Eric continues to say that my vote doesn't count in the General Election. If I'm disgusted by both Huckabee and McCain, then I will stay home and not vote, which is exactly what the Republican party wants during the General Election, because they believe that they can win by getting the very conservative base united. I tend to believe that as well, and that leaves me with only one choice....vote Obama to send a message that the Republicans need to get back to basics. Then I read a great article in the Weekly Standard about some statistics from some Gallup and ANES polling data from 2007:
Electorate Breakdown:
Rep: 28%
Dems: 32%
Ind: 39%
Of the Republicans, they self identified themselves as:
Conservative: 55%
Moderate: 26%
Very Conservative: 13%
So the Very Conservative Republicans make up 3.6% of the mass electorate. It goes on to talk about how this might seem low, but 3.6% of the electorate population can easily support the myriad of media outlets and keep certain officials in office.
Then the article goes on to say that the independents matter the most. "Based on ANES data, the 10 elections from 1952-1988, the Democrat, on average, won about 40% of the total 2-party vote cast by independents. In the last 4 elections, however, the Democrat, on average, won 55% of the total 2-party vote cast by independents. The independents in 2004 cast one in three ballots."
In 2000, Bush won the independent vote over Gore, but lost by 1% point to Kerry in 2004. The winning difference in 2004, an election which both parties exceeded their early turnout projections, was the several million evangelical voters who favored Bush, but had not turned out in 2000. But it then also states that the evangelical Christians are moving toward the center. Only 40% of the white evangelicals between the ages 18-29 self identify as Republicans, and only 10% self identify as religious right. So how can the republicans squeeze more out of this group? Well it can't. If it doesn't have the perfect "Bush" type candidate, then they can't bank on having the same type of turnout. So they have to try to overcome this by doing three things:
1. Latino Voters- Well people tend to forget about the evangelical Latino population which is growing extremely fast. This explains why so many "Republicans" are becoming lax on immigration. Bush has made amazing in roads with this population segment and it made a huge difference in the last election. And we are seeing some of the payback over the past year with Bush and so many other Republicans fighting so hard for Amnesty. And McCain is the guy who sponsored the bill with Kennedy.
2. Iraq- In 06, the ANES polling data showed that most Republicans were disenchanted with Bush's Iraq policies and generally worried that the country was heading in the wrong direction. With what is going on now in Iraq, plus McCain being the main man for the surge, it might actually help him out and get everyone excited again. I know that this is why Eric is energized about McCain.
3. Reagan Democrats- McCain really is the only Republican who can win as Reagan did. What I found amazing is that in 1980 in a 3 man race, Reagan won 26% of the Democrat vote and 30% of the Independents. In 1984, Reagan won 26% of the Democrats and 63% of the Independents. The writer of the article states that he has 6 life long Democrat friends who voted for Reagan each time. Then they all switched to Clinton, and then 50% of the them voted for Bush in 00 and 04. In 06, all but one voted for their local Democrat. And when polled now, all of them stated that they would vote for McCain over Obama or Clinton in the 08 election because he is a war hero, strong on national defense, and he looks the part.
So what does all of this mean? Well, hopefully the great Karl Rove strategy might be put to rest if they don't have the type of candidate necessary to pull this off. Plus its going to take a lot more than the 3.6% to overcome the excitement and the expected turnout for Obama. Remember, that Karl's strategy would of gone for not if the Democrats would of gotten the same type of turnout for their own candidate, but they didn't have the right candidate. I truly believe they do now, and the Republicans need to counter this turnout.
So after reading this, am I going to change my vote? No. Political sacrifice is my choice until McCain does something amazing.
6 comments:
Really. So you're disgusted with both Republican candidates and you believe that the GOP is banking on people like you not showing at the polls in order to have their conservative base win the election for them. And yet you're still going to abstain, just like they want you to, and allow one of those candidates that disgust you to be elected? Doesn't make any sense. If you are truly disgusted by both candidates wouldn't you want to do anything you can to make sure neither of them get elected?
