Okay, back to politics
Dec. 17th, 2007 10:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
omorkaI think everyone who is going to answer it has had a shot at the political poll I posted a few days ago who wanted one. So let's talk about why I posted it in the first place.
Time Magazine did a randomized 1000-person poll with the same questions (with a couple of modifications for the web format here). The results were, to me, rather disturbing. I remember the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, when I was growing up, being largely one of priorities, not goals. The difference wasn't in what the parties wanted to do so much as how they wanted to go about doing it, what they thought was more important, and what they thought was worth funding. The picture from the magazine poll, however, is of two groups that have not just incompatible priorities but incompatible end goals.
The first question was on what the most important quality in a leader was. Now, in neither group was there a majority for any one of the options (as opposed to y'all, who had a clear-cut winner), but the rankings were completely different. For the Republicans, 39% said that strong moral character was the most important quality; being a strong leader came in second, at 27%; good judgment was a distant third, at 21%, with experience and caring about people tied for last at 5% each. For the Democrats, good judgment got 33% of the vote; strong leadership was second with 25%; caring third at 17%; moral character next to last at 12%; and experience last, but still with 8%.
For the second question, both parties said that shared views on the issues was more important than being comfortable with a candidate's character - but for the Democrats, the split was overwhelmingly in favor of issues, 71% to 22%, while the Republicans were much more closely split, 52% to 42%. (No options were given for what the 7% and 6% said they thought was more important; I'm curious, myself.) I will note for the record that the lone Republican and one of the two Libertarians were two of the three people who chose "character" in my poll, too.
The third question lines up with my traditional ideas of the difference between Republicans and Democrats, that the difference is in priorities, but it's still interesting. Again, there was no majority winner in either party. The Republicans went 47% for national security, 26% for social/moral issues, and 25% for economic issues - within the margin of error of a half-quarter-quarter split. The Democrats were oppositely split - 46% for economic issues, 26% for social/moral issues, and 23% for national security.
For the areas of great concern, here's where the two parties seem to be completely out of synch. This question was why I was wondering whether there were wording issues, because it seems to me like a group of commonly educated people with access to a common media shouldn't be this far apart just based on party affiliation. For the Republicans, the ones that got over 50% are future terrorist attacks, dependency on foreign oil (largest vote-getter at 65%), illegal immigrants, taxes, and Washington problem-solving. For the Democrats, the ones that got over 50% were health care, dependency on foreign oil, quality of environment, the Iraq war (largest vote-getter at 80%), Washington problem-solving, and US image and influence. There are only two areas of overlap, and one of them (Washington problem-solving) isn't even in the Dems' top three. (For comparison, my readers' list of over 50% was: health care, dependency on foreign oil, quality of environment (highest vote-getter at 89.5%), the war in Iraq, abortion/reproductive rights, and US image and influence).
Oh, hey, see what cropped up in our list that didn't pop up in either of the other two? Abortion/reproductive rights only hit 38% for the polled Republicans and 29% of the polled Democrats. Same-sex marriage hit 36% for Republicans and 18% for Democrats. So these two big "moral issues" that the Republicans keep flogging in public are really only hot-buttons to a little over a third of their base. More Republicans worry about health care (45%) and almost as many worry about the environment (30%).
Also, the Democrats voted up a larger number of issues than the Republicans did. Democrats seem to be more concerned about issues in general. That might mean that Republicans are more likely to be one- or two-issue voters, where Democrats are concerned with a number of issues, or it might mean that Democrats are more willing to express broad-ranging concerns.
The next question I didn't include in my poll; it asked whether the voter would make a single issue decision about a candidate for three different issues: abortion, immigration, and Iraq. For abortion, the numbers were relatively small on both sides - 14% for Republicans and 12% for Democrats. For immigration, it was 12% and 6%, respectively. For Iraq, it was 11% and 20%. None of these are high enough to surprise me; in fact, I was slightly relieved to see how low the numbers were for abortion and immigration.
The last question asked about one's side of the isle as opposed to one's party. Republicans identified as 7% liberal (who the hell are they?), 33% moderate, and 60% conservative; Democrats, 47% liberal, 40% moderate, and 13% conservative. 28% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats consider themselves fundamentalist Christians, which, again, is a smaller percentage than I was expecting.
Now, what does this all mean? My immediate reading is that there's not a lot of potential for "Reagan Democrat"-style crossover voting. Someone who appeals to the Republican majority and thus wins the nomination is going to be ill-suited to appeal to Democratic voters on even the most basic level, and vice-versa. The Republicans will tend to want to nominate someone of strong moral character who is strong on national security and Big Oil. The Democrats will tend to want to nominate someone with demonstrated judgment and leadership appeal who is strong on the economy, health care, and the environment. Neither of these will have much cross-party appeal, so expect yet another bitter partisan battle. (Also, the Democrats seem to be better at tailoring their message - none of the big three have been significantly off-message on these issues, while the Republican field seems to have it together on national security but little else.)
I empathized with the claim that the Republicans and Democrats were essentially the same party with the window dressing rearranged in the late '80s and early '90s. Now, though, it's quite clear that the Republicans have thrown their lot in with the Traditionalists and the Democrats with the Modernists, and that's a pretty significant distinction. I'm not of either group, but of the two I oppose the Modernists a lot less. And the Traditionalists seem to be getting more hostile by the week.
Time Magazine did a randomized 1000-person poll with the same questions (with a couple of modifications for the web format here). The results were, to me, rather disturbing. I remember the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, when I was growing up, being largely one of priorities, not goals. The difference wasn't in what the parties wanted to do so much as how they wanted to go about doing it, what they thought was more important, and what they thought was worth funding. The picture from the magazine poll, however, is of two groups that have not just incompatible priorities but incompatible end goals.
The first question was on what the most important quality in a leader was. Now, in neither group was there a majority for any one of the options (as opposed to y'all, who had a clear-cut winner), but the rankings were completely different. For the Republicans, 39% said that strong moral character was the most important quality; being a strong leader came in second, at 27%; good judgment was a distant third, at 21%, with experience and caring about people tied for last at 5% each. For the Democrats, good judgment got 33% of the vote; strong leadership was second with 25%; caring third at 17%; moral character next to last at 12%; and experience last, but still with 8%.
For the second question, both parties said that shared views on the issues was more important than being comfortable with a candidate's character - but for the Democrats, the split was overwhelmingly in favor of issues, 71% to 22%, while the Republicans were much more closely split, 52% to 42%. (No options were given for what the 7% and 6% said they thought was more important; I'm curious, myself.) I will note for the record that the lone Republican and one of the two Libertarians were two of the three people who chose "character" in my poll, too.
The third question lines up with my traditional ideas of the difference between Republicans and Democrats, that the difference is in priorities, but it's still interesting. Again, there was no majority winner in either party. The Republicans went 47% for national security, 26% for social/moral issues, and 25% for economic issues - within the margin of error of a half-quarter-quarter split. The Democrats were oppositely split - 46% for economic issues, 26% for social/moral issues, and 23% for national security.
For the areas of great concern, here's where the two parties seem to be completely out of synch. This question was why I was wondering whether there were wording issues, because it seems to me like a group of commonly educated people with access to a common media shouldn't be this far apart just based on party affiliation. For the Republicans, the ones that got over 50% are future terrorist attacks, dependency on foreign oil (largest vote-getter at 65%), illegal immigrants, taxes, and Washington problem-solving. For the Democrats, the ones that got over 50% were health care, dependency on foreign oil, quality of environment, the Iraq war (largest vote-getter at 80%), Washington problem-solving, and US image and influence. There are only two areas of overlap, and one of them (Washington problem-solving) isn't even in the Dems' top three. (For comparison, my readers' list of over 50% was: health care, dependency on foreign oil, quality of environment (highest vote-getter at 89.5%), the war in Iraq, abortion/reproductive rights, and US image and influence).
Oh, hey, see what cropped up in our list that didn't pop up in either of the other two? Abortion/reproductive rights only hit 38% for the polled Republicans and 29% of the polled Democrats. Same-sex marriage hit 36% for Republicans and 18% for Democrats. So these two big "moral issues" that the Republicans keep flogging in public are really only hot-buttons to a little over a third of their base. More Republicans worry about health care (45%) and almost as many worry about the environment (30%).
Also, the Democrats voted up a larger number of issues than the Republicans did. Democrats seem to be more concerned about issues in general. That might mean that Republicans are more likely to be one- or two-issue voters, where Democrats are concerned with a number of issues, or it might mean that Democrats are more willing to express broad-ranging concerns.
The next question I didn't include in my poll; it asked whether the voter would make a single issue decision about a candidate for three different issues: abortion, immigration, and Iraq. For abortion, the numbers were relatively small on both sides - 14% for Republicans and 12% for Democrats. For immigration, it was 12% and 6%, respectively. For Iraq, it was 11% and 20%. None of these are high enough to surprise me; in fact, I was slightly relieved to see how low the numbers were for abortion and immigration.
The last question asked about one's side of the isle as opposed to one's party. Republicans identified as 7% liberal (who the hell are they?), 33% moderate, and 60% conservative; Democrats, 47% liberal, 40% moderate, and 13% conservative. 28% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats consider themselves fundamentalist Christians, which, again, is a smaller percentage than I was expecting.
Now, what does this all mean? My immediate reading is that there's not a lot of potential for "Reagan Democrat"-style crossover voting. Someone who appeals to the Republican majority and thus wins the nomination is going to be ill-suited to appeal to Democratic voters on even the most basic level, and vice-versa. The Republicans will tend to want to nominate someone of strong moral character who is strong on national security and Big Oil. The Democrats will tend to want to nominate someone with demonstrated judgment and leadership appeal who is strong on the economy, health care, and the environment. Neither of these will have much cross-party appeal, so expect yet another bitter partisan battle. (Also, the Democrats seem to be better at tailoring their message - none of the big three have been significantly off-message on these issues, while the Republican field seems to have it together on national security but little else.)
I empathized with the claim that the Republicans and Democrats were essentially the same party with the window dressing rearranged in the late '80s and early '90s. Now, though, it's quite clear that the Republicans have thrown their lot in with the Traditionalists and the Democrats with the Modernists, and that's a pretty significant distinction. I'm not of either group, but of the two I oppose the Modernists a lot less. And the Traditionalists seem to be getting more hostile by the week.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-18 10:42 am (UTC)There is pushback on this in the Republican party, though, with the backlash that the rise of Huckabee is generating among the Plutocrat wing of the Republican Party.
There are three legs to the Republican Stool:
The Plutocrats, who finance the campaigns, and push for tax cuts and deregulation.
The NeoCons, who are the foreign policy hawks
The Social Conservatives, who hate da Gay.
"Ideal" Republican candidates come from group one, speak to group two, and throw enough bones to get support to group three. (Reagan, W).
The problem for the Republicans this time around is that all of their candidates this time have problems with one or more of the stool legs.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-18 12:16 pm (UTC)The politicians are even closer, though this may seem paradoxical. They have to play to their constituents, and comes election day they need to emphasize on how different (and better) they are than the other guy, thus all the hot air. But even when one party controls both houses and the White House, we don't usually see any really sweeping changes, even though the ruling party could do it. Few politicians want really big changes to happen.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-18 05:15 pm (UTC)As for the would-be leaders, as they are chosen from those who have proven themselves inside the system, of course they have an investment in the system that they have poured so much of their lives. Identification with what one does as who one is a well documented phenomena, e.g. deep-cover agents, the psychological impact of role-playing, etc.
This is on top of the other powerful motivators such as fear of risk, the wish to retain positions of power, concern with social prestige...
no subject
Date: 2007-12-18 05:14 pm (UTC)Obviously the numbers for concern over security go up when there's been a major attack. Obviously the numbers on climate change go up when there's been a major hurricane. If you ignore the news and mostly watch entertainment choices you'll be less likely to have a long list of issues. If you read more news you'll get more worried. If you spend more time in a conservative church and don't bother to read 'liberal media' you care about certain moral issues to the exclusion of major world events.
I think both parties are showing strong signs that the new message is a domestic one. People want to think of the wars overseas as essentially over. (Obviously this is wrong, wrong, wrong.) The republicans have spent debates arguing religion, education (a fascinating debate BTW) and other domestic issues. The Dems seem more interested in talking about the rest of the world, but even they are going back to the Clinton era issues of economy etc.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-19 12:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-19 02:11 am (UTC)