Over at RealClearPolitics Sean Trende poses an interesting question—what if Republicans aren’t that out-of-step ideologically?
It’s almost taken as a given that the Republicans are out of step with public opinion on a wide range of issues. The party is certainly out of step with elite Washington opinion — both Republican and Democratic elites, for that matter — but it isn’t clear that this holds true nationally (at least in terms of perception). More importantly, it isn’t clear that the issues that inside-the-Beltway types and high-information pundits obsess about matter much to the American people.
To really get at public opinion as it relates to elections, it probably isn’t best to isolate a few issues. Rather, let’s look at some omnibus measurements of the parties. For this, I will borrow from two excellent articles from political scientist John Sides. As Sides notes, YouGov asked respondents throughout 2012 to rate themselves ideologically, and to rate the candidates ideologically as well.
He proceeds to present a considerable amount of evidence that Americans don’t see the views of Republicans as being as extreme and divergent from their own as they do those of Democrats.
I think there’s more than one way to interpret the data and I’m in no position to determine which of them is correct. It could, indeed, be that Republicans’ views are more consistent with those of most Americans’ than Democrats’ are. Or it could be that the Republicans have done a much better sales job than the Democrats to convince people that they’re not wild-eyed fanatics. Or that Democrats have done a poor job of convincing people either that the Republicans are wild-eyed fanatics or that they aren’t. Or, for some inexplicable reason, it could be the case that Democrats are trying to convince people that the Democrats’ views aren’t consistent with those of most Americans.
However heinous you think the Republicans are I think it’s a valuable exercise to imagine the opposite. It might be you who’s out-of-step.
Negating or falsifying one’s argument can strengthen it, but it can also destroy it. One needs to be prepared to toss those arguments into the trashcan, but few are willing to take that step. By not fully examining the arguments, the arguments will never be negated or lost.
Tossing aside one’s cherished beliefs is difficult. These beliefs were created and nurtured with loving care, and they provide protection from a confusing world.
“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
I suppose this is why we have a President Romney today.
I’m not quire sure I understand Trende’s argument about whether “the American people always self-correct.” The graph does suggest that Democratic Presidents tend to leave most lower seats more Republican by the end of their term, and vice versa. The data seems spottier with Truman and Reagan admittedly.
I wouldn’t use the word “realignment” like he has, since that term has a narrower meaning. I might use the concept of “tactical” voting. For example, if Obama is too liberal, then the voter can rely upon Republicans in the legislature to constrain him.
I think that Obama won because he was a good candidate who ran a strong campaign not because he was “generic Democrat”.
I think that Obama won because he was a good candidate who ran a strong campaign not because he was “generic Democratâ€.
I think Obama won because he was a good political candidate, while, at the same time demonstrated a tract record of being a poor, polarized leader/President. Romney lost because he was a poor political candidate, while, at the same time had the potential of being a good, less polarized leader/President. Of course, no one will ever know if the latter was true or not, because the populace stuck with the former, and continue to be dissatisfied with his performance. Go figure!
Over the years, though, people do seem to indicate a greater alliance to the values and ideals more compatible with the R’s than the D’s. However, voting outcomes don’t necessarily support this. For instance, in the 2012 election I strongly felt the “silent majority,’ in becoming so offended by the trends in this country, would have been energized to come out in mass to vote for the more conservative candidate, in order to do what Trende suggests —- attempt to realign the cultural, fiscal direction of this country. Obviously, this didn’t happen.
What was apparent, though, was that fewer people voted for either candidate. Instead of becoming energized, perhaps people are becoming more demoralized, feeling helpless in being able to make a difference with their vote, and at odds with both parties in being able to deal with and remedy the issues at hand. What the dems do accomplish, though, is to rally, not only their loyal base, but those constituencies who seek some kind of compensation for their support — being included in the ever-growing safety net which the dems hawk, 24/7, as part of their lure to vote for them.
Ironically, within the past few days some celebrities have issued statements supportive of a more conservative POV. For example, Bono was cited as saying that ‘capitalism pulled more people out of poverty than aid.’ And, heart throb, Ashton Kutcher, at the Teen Choice Awards, gave an enthusiastic thumbs up for the work ethic, saying that ‘opportunity is another word for hard work.’ These words seem to endorse a different direction than the one we are going in. However, it all depends on how many people listen, and more importantly, having a candidate who not only runs a good campaign, but also is a capable leader with fresh, realistic ideas to address our mounting problems.
There’s no such thing as a generic Democrat or Republican.
The issue responses are largely meaningless unless they can be ranked by intensity — you can agree with Democrats on 7 out of 10 issues but if you are strongly pro-life you vote Republican. If you poll a lot of minority voters you’ll see agreement with Republicans on lots of issues but it doesn’t matter because there are threshold issues that drive their vote – for example, GOP voter suppression efforts. Those threshold issues tend to be social issues rather than economic or foreign policy.
Clinton, Clinton, Gore in the popular vote, Bush, Obama, Obama. Dems have taken the popular vote in 5 out of 6 elections. If I had to make a bet today I’d say it’s likely to be 6 out of 7 in 3 years.
What I think Dave is saying is that Romney was right. 47% of the vote on each side is not in play, with the elections decided by emotional connections to the candidate, “whether they like the guy or not.”
However heinous you think the Republicans are I think it’s a valuable exercise to imagine the opposite. It might be you who’s out-of-step.
Being ‘out-of-step’ and being ‘heinous’ are not opposites. I’m happy to be out-of-step. Not so much heinous, though.
Just a hunch–but the GOP is pretty much the party of white conformists who think being out of step is horrible. Thus, they’ve buried themselves in their own lies and go nowhere outside their comfort zones. Beyond all of the racism and bad ideas about taxes and government, it’s this that makes the GOP seem dead.
but the GOP is pretty much the party of white conformists who think being out of step is horrible. Thus, they’ve buried themselves in their own lies and go nowhere outside their comfort zones. Beyond all of the racism and bad ideas about taxes and government, it’s this that makes the GOP seem dead.
Just listen to yourself! There are so many caustic words in one paragraph, towards the other party. I would say that if there is a deadender in the political equation, it’s you, whose mindsest is buried in cement!
The caustic words were intentional, I assure you. Are you trying to argue that the GOP has some hidden appeal that I’m missing? Or that I shouldn’t tell the truth, because it’s filled with mean things?
As far as the conformist thing goes–recall the unfunny joke that Obama couldn’t win because he was a ‘community organizer.’ Hahalolhahaha–a community organizer! What a loser! That’s one step from choreographer! Nobody in Podunk Falls or real America will vote for any fairy community choreographer, I can tell you that!
“He proceeds to present a considerable amount of evidence that Americans don’t see the views of Republicans as being as extreme and divergent from their own as they do those of Democrats.”
Heh. OK, then. They can go ahead and shut down the government because of the Democrats’ refusal to defund Obamacare. I mean, after all, the peeps are on their side.
@Modulo Myself
Exactly which part of this is an original idea. I can find this argument put forth by most Democrats. I fail to see where you are “out-of-step” with mainstream Democratic positions.
Furthermore, you have strung together slogans and submitted this as some argument. I am understand that blog comments do not allow a full dissertation, but there needs to be some supporting structure to your argument. This structure needs to be more than multiple links and long quotes. Also, Wikipedia may be useful, but it is not an authoritative source.
Was the original piece written by Romney’s polling gurus? Seems like their work.
Heh. Setting aside the faux intellectual arguments of Modulo and Michael……….Obama is the master of promising more free beer.
It takes time for people to figure out there is no free beer.
There is no free beer. ObamaCare is a train wreck. The “Arab Spring” is a train wreck. AQ is not “decimated.” “Green energy policy” is a train wreck. US finances are a train wreck. GDP growth and unemployment are a train wreck. 5 years after taking the till Obama has next to nothing to show for his efforts.
Otherwise, everything is great. And as will no doubt be slavishly reported and gobbled up by the sycophants tonight……….Obama is on vacation recharging his batteries to fight for more……free beer.
And for the slavish who can’t come to grips with his ineffectual administration…”well, what do you expect, he inherited such problems, and what is one man to do?…………other than single handedly getting bin Laden”
Somehow, Drew, you managed to avoid mentioning the shrinking deficit. This despite your endless whining about trillion dollar deficits forever and ever and we’re all gonna die!
Also, Obamacare opens to radically lower costs for basic policies through state exchanges.
Also, we’re coming very close to being self-sufficient in energy, not mentioned, and the trade deficit is down, not mentioned.
Oh, and did the Econ geniuses of TGE notice how the Euro Zone is officially out of recession and the Euro itself is still trading right where it’s been for about two years now, despite the endless predictions of imminent destruction?
And GM stock?
It’s almost as though you don’t really know what you’re talking about Drew. You have the same predictive abilities as Chris Matthews and Dick Morris.
Drew:
Oh, and I totally forgot your best prediction ever in which you told poor Jan that Romney was absolutely going to win.
So you aren’t just clueless on economic issues, you’re just as clueless on politics. Every rational person knew Obama was winning. But not our wise, gimlet-eyed, far-seeing Drew.
Somehow, Drew, you managed to avoid mentioning the shrinking deficit.
Could that be because the R’s didn’t blink on the sequester threats of doom and gloom from Obama, and extra money to run the government was rustled up from somewhere. Also, am curious how this magical math happened, where monthly deficits were recorded, with the debt never changing? Somehow the government’s numbers on unemployment, GDP, HC costs and now the debt/deficit always seem to carry with it a bit of mystification.
Obamacare opens to radically lower costs for basic policies through state exchanges.
Do you mean CA? According to this piece insurance companies are leaving CA, which will do nothing but decrease competitive pricing, and thus increase premiums. We’ll have to wait and see.
However, the stuff I’m hearing is nothing but costs projected to go through the roof. Also, why is so much of the bill being delayed, until after the midterms? Why are some unions protesting Obamacare now? Why are so many people asking for waivers, including government employees? I would think if the contents of the bill were so good people would be rushing to sign up!
we’re coming very close to being self-sufficient in energy
Is that because of all the oil production being produced by the private sector in places like North Dakota? Or, the closure of clean coal plants, due to ratcheting up EPA regs.? I certainly don’t see higher Tesla production being a leading factor, nor the Volt, which recently had another $5000 reduction, attached to it’s already highly subsidized price, intended to encourage more sales. Also, what are we going to do with all those batteries? Or, has Solyndra suddenly re-emerged to take on China’s solar panel industry?
notice how the Euro Zone is officially out of recession and the Euro itself is still trading right where it’s been for about two years now, despite the endless predictions of imminent destruction?
The Euro Zone is experiencing a modest improvement in economical growth, after a 6 quarter double dip recession. People, though, are scratching their heads as to why this is happening, with the best guesses being lodged in higher private and public consumption.
And GM stock?
According to this NBC News piece, GM stock must nearly triple for taxpayers to even break even! It has also been asserted that much of GM’s long-term weakness in the stock market was due to the government hanging around too long. When they finally allowed GM to buy back shares, a rally ensued:
This is exactly why government doesn’t belong in the business of telling another business what to do — especially this administration, which has little experience and low marks in understanding the dynamics of entrepreneurship, let alone economic’s 101.
Oh, and I totally forgot your best prediction ever in which you told poor Jan that Romney was absolutely going to win.
I took that to be a prediction mixed with hope and PMA (positive mental attitude). Now’s it’s just back to being under Obama’s scintillating and robust leadership, for another “4 more years.”
I had a laugh today, though, when Ralph Peter’s described Obama’s foreign policy as being the most amateurish he had ever seen in his lifetime, adding that, in comparison, GWB’s looked like he was a “strategic genius!” Now this is coming from a man who was not a big fan of the latter president.
I have to back Reynolds up: the Republicans have lost three out of the last four elections which does not make it look like a strong national party. I’m fully aware this could change at any time but for the present and near future the Republicans look weak and, to be blunt, reek of fear. I think they’re winging it from day to day without any plan or idea of where the party should be going and relying on odious bluster to hide it. The ongoing NSA revelations appear to be stoking serious internal battles between the leadership and the more Tea Party-ish types; certainly these divisions are not as pronounced among Democrats.
In 1992 Democrats had lost five of the last six elections. They were still a national party then as Clinton demonstrated.
Yes, and the Democrats changed course with a conservative candidate. Do you see any evidence of Republicans reorienting in a similar manner? Of course not. The party has not sorted itself out and shows no signs of doing so in the near future. Could it? Sure, which is why I wrote to the effect that a thing is true until it isn’t. But I don’t believe it will until the party takes a lot more kicks to the head.
That’s what Trende’s series of posts is about. He’s exploring the various things that are being said about how Republicans can be competitive one at a time. The particular subject of this post is whether Republicans need to change their ideology. The evidence for that doesn’t look particularly strong.
I think that people are doing a lot of generalizing from a 52.9% popular vote victory.
@michael reynolds
The housing bust and financial collapse was predicted 2 – 3 years before they occurred, but the “smartest people in the world” assured us that this was impossible. Things usually take longer to collapse than predicted, but sometimes the collapse is prevented.
Of course, the “smartest people in the world” somehow always make money. It is almost like it was a setup.
Bingo. Add a dose of wishful thinking with that. You’re exactly right about 1992 – There are a lot of op-eds like these two from that time period. Of course, we shouldn’t forget Ross Perot in that election – had he not chosen to run, Bush might well have won.
Most of these claims about the coming loss and irrelevance of the GoP come from those who are opposed to the party anyway and are not grounded in any kind of empirical analysis. If anything, I’d say the pendulum could easily follow the historical pattern and swing back in the GoP’s favor.
“I think that people are doing a lot of generalizing from a 52.9% popular vote victory.”
That number would have more valence if we elected the president on a popular-vote basis, wouldn’t it? We don’t, and therefore wouldn’t a more educative number be arrived at by looking at the percentage won/lost in the states the president carried? Most of the population of the US is in those states. I mean, really, who gives a shit about Wyoming?
Here’s the clean difference between you and me, Michael. I was flat damned wrong about Romney winning, and acknowledge it. You have no capacity whatsoever to do anything but slobber all over one of the worst presidencies of our lifetime. Your ideology over the well being of the people.
@sam, I think the question is who gives a shit about California Republicans? More people in California voted for Romney than in any other state, but zero electoral votes.
FWIW, I did run those numbers (getting the data from this excellent wiki page, United States presidential election, 2012).
In the states Obama won (among which are the states that I contend really count in our electoral system — the basis of my “Who gives a shit about…” remark), he won by an average margin of better than 17 points.
The final percentages were 57.8 to 40.2. If you go and look at that data on the wiki page, I think you will understand why many analysts contend that the GOP is, right now, a white, southern, regional party as far as presidential elections go. The pendulum could swing, sure. But, boy, it would have to swing real hard and real far to eat into and overcome that 17 point margin. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul — seriously?
I admit this analysis is crude, and we could throw out states like Hawaii and Vermont, and the District of Columbia (small states like Wyoming), but the final numbers wouldn’t change that much.
And PD
Absolutely. Do you remember Steve Taylor’s posts over at OTB arguing for a system based on the popular vote? And if you do, then you’ll remember how difficult it was for him to convince some folks that under a popular vote system, somebody’s vote in Wyoming (to continue) would count as much as somebody’s vote in California? He wasn’t able convince those doubters. I recall reacting to the doubters with a mixture of amusement and astonishment. Those folks were impervious to logic.
I think this blog, at least the commenters, focus too much on R vs D and win vs lose. I have been plenty critical of GWB as a spendoholic. It seems to me absolute standards do apply; not R vs D. Michael and steve in particular seem to know no bounds of absolute adulation for a truly pedestrian – I’d say an absolute joke of a – president.
Now, back to our normal programming. Michael, you ignorant slut………..