New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 21, 2006

Should politicians seek to appeal to the center, or is all the action on the edges of the political spectrum? Jonathan Rauch hits the polling data to investigate.

Comments

|2.21.06 @ 9:21AM|#

I'm not sure that pandering to the fringes is entirely about votes. I'd guess that the ideological extremes are heavier contributors of cash and, perhaps more importantly, time. Much extremist rhetoric is probably focused on keeping the campaign foot soldiers motivated, which is why the tone of actual campaigns tends to be more tepid and "nuanced".

|2.21.06 @ 10:13AM|#

Those graphs lead me to think that a moderate Democrat with charisma and leadership skills could win a landslide in 2008.

|2.21.06 @ 10:34AM|#

Those graphs lead me to think that a moderate Democrat with charisma and leadership skills could win a landslide in 2008.

When was the last time we had a candidate from either party who fit that description?

|2.21.06 @ 10:39AM|#

Interesting article.

Surely, Karl is aware of all of this. What's his take?

I would be interested to see how this data fits with the Republican advantage in exurb counties where population is growing fastest. The long term population trends seem to favor the GOP.

I would be very surpirsed if modern Democrats could fashion a brand that would sell in these counties. It's hard to run against Home Depot and McMansions in places where people demand just those things. But some uncomfortably large percentage of the Democrats can't keep its mouth shut when faced with white-bread eating exurbia.

|2.21.06 @ 10:50AM|#

Also Jonathan:

How did Independent Independents vote in 1980, 1992 and 1996?

You jump from 1988 to 2000. And you skip 1980. 1992 certainly seems like a good year to look at since Perot was a strong independent candidate. What about "Independent" John Anderson in 1980?

Without data I can't tell, but I'd expect your trend looks a lot less linear if you add in those years. If not, that would be really interesting.

|2.21.06 @ 10:53AM|#

Also Jonathan:

How did Independent Independents vote in 1980, 1992 and 1996?

You jump from 1988 to 2000. And you skip 1980. 1992 certainly seems like a good year to look at since Perot was a strong independent candidate. What about "Independent" John Anderson in 1980?

Without data I can't tell, but I'd expect your trend looks a lot less linear if you add in those years. If not, that would be really interesting.

|2.21.06 @ 11:08AM|#

Campaigns have always been about making sure more of your fruitcakes show up than their fruitcakes. You don't want a bunch of unpredictable independents mucking things up. So you ramp up the rhetoric, fire up the extremes and hope that more church buses show up than union buses and, or vice versa. So you polarize, piss off the middle and depress turnout. If only 10 people show up to vote you just need to make sure 6 vote for you.

|2.21.06 @ 11:19AM|#

What do we mean when we talk about the "the middle" in American politics? Are we talking about the actual center between liberal and conservative (to the extent those terms still have meaning); or are we talking about some point between Republicans and Democrats? These are two very different points.

If you check out the graph at http://freedomdemocrats.org/HouseScorecard01Total, you'll see that, at least in the House, the GOP is far more scewed toward one end of the spectrum, and the Democrats hover closer to the actual center. This means that anybody who splits the difference between the two parties will invariably scew toward the authoritarian side of things.

Since Reagan, the GOP has been quite successful at shifting the debate in American politics from "right v. left" to "right v. center".

|2.21.06 @ 12:46PM|#

I know this is all Really Important Stuff, but to me this is sorta like having a passionate debate over Coke vs. Pepsi.

If the Democrats wanted to stay somewhat true to their big government heritage while attracting Republican-leaning independents, they would start talking about doing spending less money on foreign wars and more to fix our nation's rotting infrastructure and to boost pure science. Both of those items have long-term implications for our ability to stay economically competitive, and the Republicans have basically ignored them. Of course, that would mean the Dems would have to start ignoring Kos and the Screaming Deaniacs...

|2.21.06 @ 12:47PM|#

Geez, look at my bad grammar, people. That's what happens when you cut-and-paste seemingly at random... :)

|2.21.06 @ 12:50PM|#

The long term population trends seem to favor the GOP.

