More On The Vanishing Middle

Last week I posted an article entitled Swing Voters Becoming a Myth that generated a lot of comments and a response from New Donkey entitled Expanded the Base. I waned to revisit this subject, but bring significantly more evidence to bear to support my original thesis.

Few Voters Changing Their Minds

In the 2004 Presidential Election, very few voters changed their minds. In fact, NAES notes that very few voters who even considered both candidates:

Very few American voters changed their minds during the 2004 presidential campaign, the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election survey shows. Just 16 percent of those who voted for George W. Bush said there was "ever a time" when they thought they would vote for John Kerry. And 15 percent of Kerry voters said there was "ever a time" when they thought they would vote for Bush. Put another way, 84 percent of Bush voters and 85 percent of Kerry voters said they never thought they would vote for the other candidate.
While very few considered both, even fewer ever actually changed their minds: According to a study by Draft Inc:
The study reveals that only 4.7 percent of voters nationwide switched their choice of candidate during the course of the election. And while a slight majority (59 percent) of those that did switch did so relatively late in the game (from October through Election Day)
Another sign of fewer voters changing their minds comes form my work on the Incumbent Rule. Check out the trend among undecideds in polls taken during the final week of recent election cycles:
      
Year	  Polls    Und.    Inc.  Chal. 
1976-88    155	 11.8	 20%	80%
1994	  101	 11.2	 35%	65%
1998	   76	 10.1	 27%	73%
2000	   31	  8.6	 40%	60%
2002-4	   60	  7.5	 42%	58%
Total	  451	  9.7	 28%	72%
I have not updated this entirely with all 2004 polls, but still the trendline among undecideds in final polls is obvious. In cycle after cycle, the number of undecideds as a percentage of the electorate during the final week of an election is decreasing. Not only are fewer people changing their minds, fewer and fewer people are even leaving their options open.

Independents Not Turning Out To Vote

Just like they did in 2000, the National Annenberg Election Survey measured partisan self-identification for the 2004 far more comprehensively than any other polling outfit. From their post-election report:

Polling of 67,777 registered voters from October 7, 2003, through November 16, 2004, showed that 31.8 percent called themselves Republicans and 34.6 percent said they were Democrats, a Democratic edge of 2.8 percentage points. The margin of sampling error on those findings was just over one third of one percentage point, up or down. The 2000 National Annenberg election Survey, involving 44,877 registered voters interviewed from December 14, 1999 through January 19, 2001, showed that 29.9 percent called themselves Republicans and 33.7 percent said they were Democrats, a slightly larger Democratic advantage of 3.8 percentage points. The margin of sampling error for the 2000 findings was less than one half of one percentage point, up or down. "We ordinarily do not report tenths of percentage points," said Adam Clymer, political director of the survey, "but with samples this large and sampling errors this small, we feel confident in reporting relatively small changes.
Using this information, in conjunction with the overall voter turnout statistics provided by the United States Election Project and the partisan-self identification exit poll information provided by the Roper Center, it is possible to develop an estimation of voter turnout by partisan self-identification:
Estimated Turnout by Party ID, Voting Eligible Population
     2000    2004
Rep  64.7%   70.6%
Dem  64.0%   64.9%
Ind  39.5%   47.0%
Although the different questions from NAES and the exit polls prevent drawing a more definite conclusion, it still seems pretty clear that self-identifying independents are not turning out to vote at nearly the same rate as self-identifying partisans. It is also particularly disturbing that while both Republican and Independent turnout increased sizably from 2000 to 2004, Democratic turnout remained flat. We may have helped move a lot of unlikely voters, but we did not mobilize our base nearly as well as Republicans did.

Equal on hatred, lacking on self-love

In 2004, both Democrats and Republicans recorded record levels of dislike for the nominee of the opposing party. However, while Republicans recorded record levels of excitement about their candidate, Democrats recorded average levels of excitement about theirs. As I already blogged, over at Donkey Rising, David Goodman discussed the findings of the University of Michigan's American National Election Study in support of this conclusion:

Republicans gave Kerry a mean score of 32 - six points worse than the score of 38 McGovern received from GOP identifiers in 1972 - and 14 points worse than the score Gore received from Republicans four years earlier. This is the first example of intensified partisanship, and it provides a more nuanced understanding of Kerry's overall thermometer score - Kerry was the least liked Democrat ever, in the brief history of presidential thermometers, among Republican identifiers. There are some future precincts in New Hampshire and Iowa where that might qualify as a badge of honor.

But if Kerry was the least liked Democrat among rival party followers, George W Bush did him one better in 2004. Bush emerged as the least liked opposition-party presidential candidate, ever, of either major party. Democratic identifiers bestowed upon Bush a mean score of 29 - - a full 12 points lower than the score Democrats gave him four years earlier.

