Poll Cites GOP Gains Since 9/11

The Washington Post ^ | May 11, 2005 | Dan Balz

[neverdem]

But Party's Internal Divisions Are Called an Obstacle

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, helped redraw the political landscape in America, giving President Bush and the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. But Republicans may have difficulty consolidating the gains because of divisions within their expanded coalition.

The survey underscored how important the issues of terrorism and national security and Bush's personal appeal were in helping the GOP put together a winning coalition of voters in 2004. The findings suggest that Bush's reelection depended not just on motivating the Republican base but also on his success in attracting swing voters and even some Democrats.

Both parties enjoy strong support among their core voters, but the Pew study concluded that Republicans have done a more effective job in attracting support among voters with less allegiance to either party. Bush's campaign attracted support in the middle from well-educated, upbeat voters as well as those who are more down-scale and pessimistic about their own situation.

"In effect, Republicans have succeeded in attracting two types of swing voters who could not be more different," the study reports. "The common threads are a highly favorable opinion of President Bush personally and support for an aggressive military stance against potential enemies of the U.S."

Foreign policy issues now provide the clearest distinction between Republican- and Democratic-leaning voters, with Republicans favoring assertive policies and military action and Democrats calling for diplomacy and multilateral strategies. Before the Sept. 11 attacks, foreign policy differences played a minimal role in distinguishing the party coalitions.

One other important difference defines the Democratic- and Republican-leaning voters. Those who tilt to the GOP are more personally optimistic and believe in the power of the individual, regardless...

[Osage Orange]

And that will probably set us back another 20 years, because the third party will take more Conservatives than liberals and split the conservative block while doing very little damage to the liberals. This would be terrible strategic blunder. It takes a LONG time to build a party.

AGREED!!!

Nobody talks about the Reform Party anymore.....but IMO....it caused 8 years of Bill Clinton..and maybe now more importantly/infamously launched Hillary's political career.

We don't need another political party going into '08. No way, no how!

FRegards,

[libertarianben]

So we get more of the same. Big government Republicans and Bigger Government Democrats.

[libertarianben]

I'll rather bomb the boat. Either one taking us to the same location.

[Betaille]

Excellent study, but I take issue with being called a "pro-government conservative". They need to elaborate what they mean by that. I fit into that demographic group but am anything but pro-government.

[Osage Orange]

So we get more of the same. Big government Republicans and Bigger Government Democrats.

I feel your pain, brother. I do...

I'm miffed off pretty much continually at the ineptness of the GOP. I just don't want to see history repeat itself. In 1996 I heard and watched alot of people run to the Reform Party...and what did that get us? Not only that....but the Reform Party was/is DOA. A one hit wonder.

And, with all due respect, the Libertarian Party isn't the answer for millions of Pubbies that want to defect....but cannot go to the Libertarian Party for fundamental reasons. I think you realize that.

I dunno what the answer is for sure.....but IMHO it's not a 3rd party.

FWIW...and FRegards,

[Betaille]

"I dunno what the answer is for sure.....but IMHO it's not a 3rd party."
The problem is... in the American system a third party simply splits the right-wing vote and leaves the more unified left to win big. The solution is to work within the GOP, or possibly even the Democratic party to start making some changes.

[Osage Orange]

The solution is to work within the GOP, or possibly even the Democratic party to start making some changes.

That's what most people say...........and have been saying.

Sigh.........

[winner3000]

The challenge for the GOP is to do something about immigration without alienating the huge and growing hispanic population.

[CharlesWayneCT]

It's always funny to me when people say "a shift of 60,000 votes", as if 60,000 coin tosses could have come up tails instead of heads.

Voting doesn't work like that. 60,000 people didn't decide to vote first, then show up at the polls and flip a coin to decide who to vote for.

In order for Kerry to win Ohio, 60,000 bush voters would have to decide to stay home, and 60,000 people who stayed home would have to decide to vote for Kerry.

BTW, have you noticed that not a single MSM article has ever brought up the thought that if Ohio had swung the other way, Kerry would be "illigitimate" because he lost the popular vote by over 3 million.

[Betaille]

Don't get me wrong, if you really feel that the 2 major parties are equally problematic, vote Libertarian. I still feel however that the Democrats are far worse at this point in history and choose to work within the Republican party to try to bring it right economically.

[neverdem]

Excellent study, but I take issue with being called a "pro-government conservative". They need to elaborate what they mean by that. I fit into that demographic group but am anything but pro-government.

The 2005 study also buttresses the finding in 1999 that the Republican Party's base is now divided into three core subgroups. In both 1987 and 1994 the predominant divisions on the right were between two ideological clusters, Enterprisers and Moralists, defined by the relative emphasis each placed on conservative economic and social values. The 1999 study found, and the 2005 analysis confirms, the development of a critical third element of the Republican base ­ a group we refer to as Pro-Government Conservatives. While this group agrees fully with the religious values of Social Conservatives, and the assertive foreign stance of both of the other Republican groups, its members are predominantly lower income and struggling financially. Perhaps as a result, they favor greater government action in assisting the poor and in regulating business to improve the environment, as well as to protect morality.

[Elsiejay]

Can anyone substantiate the (seemingly) revealed truth that "Hispanics," themselves to a large degree multi-ethnic at the micro level, are in favor of unlimited legal immigration or unrestrained illegal immigration, or having their children schooled in the Spanish language even unto the third or fourth U. S. born generation? I believe, quote to the contrary, that there is much support among our fellow-citizens of Hispanic ancestry for stringent immigration controls and for elementary education in only the English language.

[Elsiejay]

Can anyone substantiate the (seemingly) revealed truth that "Hispanics," themselves to a large degree multi-ethnic at the micro level, are in favor of unlimited legal immigration or unrestrained illegal immigration, or having their children schooled in the Spanish language even unto the third or fourth U. S. born generation? I believe, quote to the contrary, that there is much support among our fellow-citizens of Hispanic ancestry for stringent immigration controls and for elementary education in only the English language.

[madprof98]

I'm sorry the ending of that one sentence had to be cut:

. . . while those inclined toward the Democrats are more negative or even fatalistic in their attitudes about the future.

That's the Democrats, right there.

[libertarianben]

Do remember the Republicans were once a third party. It's either changing the direction of one of the existing major parties or it's jumping off the boat to another one. I decided to jump until one of them changes for the better.

[libertarianben]

I don't understand how the same people who talk about choice in schools, taxes, etc, can then say we should only have to choose between two parties. Two parties who care more about getting power than doing something when they get there. The could lose votes if they do that, ya know. If you keep voting for someone or their party, they're going to think they're doing a fine job. So why should they change? They need a kick in the a**. Sometimes you have to take a few steps back to move forward, if you know what I mean.

[libertarianben]

Then explain Ralph Nader.

[Aetius]

You're right of course, and the 60,000 number would be trumpeted as you explain it if the results in Ohio had been reversed.

I brought it up mainly in order to point out how if that interpretation of Ohio is correct, then the same logic must also be applied to those blue states Kerry narrowly won.

As to the popular vote -- you're right again, something tells me that we wouldn't have heard much about the popular vote and the need to scrap the electoral college had Ohio gone blue.

[Osage Orange]

Don't get me wrong, if you really feel that the 2 major parties are equally problematic, vote Libertarian. I still feel however that the Democrats are far worse at this point in history and choose to work within the Republican party to try to bring it right economically.

Please go back and read my posts in context.....

Thanks...& FRegards,

[Osage Orange]

Do remember the Republicans were once a third party. It's either changing the direction of one of the existing major parties or it's jumping off the boat to another one. I decided to jump until one of them changes for the better.

I understand....

FRegards,