Are you more disgusted by Obama than you are by Huckabee and McCain?
No, my choice is to vote for Obama, so that the Republicans lose and have to start from scratch and retool their strategy. I don't think I said that I would stay home? I said that the Republicans hope that I stay at home and not vote.
Ah, I misunderstood your final statement about political sacrifice. Carry on, sir.
Excuse me, but you're still waiting for something amazing from John McClane?
How about single-handedly stopping the downfall of the pacific rim economy in 1988? Clearly the events at the nakatomi plaze showed the Japanese were not ready for the formation of EU and only McLane was able to stem the tide, all the while capturing the black cop vote.
The events at Dulles were another example of the left showing its weakness on immigration and its eagerness to suck up to communist dictators. This time McLane was unable to carry the black, dad from good times vote, but he still prevailed.
McClane returned to NYC in the late 90s before anyone had even contemplated the war on terror. He was able to energize his wisecracking, down on his luck black base, and remained strong against the euro.
McClane's time is now. He just flew a fighter jet over 395. What do you want from this man? Go back to rangoon, layup.
First of all, Layup....
the only people whose votes count in this election are:
me
Steve
Don
Kermit
and probably
Leland and RRD.
That's it. The rest of you can stay home, since your vote means nothing in December.
Now - about your point when you quote all the statistics. I think you want to say - but never got around to say it - is that the very conservative/hard right is not the driver for the election that some people think they are.
However, I think you are talking apples and oranges. Self-identified religious right people are going to be less numberous than someone from the outside making a determiniation.
Two examples: I:
a) am a Republican, and
b) go to church more than once a month.
This - by default - makes me deinfed as a "very conservative" "Religious Right" person in many people's eyes. I, however, don't see myself in that view.
Similarly, I:
1) drink once a week
Therefore, I am an alcoholic to some.
So the "13%" that call themselves very conservative does not equate with what the world calls very conservative.
(Very conservative to Dan Rather does not equal very conservative to Karl Rove. Just like Very liberal to me does not equal very liberal to Keith Olbermann).
So the hard right is more than the 3.6% influence you talk about.
It's more than 3.6%. See 2004. There's no way Bush wins in 2004 if the hard right is only 3.6% of the population.
McCain can win by
- getting the same hard right support that Bush got in 2000 (not necessarily 2004) and
- can get the same independent support that Bush got in 2000 (he won't be as good as Reagan in 80, 84; maybe Bush 88 is the better model)
Hell, the more I think about it, maybe 1988 is a more appropriate model for this campaign.
(Not sure what your point is with the quoting of the last 10 presidential elections - with the last 4 elections showing that the Democrats got 55% of the independent vote. Let's review those:
- the R's won 2, and
- the D's had a three way race for the other 2.
In fact, the D's have not won a 2-way race for the presidency since.....1976 and Jimmy Carter, which was an election under an extremely singular politcal environment. And he barely won that one.
Barack can certainly break this tide and win in 2008. But don't go quoting stats and strategies from the past to help his case - since those don't portend well for the Democrats.
Eric,
1. The breakdown was based on "self identified" polling, not Dan Rather looking at a voter and saying that since you go to church twice a month they are a conservative. I checked the post and it does state self identified. So I disagree with your comments there.
2. Bush doesn't win if the hard right is only 3.6%. That is not true. Low Democrat turnout along with the perfect candidate energized the religious right to have them ALL come out and vote Bush in 04 when they didn't come out on 00. This doesn't mean that the only people who voted for Bush was the religous right and everyone else stayed away. You voted for Bush in 04 correct? So does that mean that you are part of the religous right? My point is that McCain is not the candidate to pull this off again, and he better understand this quickly. And I think he is. He is making in roads with the Latino vote, the Iraq issue, and possing as a Reagan type candidate.
Post a Comment