The larger story here is that in 2004, Democratic and Republican identifiers appeared more dramatically polarized than at any time in the past 36 years. The normal respect reserved for American leaders of the opposition party seems to have eroded nearly completely among followers of both major parties. What distinguishes this particular circumstance is its partisan symmetry. Hostility toward the leader of the opposition party is mutually shared by Democrats and Republicans alike. The implications are also magnified by the nearly identical sizes of these blocs of partisan voters (48% Democratic, 47% Republican).

The final bit of data that goes some distance toward explaining Bush's relative advantage over Kerry in terms is also unprecedented. Of all the candidates who secured their parties' nominations since 1968, George W Bush was the candidate most revered by his own party. His mean score of 84 surpassed even Reagan's 1984 thermometer of 78 among Republican identifiers. And in so doing, Bush also bested the previous high rating for candidates from their partisan followers, Bill Clinton's mark of 80 from Democrats in 1996. In 2004, Kerry attained ratings from Democrats that were typical. Bush generated ratings from Republicans that set records.

Click here to read the already lengthy discussion of this study.

Conclusion

All of these studies point both to an increasingly polarized electorate with a small and dwindling block of swing voters, and to an insufficiently motivated Democratic base. I agree with New Donkey that every demographic is really a swing demographic, because a shift of just a few percentage points in your favor among any demographic, whether it is solid pro-Bush, solid pro-Kerry or somewhere in between, would have dramatically changed the outcome of the election. However, while we should scrap for every vote possible, being all things to all people at all times cause you to be not much to pretty much everyone, it would also appear that more votes are to be found by motivating the base than anywhere else. As fewer and fewer people even consider switching to the opposition, much less actually changing their minds, Republican turnout is increasing and Democratic turnout is static. Further, Republicans love their leadership while Democrats only like theirs. There might be something to the idea of expanding the base by exiting the unaffiliated and independents with your message since they seem generally disaffected right now, but that isn't going to happen unless you start to actually articulate your message.

I do not know for certain whether or not the Rockridge Institute's philosophy on swing voters is correct, but I do know that it seems to be the only one that addresses the situation that the numbers laid out in this post present. As a result of increasing polarization and comparatively high Republican self-love, we need to excite our base and articulate our agenda or else we are going to keep losing close elections as a result of low turnout. I do not know if it will work for certain, but considering the failure of other strategies of late, we need to at least give it a try. I certainly hope that in 2008, "electability" arguments center around concepts like "who is best able to articulate the Democratic agenda and bring reformer appeal to the electorate," rather than the schlock we had in 2004, "who can appeal to southerners and who has military cred." Of course, since doing so would require the MSM to stop parroting the bad advice the Noise Machine gives to Democrats on how to win elections, any such transformation will be extremely difficult.


Display:


Speaking as a bona fide independent (none / 0)


1. You state that self identified indies
increased 8%  - MORE than any other party.

2. You state that very few voters actually
switched alignment in the course of a
heavy television oriented campaign.

What you've discovered is that we're
out here on the blogs, we're well enough
informed to make up our minds - again
thanks to the internet.

Eason Jordan, anyone?

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 03:16:22 PM EST

Re: Speaking as a bona fide independent (none / 0)

I agree -- blogs are the future of the swing voter movement, and that is where Democratic candidates will have to look if they want crossover appeal.

The New Democrat

by demburns on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 03:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking as a bona fide independent (none / 0)

No, I think you're misreading the data.  The numbers don't show that the number of self identified independents increased, but that they were more likely to vote in this election than in the last election.  Since the independents generally went for Kerry (by 18 points and 19 points in Florida and Ohio) and Kerry still lost, we cna surmise that the actual number of Independents is dwindling, not increasing.  QED Chris is on the money.
by ohnofile on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 11:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reagan and Clinton (none / 0)

Both had significant cross over appeal.

Were Clinton able to run in 2004 enough republicans who realized his ability to run a smooth efficient economy without making any rookie mistakes of the like that Bush has made over and over and over would  have voted Clinton that he would still be pres.

This no middle is just a frame for the left to move left.  Its not working for the green party and it won't work for the democratic party.

On social issues it is CLEAR that the democratic party is too far left of 50% mark.  

On economic matters I think a shift left may actually play well with voters as long as it is pragmatic and sold as being for the common good and not just one specific special interest.  
For example universal free high quality HS and College education helps minorities and poor more than rich but is not a special interest thing as it is universal.  This is much more popular than racial college admission criteria and has the same positive effect of racial minorities.

When Republicans talk about a cultural war they are talking about being forced to learn that evolution created us in HS and not being able to have a 10 commandments statue in government buildings, not about tax rates or health care or minimum wage.  To a Christian, an athiest liberal teaching evolution is every bit as oppressive as a fundementalist preacher saying homosexuals are going to hell, the only difference is that Christians MASSIVELY MASSIVELY outnumber homosexuals in voting %.

There is a real center but on cultural matters we are so far left of it that they feel better with GOP.  

by donkeykong on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 03:18:46 PM EST

"athiest liberal" (none / 0)

Uh...so anyone with an understanding of science, empirical data, and how theory actually works is now an "Athiest Liberal".

