Posted on 09/20/2004 1:54:14 PM PDT by RWR8189
WHERE HAVE ALL the swing voters gone? The conventional answer is that the nation has become politically polarized and swing voters have taken sides. There's some truth in this, but there's a better explanation. In disproportionate numbers, swing voters have become Republicans over the past three decades. And though the trend accelerated after the 2000 election and 9/11 terrorist attacks, it's scarcely been mentioned in the 2004 presidential race. But it's playing an enormously important role this year. It gives President Bush political options John Kerry doesn't have. And it makes Bush's reelection more likely.
The new Republican strength means Bush can rely heavily on his base, especially since Republicans are lopsidedly in favor of his reelection. Kerry can't depend as much on his base because Democratic voters are less solidly behind him. Bush can appeal to his base without alienating what's left of swing voters. He manages this by stressing a positive message. But the Democratic base is far more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, so Kerry must nurture it with vehement attacks on the president. The problem is that swing voters tend to be attracted by positive appeals, not negative assaults.
The shift in swing voters to the Republican party appears in poll after poll. Postelection surveys in 1988 showed 42 percent of voters identified themselves as Republicans or Republican leaners. By 2002, Republican ID had risen to 48.5 percent, as independents dropped from 16 percent to 7 percent. Democratic ID, by the way, also rose, but by a smaller amount--from 42 percent to 45.5 percent. ABC News poll numbers show Republicans plus leaners increasing from 37 percent in 1981 to 43 percent in 2003, as Democrats fell from 50 percent to 46 percent. However, independents decreased only from 9 percent to 8 percent. Why didn't independents decline more? Republican strategists argue--credibly, I think--there's often a two-step transition in party-switching. Democrats become independents, as independents (including many former Democrats) become Republicans.
Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, says he doesn't know if swing voters are drifting to the Republican party. But Gallup numbers certainly suggest it. Among registered voters, the percentage saying they'd consider voting for someone besides their preferred candidate plummeted from 62 percent in June 1992 all the way to 18 percent in June 2004. During this period, Gallup found Republican ID had risen in 41 states, from a jump of 13 percentage points in Missouri to one percentage point in Iowa. Democratic ID rose in only 6 states.
Both Gallup and the Pew Center have found the number of solid Republican states growing, a phenomenon that wouldn't occur unless swing voters were moving. Gallup listed 7 Republican states in 1993, 20 in 2003. "Swing states tilted nearly as Democratic as the Blue (Gore) states in the late 1990s," Pew said in a report last November. "Even after the 2000 election, Democrats maintained a 36 percent to 31 percent advantage over Republicans in these states. But after 9/11, this gap closed. Swing states now divide evenly: 33 percent Democratic, 33 percent Republican." I think it's safe to say that if swing states are trending Republican, swing voters are too.
Given the trend, it's clear why Bush and Vice President Cheney have spent so much time campaigning in overwhelmingly Republican areas. The aim is to maximize Republican turnout now that it constitutes a bigger and more important share of the electorate. Over the summer, Bush visited the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, a region he won in 2000 and wants to win by a larger margin in 2004. It was the first presidential trip to the Upper Peninsula since William Howard Taft visited in 1911. Bush and Cheney often campaign in rural areas, many of which are newly Republican. Strategists like Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman believe Republican majorities in numerous states--Missouri, for instance--have been achieved by adding rural swing voters to suburban and exurban voters who were already Republicans.
Some doubt whether swing voters are the primary source of Republican gains. But there's no dispute over why the party has advanced: Democratic presidents, liberal Democratic candidates, President Reagan, and 9/11. The Republican base grew after 1968, shrunk as a result of Watergate, then surged during Jimmy Carter's presidency. Democrats led in party identification by 51 percent to 21 percent in 1977. "But with Ronald Reagan in office, the parties drew nearly even by the end of the 1980s," the Pew report said.
In 1994, a troubled Bill Clinton presidency led to a Republican landslide in which the party captured both houses of Congress and a majority of governorships. Republican ID slipped in the late 1990s to 28 percent (Democrats got 33 percent). "The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and Bush's response to the attacks, marked a major turning point in party identification," according to Pew. The shift to Republicans had been broadly spread among demographic groups and includes millions of voters whose first experience in politics was a positive one in the Reagan years.
