudly claiming that more people voted for him this year than voted for any other President in US history. That is true. However, more people voted for Kerry this year than for any President in US history (other than Bush this year, of course). Bush’s statistic has more to do with population growth and voter turn-out than any kind of mandate.

**Speaking of mandates, I’ve also heard Bush claiming a “broad nationwide victory,” presumably looking to claim a mandate for the next few years. True to form, this is gross exaggeration. Bush lost all of the northeast, the upper mid-west and the entire west coast. He won the popular vote this time, but with a measly 51%. None of this equals a mandate. By this standard, there are national mandates to:

**Keep abortion legal or “mostly legal” (56%)
**Allow same sex couple to legally marry or form civil unions (60%)

(Actually, those both look like mandates even without Bush’s aggressive definition.)

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

smooth

hey man, ignorance doesn't equate to stupidity.

lots of people get that confused and get their panties all twisted.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

balderdash111

Fair point, but I think it's fair to say that lack of education is more likely to lead to ignorance (and, by contrast, educated people are less prone to ignorance).

My point on the ignorance/stupidity issue is that I imagine there are just as many ignorant democrats as there are ignorant republicans, so why do the republicans keep winning?

Is the republican machine better at promoting "pro-republican" ignorance than the democrats are at promoting "pro-democrat" ignorance?

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

smooth

because they're stupid, too?

nah, just kidding.


I agree that stupidity can lead to ignorance, but not that intelligence makes one less prone to ignorance. Maybe even the opposite, surity in one's intelligence places blinders on oneself. But that's really neither here nor there. I was CMA cuz I've dropped a few ignorance jabs in the past couple of days.


What's really important to me is your last comment. I do think a couple of things:

one, the democratic ignorant base isn't very easily roused for a variety of reasons. one of the main reasons I suspect it's hard to create pro-liberal ignorance is because that is opposed to the very discourse of liberalism.

it requires openness of discussion of ideas and etc. some people are going to come in here and dispute it and get all haughty, that's fine. the historical truth is that liberalism is based on exploration of ideas and the trumping of reason over tradition.

conservativism is rooted in maintianing status quo. it doesn't require or desire people to question authority or their circumstances. and especially not the order of the monarch--that's dangerous shit to have the subjects question the authority of the crown. you might actually have to explain yourself or give them a bone lest they revolt. the workers are a very fickle crowd, wont to go down into a deep, dark abyss of desire.

what was kerry accused of consistently? too much nuance.

that was twisted into flip-flopping. but he spoke in a very particular form that attempted to pass too much meaning from his lived experience to the people's, in a forum that doesn't convey meaning or context adequately.

so he had the double edge of losing people who might have gotten his message had they been able to hear the whole damn thing, and he lost the people who he wasn't even really talking to: the ignorant democrats. they exist, but what would you tell them?

and if you were to tell them bullshit, would you? or would you rather educate them?

kerry seemed to be the type of character that would rather educate an ignorant person even if it meant losing something he valued--which is what exactly happened every time he spoke.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

yster

Obviously there are less ignorant democrats than ignorant republicans, since the ignorant republican vote won =p
The difference thus far has not just been urban vs. rural, it has been ignorant religious poor vs. ignorant secular poor. ignorant religious poor can be pacified with 'spiritual' concessions, feeling the country is moving in the right direction, but repressed secular poor actually require some kind of monetarily-derived succor.
Which do you think is easier to provide? That's one reason the democrats have a tougher time.
This is in no way saying that all religious people are ignorant, all poor people are ignorant, etc etc. But this is a larger demographic than most people would care to acknowledge. Less opportunities for education, historical oppression, geographical isolation, whatever the reasons that cause the ignorance, the result is clear.

rukkyg

I guess a lot of the reason I would say that a lot of Republican/Bush-Voters are "ignorant sheep" is because of my view that believing all the stories in the Bible as truth can only be done by "ignorant sheep". And since these people's so called moral values come from the Bible, it follows logicaly.

mirevolver

In my view, the problem with the Democratic party is that it is a fractured party. They have catered to multiple groups that don't have much of anything to do with eachother and as a result the Democrats have trouble creating a party core.

For example: Both union workers in the nation's factories and the environmentalists tend to vote Democratically. That creates a conflict of interest, if the environmentalists get their way, the union workers lose jobs. But if the union workers keep the status quo in the factories, the environment suffers.

Also, Homosexuals and Jews tend to vote for democrats. The Torah has some pretty strong stuff against homosexuality, pull out a bible and read the book of Deuteronomy (The last of the five books of the Torah). So again there is one group opposed to another group in the same political party.

These polar opposites within the democratic party create conflicts of interest and power struggles within the same party and the Democratic leadership is caught in the middle. In their ongoing effort to hold onto the votes of all the groups within the party, the democratic leadership is constantly going back and forth between the groups and is unable to create and maintain a party core.

The Republican party on the other hand has a Republican core and a base to operate from. This allows for a much better organized movement of the party and when the party makes a move to drive in the vote of its members as it did this last election, it moves in a much more efficient manner.

To borrow a quote from Abraham Lincoln, It is true that you may please all of the people some of the time; you can even please some of the people all of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time. The democrats are in fact trying to please all of the people all of the time and that is fracturing the party.