Great...lets all march with 'donkeykong" back to the Dark Ages.

by ElitistJohn on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 04:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "athiest liberal" (none / 0)

Oh, I disagree with DonkeyKong on evolution and hope he never had any control over teaching my (future) children, but I do agree that the only way the Democratic party can make itself the majority party again is to hammer at economic issues, hammer again, and keep hammering class-warfare Truman-style, while enlightening people on the economic ramifications of pretty much everything in their lives.  For instance, in "What's the Matter with Kansas", Thomas Frank points out that if you take any demographic group (latinos, ethnic whites, gun owners) and make them union members, they'll shift over 20% to the Democrats.  So non-union white males vote for the GOP by 60-40, but white male union members vote for Democrats by a 60-40 margin.  I think the percentage of unionization is the main reason why in Canada and Britain, the Liberals/Labour are the long-term dominant party, while the Democrats here aren't any more.  The Scots in industrial Glasgow are every bit as culturally conservative as their cousins who left for America, but they vote for Labour or parties to the left of Labour, because they're keenly aware of the differences in economic policy between the Left and the Right and the impact that economics have on them.  

by rtung on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "athiest liberal" (3.00 / 0)

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party said very little to these voters in 2004, or an any election cycle in quite some time.

There was no "class warfare" from the Democratic Party and very little of an economic message. Worse yet, John Kerry was a perfect symbol of all that was wrong with the Democratic Party. He was wealthy, northeastern, socially liberal/economically centrist, and came across as indecisive and very much out of touch with the average American. How can a Fortunate Son like Bush be the candidate of the common man? Simple, he ran against Gore and Kerry.

by wayward on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "athiest liberal" (none / 0)

If I understand donkeykong's point correctly, he his asking for tolerance of differing viewpoints more than acceptance of them. There are some in the more secular left who can be as dogmatic and intolerant as the religious right.

Posts like the one above don't help soften that image.

by wayward on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:09:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh (3.00 / 0)

How can one be "tolerant" of refusing to teach basic science in a world where science is the fundament of evrything (including whether you spend your employed life asking "would you like fries with that"), and teach mythology instead? The two are not merely "differing viewpoints" of equivalent value. They are apples and oranges.

Did it also make sense to repress Copernicus, because his Heliocentric concept of the solar system messed with the religion of the day? It was also correct, and without that concept much of the knowledge (and world we have today wouldn't exist).

by ElitistJohn on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

My high school biology teacher didn't cover half of the textbook due to time restraints.
Another teacher allegedly came to school drunk on a regular basis. He photocopied the tests from the teachers edition and handed out A's.

To be honest, this is why I laugh at the whole debate about what should be taught in High School Biology classes. The people on both sides are mistakenly assuming that ANYTHING is being taught in the first place.

But I digress. Re-opening the debate on evolution is missing the forest for the trees. The problem is that whether you agree with them or not, many people do take the Bible quite seriously. The attitude that people who do believe in the Bible are ignorant, intolerant, racist, homophobes (and far worse) is counter-productive to building a majority. For example, how do you deal with an opponent of abortion who also opposes war and the death penalty? How do you deal with someone who wants to protect marriage by defending it from threats, both moral, like the increasing amount of sexual imagery in the media and the percieved threat of gay marriage and the economic conditions that make family life more difficult. Pushing them into the opposing camp is not a very wise answer to this.

by wayward on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:56:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who said... (none / 0)

Anyone who believes in the Bible is all of what you claim? Certainly not me. For example, modern Jesuits are rabid for science and logic, while also believing in the Bible. Hardly anyone qualifies for your stereotype, on either side.

My point is simply that there is a huge difference between believing in a religion, and demanding that your religion get equal or greater placement over empirical information are two different things. For example, just because I believe in the "Holy Book of Squares are Circles", doesn't mean I get to force Geometry classes to give equal time to my scriptures.

by ElitistJohn on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 11:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (2.00 / 0)

Sigh...

How can one be tolerant of meta-physics masquerading   as science...

Presently Evolution is a religion.  It is not science in the way gravity is science.  I can demonstrate gravity at will because I understand it in a way that scientists DO NOT understand evolution.  Ask yourself how many other Magic FACTS do you know in science that are "fact" but scientists can't explain?

Science actually has rules.  It isn't enough that 99% of scientists agree, you have to have a hypothesis, you have to have an experiment that can prove your hypothesis false and a neutral third party has to conduct that experiment and show that they were unable to break your hypothesis.  Then your FIXED hypothesis is tested by other scientists who want desperately to show you are wrong and your hypothesis survives WITHOUT change.  Then and only then are theories called fact in the scientific world with the exception of  evolution.

Evolution keeps changing the theory because it doesn't hold up.  I can make all manner of alternate theories of gravity if you let me change my theory to fit new data, universal attraction to heat for example the sun is hot the earth is hot, the moon acts to focus the suns heat blah blah blah.  

So the first evolved organism was based on RNA? DNA?  it was formed in a Oxidizing?  Reducing? enviornment?  Scientists DON'T KNOW.

Evolution may one day be a single scientific theory and even scientific FACT but in its current form it requires religious belief to claim that it  is scientific fact.

by donkeykong on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 07:45:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

Sigh.
by Curt Matlock on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 08:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

Your comprehension of science and the scientific method are laughable.

First, cluetrain moment...the Theory of Gravity is now quite well known to be incorrect, and superceeded by Einstein's Relativity. What we call "gravity" is simply one of the manifestations of mass warping (curving) space-time. Most of the fundamental postulates of Newton's theory, such as heavier objects falling faster is completely wrong (watch old Apollo movies to see Armstrong drop a feather and heavy rock, with both landing at the same time), and was the product of localized environmental issues in observation (in this case, atmosphere).

Now, is the original Newtonian theory totally invalidated? Obviously not. Much of it, and the math behind it is used to this day, as it is extremely predictive and valuable in said localized environments. But no one believes in "Gravity" in and of itself any more (in fact, all signs point to the various "forces" being simply variants of the same force, such as electro-strong, electro-weak, and gravitational).

Don't even get me started on Quantum and String Theory. Makes my head hurt. Though given your religious bent, you might like parts of Chaos Theory, especially Fractals and the "Strange Attractor" concept.

So, you see, parts of a Theory may get superceeded w/out invalidating all of it, especially complex theoretical structures. Also, in many cases there are no formal "facts", simply because you are dealing with concepts which cannot be completely measured, either due to structural issues (Quantum), or time interval (Evolution). That is why they are called "Theories". But it doesn't mean that they are just guesses either.

First you have a hypothesis, which is an postulated explanation of some phenomena. These hypotheses are tested, and reconsidered when new data comes to light. Some aspects may be modified if these tests falsify some of the hypotheis, but not enough to invalidate the entire thing. Eventually, if they survive this process, and no other competing hypothesis has equal or greater explanatory power, they move to the level of Theory. Theories have numerous examples of partial validation. In the case of evolution, its an established fact that the aspects involving adaption to environmental conditions has been proven.

It is also true that numerous aspects of the fossil record support the theory, as do mitochondrial DNA tests in both fossils and living creatures, as well as the presence of vestigal organ and bones structures in existing species. I could go on. As such, at the present day there is no other competing hypothesis or theory with the explanatory power of Evolution, or the experimental validity. Ergo, it remains the standard, just as Relativity is accepted as valid, though we haven't tested E=MC2 directly either, for obvious reasons.

To equate this to a completely unfalsifiable mythology is absurd. I could just as easily say everything was created in the Grand Upchucking of Great Universal Barfly after the Holy One Too Many, and it would be equally as valid and unfalsifiable as Creationism. On one hand, we have a theory with incredible explanatory power and numerous supportive empirical experimental and observational findings. On the other hand we have an unfalsifiable assertation with no supportive empirical evidence. Apples and oranges.

by ElitistJohn on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 11:22:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

Where to start...

"Most of the fundamental postulates of Newton's theory, such as heavier objects falling faster is completely wrong"

1)  You are mis-stating newtons theory, newton says objects fall at equal speed which is true within our Earth enviornment at normal speeds.  

"First you have a hypothesis, which is an postulated explanation of some phenomena. These hypotheses are tested, and reconsidered when new data comes to light. Some aspects may be modified if these tests falsify some of the hypotheis, but not enough to invalidate the entire thing"

2)  The core of evolution depends on the first creation of cells and also on the ability of RNA/DNA to increase in complexity at a rather fast speed  so as to arrive where we are now.  This has not been seriously tested (only fossil evidence not a real increase in complexity of a living organism).  The tests that have been done do not confirm the premis of evolution from less complex to more complex which is the basis of evolution as most people understand it.  As such the basic premis is  untested (this is an extreamly serious matter at the first cell level).

"As such, at the present day there is no other competing hypothesis or theory with the explanatory power of Evolution, or the experimental validity. Ergo, it remains the standard"

3)  A fair and honest statement evolution stands because we have nothing better not because of its own merits.  Almost all other areas of science are tested in the forward direction to show mastery of the cause effect relationship, evolution has not tested any of its vulnerable premises like that.  If HS was taught in this language I have no problem with evolution in HS.  But thats not how its taught.  Its taught like this "Evolution is a fact that has been proven by hundereds of scientists and 7 day creation is silly".

"Relativity is accepted as valid, though we haven't tested E=MC2 directly either, for obvious reasons"

4)  This can be tested directly.  Nuclear fission and fusion lower the mass of the object and the energy released is Mc^2

"To equate this to a completely unfalsifiable mythology is absurd. I could just as easily say everything was created in the Grand Upchucking of Great Universal Barfly after the Holy One Too Many, and it would be equally as valid and unfalsifiable as Creationism."

5)  You could call it big bang theory. =)

"On one hand, we have a theory with incredible explanatory power and numerous supportive empirical experimental and observational findings. On the other hand we have an unfalsifiable assertation with no supportive empirical evidence. Apples and oranges. "

6)  If I was a historian I could list off the number of times the theory with incredible explanatory power has turned out false.  Space ether comes to mind.  

by donkeykong on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

huh? (none / 0)

In what way is evolution more like religion than science?  Evolution meets your criteria for scientific theory, at least among those who shun tin foil haberdashery.

I am not a praying man, but I'm willing to give it a shot if praying that my children never go to a school run by people who push this bullshit are in charge of the curriculum has any chance of effecting the outcome.  

Have you seen the international statistics on belief in evolution?  We are a country of superstitious cretins compared to the rest of the world.  No country surveyed had a higher belief in creationism.  That is the Republican base, and that is why we fight.

by ohnofile on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:11:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: huh? (none / 0)

Science was designed for, and gained almost all of its reputation from, predicting events that have not yet occured.

You know its science when.

  1.  It predicts something that can clearly be proven false if indeed false

  2.  It is described specifically enough that neutral observer can do the experiment or at least know what the prediction is before the event occurs.

  3.  It is survives inspection without changing its predictions.

Evolution is really a cluster of theories with many of them being proven false all the time.  Because evolution is not "finished" there exists no official theory.  As such it CANNOT be disproven.  

Cannot be disproven == NOT SCIENCE

by donkeykong on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:44:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: huh? (none / 0)

By your definition, meteorology is even less scientific than evolution.

And I would argue that evolution meets your criteria, just over a longer time period than mostsciences.

by ohnofile on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: huh? (none / 0)

If I came to earth just before the pre-cambrian explosian and seeded new genes causing the explosian it would meet all your measured data and yet lead to a completely different CAUSE.

As such admit either that the Cause Effect relationship inferred in modern evolution theory is extreamly vulnerable (as it is) or evolutionists like an anti-religious cult depend on faith that no intervention occured.

Most vocal evolutionists are expressing a belief system not a scientific theory.

by donkeykong on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 12:46:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: huh? (none / 0)

Well yes, and an alien from outer space could have come to Earth and impregnated your mother in her sleep, so you can't claim as fact that the people you know as "mom" and "dad" are actually your mom and dad.  In fact, you can't even claim as fact that you're terrestrial origin.  By your standards, you're taking all that on faith.

BTW, I noticed that you didn't reply to ElitistJohn's explaination for why evolution is a legitimate scientific theory and not just based on faith.  I mean, you can cling to an idea as much as you want and not ever allow yourself to be persuaded regardless of reasoning or evidence, or you can set some impossibly high standard for what would be fact (in which case pretty much everything must be taken on faith, including the posit that we actually exist and are not just characters in some being's vivid imagination), but please be honest to yourself and either accept ElitistJohn's points or try to refute them.

by rtung on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 05:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: huh? (none / 0)

"I mean, you can cling to an idea as much as you want and not ever allow yourself to be persuaded regardless of reasoning or evidence,"

Then I would be an evolutionist.

There are massive holes in evolution as the cause of life theory.

  1.  Almost no forward predictions which are then verified.
  2.  The evidence in support is fossil or DNA evidence with no explaination for the first cell.
  3.  There is an proposed increase in genetic complexity where none has been observed over time at the speed necessary to fit within the limits proposed.

Oh and I replied to elitist.
by donkeykong on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 09:04:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Christ, you big dope.... (none / 0)

We share 98% of our DNA with chimps.  Animals farther away evolutionarily share less DNA.  Evolution is written into the DNA in every cell of every living thing on Earth.

We see with the Hubble Telescope back billions of years to the aftermath of the origin of the universe. The big creationist lie of the 6000 year old universe is proven false every time anyone looks at a photo of interstellar space.  Or does 'kong think the Earth is at the center of the universe?  Copernican Theory is just a theory, after all.  Gosh, it's just like a religion...

Creationists wilfully blind themselves to everything that doesn't fit their ideology and then pretend their opponents share their own faults.  Sounds like religion to me, buster.

by Understandably Bitter on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Christ, you big dope.... (none / 0)

"We share 98% of our DNA with chimps.  Animals farther away evolutionarily share less DNA."

You state this as though it is proof.  A civic and an accord share similiar parts but they didn't evolve.  Fords have fewer similiar parts.  

Now if you could show a monkey evolving into a human now that would be science...  Or even the path way that was taken and then predict that a monkey will have a specific mutation that allows them to resist disease better and then show it after hypothesising etc.  Real science involves hypothesis of what will happen in the future that are correct enough to remain in tact over many many validations.  Or even describe in detail the pathway and then find a new species on that path.  But your description has to be detailed enough to not be nostradamas like.

"We see with the Hubble Telescope back billions of years to the aftermath of the origin of the universe. The big creationist lie of the 6000 year old universe is proven false every time anyone looks at a photo of interstellar space"

BS.  You are taking 70 years of high detail observation and hopeing that the laws of physics remained constant over billions of years.  Oh ya and in that 70 years we changed our theories enough to totally change the result.

And creationists don't talk about a ~6000 universe.  

"Creationists wilfully blind themselves to everything that doesn't fit their ideology"

OK please name for me all the forward prediction evolution has made that have turned out correct?
Please state a theory of evolution in enough detail that clear tests can be made of its validity as per science...Ever notice how this is never done?

by donkeykong on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 09:20:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Turnout is the Key (none / 0)

Thanks for a long, thoughtful piece.  As I've said elsewhere, if there is a 70% turnout, we win.  If 50%, they win.  The state show that 8 of the top 10 turnout states (and the top 4) went for Kerry.  These were both competitive states with the excitement of a close race and Democratic states.  The 2 Rep states were Iowa (close) and South Dakota (a close, highly publicized Senate race).

The next 14 states in turnout % (as a & of the voting age population) split 50/50 with 7 states going for Kerry and 7 for Bush.  These were generally either safe Democratic states (5) or competitive states that went Republican.  

Only 5 of the bottom 26 states plus DC (27 in all) went Democratic.  These were safe Democratic states like New York.  Fully 15 of the bottom 17 went Republican.

Many of the low turnout states have barriers to participation.  They prune voter registration roles aggressively for non-participants, ex-felons, etc.  A lot of these states also have either large black populations (the South) or large Hispanic populations (the west).

by David Kowalski on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 03:31:53 PM EST

right (none / 0)

We still are far underperforming the Republicans in Base turnout.  If we could ever even remotely approach those levels, the GOP would be finished.  And as I see it, the people in our base who didn't turn out was the minorities.  

Bill Richardson is starting to look better and better to me.

by descrates on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Turnout is the Key (none / 0)

I am not so sure. We had record levels
of turnout, historic, in fact, and we still
lost.

I heard this maxim before, in fact.
"if we get high turnout they lose"

Truth is, the GOP is better at getting
real voters to the polls.

America is polarizing, but its down
social and not political lines.
Some of that bottom strata simply
can't vote , not even if you
gave them a chance. Illegal immigrants,
etc. and people who won't take
off from work.

The wealthy folk handed the GOP their
victory. I think if you read the
win/loss results that way, you're
set.

I would offer this view only on indie
voters: no other voting bloc is
free of corporate influence. A corporate
lobbyist would never support indies
because he can't polarize their
decisionmaking in any direction.

Given the fact that the best possible
outcome for big money on the last
election, was for kerry to lose
(soros, et. al. were shareholders
in bush corporations..) we have
been placed (if you're self identifying
as a democrat - "we" ) into the
position corporations want us -
the radical minority that gives
the GOP trouble. You can do
more there, the majority is always
dodging the random bullet.

The arc of decline for a party is
a 30 year trendline. I can only
offer, in light of a polarized election
in a single year - that economic
models predicting bush's win
(based on macroeconomic factors)
were horribly off. And the electorate
moved to their positions without
help. What was this party's role?
How did this party suck up the indie
voters ?

If you vote for one guy, it doesn't
make you belong to one party or
another.

If you believe that there's parties out
there that speak for you, you belong
in a nuthouse.

I measure my own personal independence
as a form of patriotism. I enjoy
seeing the glazed look of support
vanish for bush's blind agenda
as much as I do the disheveled look
on the pseudo scientific masquerading
metaphysica-liberal elite getting
their come-uppance when they're trying
to sell their advertising based social
experiments and ending up getting
pennies on the dollar.

So much in our society depends
now on myth. We're headed for a big
crash... advertising doesn't pay ...
services don't create ... free trade
isn't free... and if chris is right...

there is no one left that can rightly
be called free thinking..?

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 07:51:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Upward trickle from Gerrymandering? (none / 0)

I wonder if the lack of competitive districts not only has the effect of polarizing the Congress but also the electorate.  With 'safe' seats encouraging candidates to polarize so that they can win their (more hotly contested primaries) there has been a decline in the number of moderates.  The result of that may be that there are very few voters who actually have to make a choice between the parties when electing their Congressmen.  

This effect could trickle up even to races that are not Gerrymandered: if a moderate Democrat has had to choose repeatedly between two moderate candidates she probably has a greater history of voting for Republicans than a voter in a safe seat.

 

by Preston on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 03:50:23 PM EST

Chris please comment on how the final days of 2004 (none / 0)

played out in the mass media.

Based on your study of how the votes from each grouping (D/R/I) moved or did not move in the final days of the 2004 presidential contest, what are your conclusions about how this was covered in the media?

My recollection was that post the GOP convention the media played it as if with the hugely successful hate fest that was the GOP convention Bush started his inevitable and widely popular march towards electoral victory. Just as in 2000 the media played Bush as the inevitable victor over Gore on no credible polling data proving that presumption.

The 2004 daily polls as I remembered them fluctuated within 5 points of a victory for either side, until the very last few days when the polls shifted steadily a few points towards Bush.

Does your current study indicate that these fulctuating poll results were just noise?

My question is about the media - how they framed the final days of the contest. Did they accurately reflect the net sentiment of the electroate or did they attempt to push the contest toward their (corporate favored) candidate?

>> And does your statistical study of a vanishing middle correspond with how the campaign played out at the end by the media?

I think we will disagree about this. I do not believe the final vote tallies and I believe I will be proven right in the long run when the results can be studied and audited by organizations like BlackBoxVoting, and others who I believe will be able to prove vote tampering and vote suppression was significant enough to have affected the outcome.

Again, I believe generally the studies presented previously that a person's formal political affiliation is about a 90% predictor of how they will vote in the current race when they do vote.

And I believe we did get a sufficient turnout on our side to win, its just that the oppositions suppression and vote tampering plans worked, and of course (in my view) the corporate media suppressed the truth about the magnitude of vote suppression and vote tampering by the GOP.

I agree with you about the lack of movement from one side to the other and therefore your conclusion that we lose by not focusing on our constituency and our issues, and we lose when we try to make our message one size fits all (we end up standing for nothing and end up earning universal contempt and lose anyway).

by leschwartz on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 04:12:19 PM EST

2 Key Media Events: Hurricane & Osama tape (none / 0)

The election was so close any of 10 different tactical changes  or events could have swung it the other way.

But the two biggies, IMO, which I rarely see discussed in the blogosphere, are the FL hurricane and the Osama tape.   Both redounded to Bush's benefit.  

by Andmoreagain on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 04:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vanishing swing voter (none / 0)

I haven't read everyone else's comments to this post or the first one, so maybe someone has already said this. But I believe there is a simple answer, and it's based on elementary psychology.

Swing voters (the ones the challenger hopes to grab) are people who have trouble making decisions -- afraid, confused, need more data, whatever.

For this type of person, when forced to make a decision, the easiest and safest decision to make is no decision: to stay with the status quo. When fear is added to the equation, then this is even more true. Bush was the "status quo."

Some observers were expecting that last-minute deciders tend to fall to the challenger. Not true this election. The swing voters were gripped by fear.

by Libby Sosume on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 04:28:46 PM EST

Re: Vanishing swing voter (none / 0)

There are three types of swing voters.

  1.  Ignorant as you have decribed

  2.  Not ideologically served by either party.  A conservative athiest or a liberal christian may find that their ideology is not split between the two parties and will split their vote accordingly.

  3.  Too lazy to get up and vote.

by donkeykong on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kowalski is right ... (none / 0)

... the key is turnout.  Not just in contested states, but in all 50 states.  Why?  More voters actually turning out to vote creates a mighty buzz throughout the country, given the links people in all states have with each other.  And buzz creates excitement which creates momentum which creates a desire to be on the winning side which in turn gets more voters out...  To win, get more people to vote for your party.  Simple arithmetic.  Dean's concentration on fighting every square inch and for every electable office, is predicated on this, and should succeed in 2006 and 2008.  A Democratic tsunami of votes ...

But, also, you need a candidate who excites voters.  Bush excited Republicans.  Kerry bored the hell out of everyone.  No contest....

by CuriosityKilledTheCat on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:06:42 PM EST

Re: Kowalski is right ... (none / 0)

Bush almost certainly excited more Democrats to vote against him than Kerry excited to vote for him.
by wayward on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The more I read post election commentary (3.00 / 0)

the more excited I get for 2008.  One thing seems abundantly clear to me.  GW for reasons most of us who dwell on this side of the blogosphere don't understand has "TREMENDOUS" appeal.  I don't think that appeal is transferable to a Bill Frist or a Rudy Giuliani or any others you can think of.  You might say McCain, but McCain can't get his party's nomination, at least I don't think so.  He's not Republican enough for them.  Take it further.  The next Republican nominee won't be able to get away with the malapropisms and sheer stupidity that old Chauncey does.  There is just something about him.  It's beyond Teflon.  I know this comment lacks the intellectual punch of the others here, but this is pure politics.  The masses aren't going to respond to the next preznit the Republicans put forth.  Please consider that.
by fred on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:59:35 PM EST

Re: The more I read post election commentary (3.00 / 0)

Bush oversimplifies everything to a sound bite.

The public, to a large degree, likes that. They consider it being "straightforward" even if what he says is wildly untrue.

by wayward on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The more I read post election commentary (3.00 / 0)

Nothing Bush says is wildly untrue.

They spend a lot of attention to make sure the things he says are only slightly untrue.

The trees are only slightly untrue.  It is the forest that is wildly untrue.

by donkeykong on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The more I read post election commentary (none / 0)

Good point.

by wayward on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:37:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another interpretation (none / 0)

But another interpretation is that George Bush really doesn't have something. What he has is the fortune to be a wartime President following the most devastating attack on the American Mainland in the lives of all living Americans. Added to his wartime status is a media machine the likes of which the world has never known.

Under this interpretation, it's quite possible that you could have been elected if you were the Republican nominee and followed the script well.