The lesson for Republicans--and Democrats, for that matter--in this new era is never, ever ignore your base. To run a smart national campaign, a Republican adviser says, "you must at all times be trying to appeal to your base." As you might expect, Bush operatives are obsessed with this lesson, so much so they're now concentrating on "convenience voters." Never heard of them? They're Republicans or leaners who might skip voting on November 2 because of their jobs or other distractions. There's no way of knowing exactly who they are, but my guess is many of these folks were once identified as swing voters.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
PING!
See ... it works!
bump to read at home
Drag your "convenience voter" friends and neighbors to the polls by their ears, if necessary.
ping
ping
This is a trend that is obvious to all honest people in the media, politics, or academia. However, liberals in media, politics, and academia are not honest, so you will never here this in those arenas.
I just love that recent book by a liberal who after the 1998 election wrote a book proclaiming "The New Democrat Majority" - yet somehow managed to exclude recent election results, decreased democrat registration, and increased GOP party registfor the past 20 years in the book.
Swingers becoming right wingers. Makes my day.
I think we're about to find out if this is true this election. Certainly the 2002 elections give indication of this, but the seal must be a Presidential election to legitimize it.
If this is true and more are identifying with the Republican Party, it could help explain the polls this past year if the polsters are operating on old models. I've been dismissing the oddity of the polls as bias, it could be more simplistic.
If G.W. wins in larger number than expected, the 2006 and 2008 elections will be heavily watched to determine if this trend is lasting or short term.
The democratic elite, never ones to investigate, and always ones to believe they are typical of the right thinking, have always believed that christians are Republicans.
The solidly protestant Christain south moved from the solid Democratic South to the solidly Republican south in a generation. What the Democrats do not undestand is the christian north is just in the process of transitioning from the Democratic to the Republican party.
I see it all over Southern Ohio. This year for the first time Christian radio is openly pushing for President Bush to be relected. Day in and day out on several radio stations here in Ohio evangelical christains are urged to register and vote for the only Christian in the presidential race. The abortion, and gay agenda issues are driving former democrats into the republican ranks.
The transistion is taking place much as it did 25 years ago in the south. First they vote for Republican presidents.. then senators and house reps.. When they start voting for Republicans for local office the transistion is complete.
It does not matter what Kerry campaigns on. If the democratic party remains pro abortion and pro gay rights, they will soon be a minority party as much in the minority as democrats were in the first 30 years of the last century.
The democrats will be in the minority as much as the Republicans were in the second 3 yars of the last century.
I have talked to many elite Democrats. They just don't understand. they are trading teh support of the students parents for the support of their teachers.
With the best teacher student ratio 17 to 1 it is a lousy trade. Organizations like the teachers union can supply lots of money. But money to a political movement only has value in getting votes. If a party has the votes there is no need for the money.
The Democrats and John Kerry are in for a surprise on election day.
The good news is the Democrat leadership will not learn. They will blame the loss on Kerry not on the agenda the Democrats are promoting.
It may take a loss by hillary in 2008 to convince the Democrats they are going down the wrong road.
I remember an NBC News Special shortly after Carter's inauguration titled something along the lines of, The Demise of the Republican Party. I don't recall the reporters who contributed to the piece, but I do recall some seemed to be cheerleading this so-called demise in their reporting.
Thankyavurrymuch, Ross Perot. We would have had Capitol Hill *and* the White House 10 years ago if it wasn't for your antics.
Ping
It is said that Karl Rove stated (paraphrasing) a liberal Mass. Senator as an opposition candidate would be too good to be true' before the Dem. primary.
A Hillary would be WAY too good to be true in 2008 - she has too much baggage, and would be an extremely divisive candidate. Plus, her shrillness would be an even worse stump candidate than The Fraud.
And boy oh boy, would she energize the Republican base!
More proof that Zogby is a moron for forcing his polls to 39D-35R.
Well, this may be so, but in Long Term we are in trouble. The migration into South from Mexico is gradually putting all of the deep South States into battle-ground category. CA is totally lost. NM is on the verge of being permanently lost. NV is will be in our column maybe for one or two election cycles. AZ would be next.
This is causing the locals in those state to move further North. That is causing the Pacific North-West to become more Conservative, and that is why Oregon and Washington are becoming battle ground states.
However, at least as far as what I can see, we are losing ground much faster than what we may be gaining.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Nicely put, and my take as well. Kerry's attempt to incorporate both veterans and anti-war activists into a single base has given him only those vets who were anti-war activists, always a small minority, and has greatly energized those vets who felt short-changed by the anti-war partisans. If he starts pounding the anti-Iraq-war drum too loudly he'll please his base and drive away the undecided, and that appears to be exactly what he's doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.