__________________
Aside from my great plans to become the future dictator of the moon, I have little interest in political discussions.

wnker85

As the Texas congress remark in the article.

The redrawing of lines actually fixed the jerrymandering of before. I live in one of these districts that was split 10 years ago to allow a democrat to represent me. My town was split into three. My section was cut out drawn down a highway into a highly democratic area. If i had a map of it you would see how bad it was. I should not be voting for the same represenative as those who live on the south side of Houston (me being in the North) Now the district has been redrawn and those in my town (highly republican) have one represenative.

KMA-628

I think that this is an excellent point.

Agree or disgree with the core of the party, it has stayed fairly consistent. Note: I said fairly, not 100%.

irateplatypus

wow balderdash, good post. thanks for all the effort you must have put into the essay... i read the whole thing w/interest.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

balderdash111

Gerrymandering is a problem, no question about it, and both parties are guilty. Take a look at the districts in any given state and you will see bizarre contortions all designed by the party drawing the lines to make the seat safe for their colleagues.

Ok, this may not be true of states with only one representative in Congress, but you get the idea.

The problem with the Texas redistricting was the way it was done: the Texas Republican party ignored very longstanding tradition, rewrote the rules in theif favor and pushed the matter through. This is symptomatic of a larger problem of Republicans doing away with the procedural (formal or informal) safeguards that make our country run so well.

Another example: I have heard Senator Bill Frist suggest that the Republicans may change the centuries-old Senate fillibuster rules to prevent Democrats from blocking Republican judicial nominees. This is just plain shocking, and reeks of the Republicans taking an attitude of "nyah nyah, we have more votes than you so we will do what we damn well please".

This kind of behavior is unprecedented, and, I fear, threatens to seriously undermine the political life of this country.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

smooth

I think you and mirevolver are posing accurate appraisals of the situation.

and so are knowledgable people on CSPAN, for what it's worth.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

that's why CQ insiders are explaining why it won't happen. for example, they cite that many of the old guard remember when they were a minority. and they know that one day they will be the minority again.

in any case, it's far easier to just have the VP sit as chair in the first session and declare that Congress is not a continuing body. then they redraft the rules. only requires a straight up and down vote. which the senate may win.

keep in mind, that a lot of people on this board don't seem to understand the people filling the label's shoes (or they are acting like they don't in the things that aren't being said). that is, I just watched an interesting analysis where the voters' ideologies were added up and explained. in short, 55 repubs does not necessary mean 55 right-wing votes.

some dems who shift are gone and added, and some repubs who shift are gone or added. it's not as drastic of an ideological shift as people here are claiming. the senate is very clubby. some of these people are ancient in terms of their non-chronological age in politics.

rather than go into the whole thing, hopefully people will tune into the very heady analysis of the situation. it's not as though things are rosy, but hold off on the pessimism and hubris until after the first few sessions. that will indicate the tone.


I mean, why aren't there any threads on the Spectre phenomenon? (someone who does have a real mandate from his constituency, btw, if there is such a thing outside of a victorious narrative).

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

balderdash111

Good point about the threat of payback when the Repubs lose the majority (not excerpted above)

Re: the quote above

I know that there are Republican senators who do not share the administrations neo-con views on various issues, but this is an administration that forces strict party discipline. Did you see Spectre's reversal of his statement yesterday about nominees? Talk about coerced speech...

(see it here: http://www.specter.senate.gov/index....h=11&Year=2004)

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

smooth

I totally agree with the strict party adherence reality.

but, now the pres is in for good. and he wants to make a lasting legislation. that won't happen if he bulls through the china house. he's savvy enough to know that. prediction is he will go back to his texas and first year methods.

he wants to do something big. not sure what it is. doesn't look like tax reform to the experts, not quite sure about social security. but something. and he has to contend with the risk of fracturing the party. that's the unsaid narrative--that the republican party has been very near fracturing for some time now as the social pubs are clashing with the econ pubs.

watch this stuff closely, because while it's not rosy, it isn't catastrophic. and for someone who is disenfranchised anyway (that is, I have no stake because I'm not wedded to either side--neither one speaks for me), it's actually very facinating.

I suspect indi's and libertarians, et al may feel similar.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

But why did spectre retract?

why did he even speak?

he's poised to become the judicial appointment chair! and he's not going to let an anti-abortionist go on up the ladder.

what motive would they have to tell him to stuff it? seems to me that bush would kick him right out of the circle of friends (certainly has the power and mandate from his base to do it) for not playing along. that's not a minor infraction what he said.

but bush hushed him. doesn't want him to rile the 4 million people who just secured his victory? that's where my money's at.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

balderdash111

You are absolutely right. That's what I was trying to get across in my post. Spectre blabbed to the press about exopecting the president not to use litmus tests, etc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6405485/) (why, I have no idea. maybe he wanted to show his constituents he wasn't a patsy, maybe he felt emboldened by his win to try to push the party more to the middle, maybe he was drunk.)

The next day, like a robot he comes out with "I support my president's choices. I want the process to quickly approve his nominations."

Pretty clear that the White House smacked him down a notch (presumably by threatening either his judiciary committee position or a favorite bill or two). That's what I call enforcing party discipline

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka