New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | November 8, 2004

John Hood rebukes the liberal election spinners, saying Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

Comments

|11.8.04 @ 6:27PM|#

Pardon, but you've linked Julian's article here, not Hood's.
Thought you'd like to know.

Tim Cavanaugh|11.8.04 @ 6:47PM|#

D'oh! Fixed. Thanks.

|11.8.04 @ 7:08PM|#

I haven't been terribly convinced by arguments that the anti-gay marriage initiatives and the increased religious/"traditional" morality vote that brought out gave W the election, but I'm also not convinced by Hood that it's not true.

For one thing, he only shows exit polling on religion results for Ohio, even though there were 11 initiatives up. Ohio was obviously the most important, but the election was close enough that some combination of the other states could have made the difference too (at least the ones that were close; not, say, Utah or Montana, for example).

Second, as Hood points out, gay marriage wasn't an issue in 2000. So even if the same number of religious people (or even fewer, in Ohio) voted this time, the ones that did could still have been motivated enough by the issue to result in a significant swing for Bush. This isn't exactly the same as saying they got more religious people to vote, but if they got more religious people to vote in their favor specifically because of this issue, in practice I think it's not much different. Hood says Bush got a higher percentage of the religious vote in Ohio this time, but he doesn't say by how much.

Also, it's hard for me to imagine too many people interpreted "moral issues" as "wars for oil," especially when Iraq was also an option (same goes for the environment and other issues many might consider moral but which had their own option). My guess is that just about everyone knows "moral issues" means gay marriage, abortion, and stem cells (plus a few other related things), with gay marriage being the biggest of those this year (at least my impression).

Finally, I think Hood raises an interesting point when he discusses possible problems equating church-going with cultural conservatism, and the fact that more voters self-identified as conservative this time. I think this is completely consistent with an increase in turnout because of the gay marriage issue (not proof, of course, but consistent). I can easily imagine a type of person who doesn't attend church but who would be strongly opposed to gay marriage. In fact, I have known quite a few such people; and I've known more non-churchgoers than church-goers when it comes to people opposed to gay marriage. That obviously to a large extent reflects my own personal experiences, but I certainly think a lot of folks like that are out there.

Well, that was certainly a long (and fascinating!) post. I guess the upshot is that this question seems very difficult to answer, and I haven't seen an answer one way or the other I found to be very conclusive.

|11.8.04 @ 8:35PM|#

David Brooks had an article saying much the same thing in the New York Times on Saturday. Yet the myth lives on.

It's obvious that it's much easier to liberals to admit that they lost for insufficiently hating gays than to admit that the majority of the public prefers Republican foreign or domestic policy. They could at least say that their message was good but their messenger sucked. But nope -- instead blame the voters for being rednecks. Sounds like a winning plan for the future.

Abiola Lapite|11.8.04 @ 9:18PM|#

Doesn't it occur to this writer that people lie about what they're voting for, and why they're doing so? It's hardly as if most of us don't know what the "right" answer to questions on tolerance for gay civil unions and marriage are supposed to be. Given the size of the gap that can exist between expressed opinions and actual voting intentions, I'd say that exit polls indicating large numbers in favor of either need to be taken with a satchel or two of salt.

Abiola Lapite|11.8.04 @ 9:23PM|#

"But nope -- instead blame the voters for being rednecks."

It may not be politically wise (actually it isn't in the least bit so), but that doesn't mean it isn't true. It strains credibility to doubt, for instance, that the great southern shift to the GOP in the late 1960s had nothing at all to do with racial attitudes in the region.

My own honest opinion is that while I doubt that gay marriage was the single issue that drove Bush over the top, those who think it was too minor to care about are simply fooling themselves. A far larger number of Americans harbor homophobic attitudes than would ever step foot in a Church outside of festive occasions, so pointing at surveys of religious observance tells us nothing about the extent to which it was a factor in the election.

|11.8.04 @ 9:46PM|#

John Hood is absolutely right on this.
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times got this lynchmob hysteria started which explains why David Brooks of the NYT refuted him.
There was a similar refutation in today's Wall St Journal and the Cincinnati Enquirer.

If Kristof were as well-know as Rather, this would be Kristofgate.

|11.8.04 @ 10:00PM|#

Well then, it's a good thing Bush hasn't take this misinterpreted data as a mandate to resurrect the constitutionL amendment to protect straight marriage! Oh. Never mind.
http://tinyurl.com/6ky7o

|11.8.04 @ 10:56PM|#

I think Hood is right. Bush won this election, narrowly, on the preference for an incumbent during a time of emergency. 3.1%, while 120,000 troops are in the field.

No doubt the Bush campaign rang the homophobe bell in Ohio and elsewhere, and no doubt homophobes went overwhelmingly Republican. But, as Hood says, the salience of foreign affairs accounts for all of Bush's improvement, and then some.

The preening and strutting and casual use of the word "mandate" by the Bush spinners is an effort to put a brave face on the fact that this election was way too close for comfort. Real Americans aren't supposed to almost get beat by Massachusetts liberals.

Ray|11.8.04 @ 11:03PM|#

Have any of you really read David Brooks much? He's constantly trying to put Americans into boxes. Then, when it's not convenient, or it makes his politics sound embarassing, it's "We're not that different, after all, forget the boxes." Brooks's column is almost pure spin.

|11.8.04 @ 11:18PM|#

Very interesting. But concerning this part...

John Hood:

In 2004, a combined 34 percent identified foreign policy (either Iraq or the war on terrorism) as the most important, and they appear to have broken for Bush by 59 percent to 40 percent.

But this statistic tells only part of the story. Separating how voters felt about the "War on Terror" and the war in Iraq is more revealing.

From MSNBC Exit poll - President:

"Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?" (Other choices were jobs, taxes, moral values, etc.)

Category % Total Kerry Bush Nader
Iraq..........15............73........ 26........0
Terrorism19...........14..........86........0

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/

This poll gives evidence that the voters delineated between the Iraq war and terrorism, and also that Kerry might have won if he would have actually called for bringing our troops home from this "wrong war" by some date or dates. He never closed the deal. It's not hard to imagine the prospects of our troops coming home at least changing enough votes in Ohio, not to mention energizing Kerry's campaign nationwide. Also, plenty of voters, no doubt, made the Iraq war their #2 issue.

Of course, a Kerry victory would have wrecked all the good things that appear to be on the horizon for Social Security. In his acceptance speech, Bush said that we need to get the Iraqis thru their election in Jan. so we can bring our troops home. If that happens, and also the neocons don't prevail on the him to start yet another elective war with Iran, I will be pleased that my vote for Badnarik here in Colorado didn't cause Bush to lose the election to Kerry. I also hope that the GOP congress will enforce some spending restraint on Bush. The evidence is that the prospects for this are better than with the Dems in control of congress. Democratic members of congress tend to vote for far more spending then do their GOP counterparts:

http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/

|11.8.04 @ 11:53PM|#

Its worth noting that no president has lost a second term during war -- FDR, Nixon, Raygun, Loncoln etc. -- looking at how much the candidate running against war presidents usually lose by, this was very close indeed. And a lot of people are bloody morons, that didn't help either.

|11.9.04 @ 12:51AM|#

Its worth noting that no president has lost a second term during war -- FDR, Nixon, Raygun, Loncoln etc

It would probably help your argument if you knew how to spell Reagan and Lincoln's names. You're also ignoring the fact that Truman and Johnson refused to even *run* a second time because their wartime approval ratings were catastrophically low. So while it may be true that no wartime president has ever lost reelection, its only true because the unpopular ones didn't try for it.

|11.9.04 @ 1:51AM|#

Dan,

One assumes that he was purposefully misspelling their names; quit being wilfully obtuse.

|11.9.04 @ 2:02AM|#

Hey, did anyone else notice that Kerry is Catholic?
How many Catholic presidents have we elected so far?
(Oh yeah: that would be "one." And, uh...does anyone else remember what happened to that one Catholic president?)
Just, y'know, wondering why NONE of the pundits on EITHER side have mentioned this, not even in passing....

|11.9.04 @ 2:25AM|#

joe-

I don't think that the talk of a mandate is solely spinning by the Bush camp. I think it's also a function of warped perspective in light of election 2000. Whatever one might think of what happened in 2000, I think we could agree that it was, um, messy. This one was much less messy, and hence even some of my friends who preferred Kerry are nonetheless relieved by the outcome.

Also, an electoral vote margin of 34 might not be a landslide by historical standards, but compared with the 4 vote margin in 2000 it seems pretty solid. Finally, winning the popular vote 52-47 might not seem like a huge margin by historical standards for wartime Presidents, but it's certainly more vindication than a narrow loss in the popular vote. (And before somebody points out that the popular vote doesn't matter under the Constitution, I'm well aware of that. It still matters when people are judging whether the victory was an overwhelming mandate or a narrow squeaker.)

So I wouldn't blame the "mandate" talk entirely on spinmeisters. Comparisons with the previous election also play a part.

|11.9.04 @ 4:15AM|#

There's no objective standard for "mandate" that I'm aware of, but all Presidents have governed as if they had one.

In any event, I think thoreau's right. Bush gained in the popular vote from 2000 to 2004. It's probably reasonable to consider that evidence that, on average, people have approved of what he's done. Either that, or they more strongly disapprove of Democrats.

Or both, I guess.

|11.9.04 @ 9:04AM|#

Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

I believe that might just be the most hard sentence in my life I have ever had to read.

|11.9.04 @ 9:12AM|#

You might be on to something, thoreau. Neither of the two elections prior to 2000 produced an electoral majority, making this squeaker not just more decisive than last time, but actually the most decisive victory in 16 years.

Soft bigotry of low expectations? I retort, you deride.

|11.9.04 @ 9:19AM|#

Dan,

Bush also "gained" in votes opposing him as well. Bush is only second to his father in the number of votes recorded against him. Anyway, there are number of ways to spin it.

thoreau,

I thought that it was 51-48?

http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults

|11.9.04 @ 9:38AM|#

"Bush also "gained" in votes opposing him as well."

The fact that Kerry got more votes than any other loser in US history has as little meaning as the fact that Bush got more votes than any other winner in US history; it's just, as you say, spin. The most relevant numbers in the popular vote are the percentages, and Bush went from losing by half a percent to winning by over three percent. Whatever the causes (like I said above, I'm not convinced that gay marriage was a critical factor), that seems like a pretty meaningful shift. Based on Bush's job approval numbers running up to the election, maybe that reflects more poorly on Kerry and the dems than it does well on him.

|11.9.04 @ 9:54AM|#

J,

But I could counter that he has most anemic re-election numbers of any President who sat for re-election in wartime. Anyway, what is important for the Bush administration is that they control the levers of power. We'll see what they do with it, but I am skeptical that they'll do anything of merit besides cutting taxes.

|11.9.04 @ 10:04AM|#

Since they will be running large deficits, they aren't cutting taxes so much as letting you pay them with your Visa card.

|11.9.04 @ 10:17AM|#

More like paying with your kid's Visa card.

|11.9.04 @ 10:18AM|#

joe,

Well, the argument is that tax cuts will increase tax revenues as businesses prosper under a low tax regime and thus create more and more taxable income. I don't doubt the veracity of this claim. The problem is that with bulge in spending we are seeing, one will never create enough revenues to catch up with it. So yes, lower taxes are good, but so is lower spending; one without the other defeats at least one of the purposes of lowering taxes (cutting the size of government).

Justin Raimondo|11.9.04 @ 10:19AM|#

John Hood praising war and Bush in "Reason" -- a marriage made in heaven.

|11.9.04 @ 10:30AM|#

Uh oh, Justin Raimondo is getting his freak on.

|11.9.04 @ 10:46AM|#

thoreau-

You have made mention of computer modeling to analyze voting strategy. I've been kicking around the notion of modeling our executive and legislative structure to see if there is a natural evolution toward our two party monopoly. All this talk of what decided the election seems a bit strange to me. A few percent is hardly what I would call a victory. It seems the republicans and democrates have honed their platform/rhetoric in such a way to split the middle by the slimest margins. Even now there is talk in the democratic ranks to shift their message to a more religious tone. A move that would further blur the distinction between the nearly homogeneous parties.

|11.9.04 @ 11:38AM|#

McClain,
Right you are.
There was a Catholic even archbishops loved to hate.
Why should Protestants disagree?

|11.9.04 @ 11:54AM|#

pigwiggle-

Google for the phrase "Duverger's Law." Then try "median voter theorem." Both of these go a long way toward explaining our current system. My interest has been in what would happen with more sophisticated voting methods like Approval Voting or Instant Runoff.

Oh, I should emphasize that work has been done to expose the limits on when you can actually apply the Median Voter Theorem. Since not voting is an option, as well as voting third party, going to the center is not always optimal if it causes supporters to abandon you in favor of staying home or voting third party.

In any case, a lot has been done on understanding our current system mathematically. My interest is in more sophisticated systems. To get a feel for the greater range of systems out there, start by googling "Approval Voting" and "Instant Runoff Voting." Also look for "Arrow's Theorem" and "Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem."

|11.9.04 @ 12:15PM|#

Good information, thanks.

David Nieporent|11.9.04 @ 1:38PM|#

McClain, in 1960 there was criticism of JFK from people who worried he might be too Catholic. In 2004, there was criticism of JFK from people who worried he might be not Catholic enough. It's hard to imagine that any anti-Catholic vote played any role here.

Rick: But this statistic tells only part of the story. Separating how voters felt about the "War on Terror" and the war in Iraq is more revealing.

It's only "more revealing" if it's accurate to do that. If voters felt that Iraq *is* the War on Terror -- and some of us do -- then forcing poll respondents to choose between them confuses the issue rather than revealing anything. It makes no sense to ask me whether I consider Iraq or the War on Terror more important. It would be like asking me whether I consider deregulation or smaller government more important. For some voters, asking them to choose makes sense, but for others, it doesn't.

|11.9.04 @ 3:18PM|#

David,

The fact that voters who thought that Iraq was the most important issue overwhelmingly voted for Kerry while voters who chose terrorism overwhelmingly voted for Bush is evidence that they do not feel that Iraq and the "War on Terror" are the same.

John Hood|11.9.04 @ 4:25PM|#

No, Rick, respectfully.

What it means is that voters who oppose the Iraq War don't think it is related to the war on terrorism while those who favor the Iraq War think it is related. The latter group outnumbered the former, which is (in my view) mainly why Bush was reelected.

|11.9.04 @ 10:01PM|#

John,

We need to see a poll that asked that direct question. I'm sure there have been some. Another reason that I think that Kerry might have won if he had called for a pull out by a certain date is that when the campaign and debates focused on Iraq, Kerry seemed to do better in the polls.

|11.9.04 @ 11:49PM|#

What if we counted all the non votes as NONE OF THE ABOVE* and you had to get a majority of all the possible votes?

That is a system that a libertarian could learn to love.

*if None wins the office goes vacant for the term.

|11.10.04 @ 3:03AM|#

Ruthless:
Those Catholic archbishops, cardinals, etc. aren't permitted to vote here, now are they?
Their hatred is as ineffectual as their faith, innit?

Mr. Nieporent:
Just because it's hard to imagine doesn't mean it's not true.
JFKennedy was running when 'Jim Crow' was still considered defensible.
I expect you'n'I can both 'thank God' those days are long gone!
JFKerry was running just now, long after all the majority ethnic groups of the U.S. have gotten used to concealing their primitive tribal animosities.
But you really ought to trust me on this one:
Ain't no-one ever gonna win over the 'red state' voters by talkin about the Pope, and how much they Love the Pope, and all o'that "I was an Altar Boy" foolishness.
Not Catholic enough?!?
Keep tellin yourself that. Maybe you'll con yourself into believin' it....

John Hood|11.10.04 @ 8:59AM|#

Rick:

It is true that I am employing an inference, given the lack of access to detailed cross-tabs from the exit poll, but I believe it to be a reasonable one. I do not believe yours to be.

Here's the relevant question: asked if the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism, 55 percent of voters said yes and 42 percent said no. Bush won 81 percent of the first group, Kerry 88 percent of the latter. If Kerry and others had persuaded more of the public that the two wars were unrelated, the race would have been closer or gone to Kerry. That didn't happen � fortunately, in my opinion, since I agree with the majority sentiment � thus the election went to Bush.

The reason I think this is the key issue set to track is that the salience of foreign policy as a presidential issue clearly increased from 2000 to 2004. It's not obvious that the salience of other issues, including moral ones, changed as much.