Not necessarily. Long Island & California are two former Republican bastions that have since leaned more Democratic. As the Right become more and more exurban, the inner suburbs become more Democratic.

|2.21.06 @ 1:23PM|#

It remains to be seen of course, but Bush carried 97 out of 100 of the counties with the highest population growth in 2004 - and by substantial margins. These are primarily exurban areas.

As the Right become more and more exurban, the inner suburbs become more Democratic.

That's true.

But if the population of the exurbs is increasing and the population of "inner" areas (cities, older suburbs) is constant or decreasing, that should favor the GOP.

|2.21.06 @ 3:18PM|#

But if the population of the exurbs is increasing and the population of "inner" areas (cities, older suburbs) is constant or decreasing, that should favor the GOP.

Well, the fact that party registration is still around 50/50 suggests that not all exurban types are Republicans, and/or that the left is gaining ground in ever widening circles around the cities.

|2.21.06 @ 3:23PM|#

mewsifer,
Rauch explains in the article specifically why he removed the years with a strong showing for an indie candidate:

so you can assume that a low vote for one presidential candidate equals a high vote for the other

Without this modification the numbers would be thrown off by comparing two party elections with three party elections.

|2.21.06 @ 5:58PM|#

smalls,

I understand that, but he's thrown out 3 of 8 data points. I don't see how one can do that and claim any sort of trend. In fact, without a lot more detail, it's pretty hard to discern much of anything here.

We can debate this of course, but I think Perot's politics (sans personal hatred of Bush I) were closer to the GOP than the Democrats. Did a large number of I.I's vote for Perot? If so, in general you'd expect those folks to vote GOP or stay home.

Also, Nader actually was a factor in 2000, even though the data is included. From the chart, I.I.'s voted about 45% for Gore in 2000. How many for Nader? He was only a small percentage of the national vote, but what percentqage of I.I.'s?
If the percentage of Nader + Gore voters among I.I.'s exceeded that of the GOP, then the GOP might want to worry. If not ....

In 2004, everyone outside of the GOP hated Bush - including GOP leaning I.I's. So my guess is, I.I's who hated Kerry too (or just didn't hate Bush enough) stayed home. The ones that came out wanted to stick it to W. hence your uptick.

It's hard to overstate the effect of W's personality - so if you were going to toss data ...

|2.21.06 @ 7:22PM|#

Moderate voter = unmotivated voter. They talk big, then don't bother pulling the lever.

|2.21.06 @ 9:04PM|#

I'm truly surprised that joe hasn't shown up for this thread.

|2.22.06 @ 9:44AM|#

mewsifer,

You're confusing growth rates with actual growth. Those exurban counties often have high growth rates, but the absolute numbers are still small. Which makes sense, since they're starting from a very low initial population. Counties with high real growth are all over the map in terms of voting patterns.

As a rural county starts growing, it tends to be very Republican, with the combination of the original rural population, and the pioneer surbubanizers, who tend to be either red refugees who just can't stand to hear any more Spanish rap, or extremely wealthy people building dream homes in the middle of nowhere, because they're rich enough that they don't have to go anywhere. But we're still talking relatively low numbers.

As the urban ring spreads out and that some country begins to see sinficant growth in absolute terms, the party skew shrinks, as the next few waves of people moving in are much less skewed towards the right.

ChrisO, I don't get your comment at all. Screaming Deaniacs and Kos don't want to shrink foreign wars? They don't want to spend on science and infrastructure? Huh?

|2.22.06 @ 12:31PM|#

ChrisO, I don't get your comment at all. Screaming Deaniacs and Kos don't want to shrink foreign wars? They don't want to spend on science and infrastructure? Huh?

I was being somewhat rhetorical there. From what I can tell, that wing of the Dems certainly wants to end foreign wars, but I get the impression they'd want to spend the resulting available funds on more of the same that they've always advocated--government schools, government healthcare, government cheese, etc.

That's to the minimal extent that I can tell what the Angry Democrats are for at all, apart from removing Bush from office. And while my own Republicanism has greatly lapsed in recent years, I would need to see a *lot* more from the Dems beyond perks for their usual coalition--minorities, NEA, AFSCME, etc.