In that case, even a wallflower like Frist will get elected regardless of his personal failings because he is playing for the strongest team.

This is certainly cynical and is no doubt an exaggeration. Nevertheless we had better build an equally powerful message machine ourselves lest we see a repeat in 2008.

by Curt Matlock on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (3.00 / 0)

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000.  Simple as that.  As far as the popular campaigning goes, Gore won.  So its not like he was overly appealing, like Clinton was.  I think its clear that the American people bonded with Bush like they have done with few other sitting presidents since FDR.  In the end, anyone who was voting with their gut, went with Bush.  It won't be that way in '08.
by descrates on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Conclusion Jumping ? (none / 0)

I think perhaps there may be some conclusion jumping going on here, because of a few things not considered in the 2004 election.

Bush/Rove had a clear base turnout strategy, and they did it in most of the states, much of it done through church organizations. So a lot of the higher Rep turnout is seen in the already red states.

Whereas, Kerry decided to go for the 18 "swing state" strategy, leaving Dem bastions unmotivated, such as CA, and the northeast, and especially red states. Kerry could have perceivably gotten much higher turnout if he had energized the base in these states, but the results would still have been the same, at the presidential level.

Energizing the base is crucial for the down ticket races, and hence why a 50 state plan is depserately needed, BUT, at the endof the day, we still have 3 tasks to accomplish

  1. Maintain and increase in the blue states.
  2. Begin the drive ot being more competitive in the red states
  3. Win the swing states.

I Don't think you can create a policy shopping list to accomplish this, I think It needs ot be done from the local/state level chaning the stereotype of Democrats, and having a meaningful message nationally to wrap it all under one blanket

It is also VERY apparent that the GOP isnt the GOP of yesteryear, it is transforming radically, and becoming more radical. Bush won't be the issue in 2008, but we need to tar and feather as many Republicans with the same extremist brush, so we can then campaign as reformers agaisnt corrupt outside of the mainstream republicans.

Economics I think is an easy argument for us to win, so i wont elaborate too much on that here and now.

Values, I think we need ot start highlighting how the right are simply pandering to the fundies, and not actually delivering what they promised, and tie that in with all the apparent hypocracy.

Finally, National Security is a tough one to deal with, because i believe you can only seriously address this once in power through actions. simply higlhighting the Republican defficiency isnt enough, especially absent a further domestic attack.

The data sets you present don't surprise me, as the parties start to diverge so much on ideology, it is bound to shrink the center and make the choices far more stark. It does suggest that multimillion dollar AD campaigns might not be a good return, and that spending more money locally is a better solution.

It also suggests we have to get far more aggressive and partisan to make those party distinctions even more stark, again by attacking the rights extremism, and profering our populism.

by Pounder on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:21:27 PM EST

Maybe (none / 0)

But I have a hard time believing that Kerry could have done anything else to excite the base in these states.   What made Democrats turn out was a unified hatred of Bush, and that would then suggest that red state dems were about as motivated as blue state dems.  Kerry just wasn't a strong enough candidate to get dems to the polls who didn't despise Bush, and that is probably what it comes down to.  In '08, we really need someone that can get the base excited as a whole and who can reach out to all of our constituent factions.  

Bill Richardson?

by descrates on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I do believe the middle has shrunk (none / 0)

However, I'm not so sure it only contains the  4.7% that considered changing their minds during the election campaign.  As the campaign shifts into high gear, people start to become more and more polarized, and the parties begin to become more definite in expressing their stances on the issues.  Therefore, there is more or less a clearer choice.   Many who were in doubt, no longer need to be.  It is the intervening time from campaign to campaign that is best suited for changing people's minds, and the pool of potentially pursuadable voters prior to a campaign is probably considerably larger.  Unfortunately, since about 30-35% of the population consider themselves conservative, and about 20% if we're lucky consider themselves liberal.  That means in the end the pool of pursuadables through the off time probably leans toward the Republicans.  

Our only real option, then, is to grow liberalism.  Since we can almost always pull parity with the Republicans, that probably means an increase in liberal ID would mean our pool persuadable voters would be substancially larger and decisive.

by descrates on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:42:48 PM EST

Disagree partially (none / 0)

I agree, thar both political parties became more and more ideologically "pure" in the last 30 years. As i wrote many times - no more really conservative Democrats in Congress (those, which are called "conservative", are, really, very moderate) and no more really liberal Republicans (even more so, then among Democrats).

But i vehemently disagree that the "middle" is vanishing. On the contrary - it's enormous part of the electorate (at least - potentially). You are correct when you note their unwillingness to go to the polls - but what you expect??. When i am offered a choice of 2 candidates, one of which is so liberal and another is so conservative, that i want to cough - what wll i do?? Exactly - i will not vote  at all.. That's what most moderates do. Some others "hold their nose" and vote for "lesser evil". Will the situation improve if both parties will become even more ideologically motivated?? Unlikely. But, sure, American politics will become boring.. Yawn.....

by smmsmm on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:35:20 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.