Partisan, Ideological Self-Identification Static Under Bush

by Chris Bowers, Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:38:59 AM EST

Despite what Gallup is consistently shoveling, Harris has now confirmed the earlier findings of the National Annenberg Election Survey. Democrats still have a lead in partisan self-identification. From Harris.

Partisan ID
      DNC   RNC   Ind
2004   34    31    24
2003   33    28    24
2002   34    31    24
2001   36    31    22

Ideological ID
      Lib   Mod   Con
2004   18    41    36
2003   18    40    33
2002   17    40    35
2001   19    40    36

Partisan self-identification was also static under Clinton. There was a sharp rise in conservative self-identification during Clinton's first term, but that was erased during his second term.

Among other things, this data lends further credence to the idea that while our GOTV efforts were very good, those by the Bush campaign were even better. After all, if there are more self-identifying Democrats than self-identifying Republicans, but an equal number of self-identifying Democrats and self-identifying Republicans voted, than we lost on GOTV.

As I have argued before, our major blind spot on GOTV and cause for defeat was a failure to nurture our own base. And no, I am not supporting a false choice between swing voters and base turnout. The basic idea I am espousing can be found here.

If we are going to have any long term success as a party, self-identifying liberals must close the gap on self-identifying conservatives. We can no longer afford to pretend that we do not live in an age of two ideological coalitions.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Comments

35 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Dixiecrats

At least some of those "Democrats" vote for the GOP candidate in national elections. They are not part of the Democratic base.

by KTinOhio 2005-03-16 09:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dixiecrats

Excellent point - although more and more of those people change party ID every year, so it's becoming less of an issue.

West Virginia is probably the best example of why this comment is correct. The state overwhelmingly ID's as Democrat, but it has been red the last 2 elections and will likely stay that way because ideologically, it is indistinguishable from a Southern state. They would vote for a Democrat, sure, if the Democrat was Zell Miller.

by Steve M 2005-03-16 10:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Yeah, our problem is...

...the two to one conservative to liberal label. The party ID numbers are fairly meaningless, especially in a presidential race.

by Geotpf 2005-03-16 03:30PM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

nevertheless

Pollsters find ways to say that there are more Republicans:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003926.php

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-03-16 10:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Demonization

I find it interesting that the number of self-described "liberals" has always been so low. I think it has to do witht he demonization of the word "liberal", more than it does liberal policies. "Liberal" is a pejorative word in American politics. Less than in 1988 but it still is. I would venture that about 50% of self-described "moderates" are actually liberal. They're just ashamed to admit it. The other 50% are truly moderate. Actual conservatives are not afraid to admit it.

The task should be to openly accept and embrace the word "liberal". Take it back from the right wingers and make it something to be proud of. Get rid of "progressive" and start using "liberal". Describe, in ideological tones, why core American values like fairness, equal justice under law, equal opportunity to succeed, individual rights - are liberal ideals. And don't attack "right wingers". Attack "conservatives". Demonize "conservatism" as an ideology and a mode of identification.

by elrod 2005-03-16 10:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Demonization

Considering that Kerry won moderates 54-45%,

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

that sounds logical. Another problem is that too many people (through a successful GOP-led smear) only associate liberal with baby-killing and man-sex. Ask the average person if they support public education. Or progressive taxation. Or SOCIAL SECURITY.

by Skaje 2005-03-16 10:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Demonization

Well that's exactly my point. "Liberal" has been associated in the public mind with libertinism on one hand and socialism on the other. It's neither, of course. Liberals support capitalism. They just want to make sure everybody has a fighting chance to play along. If people fail due to their own poor choices then so be it. But they should at least have an opportunity. This is a core liberal Democratic principle.

And on social issues, it's really about three things: respect for the cultural diversity that defines the American character, belief in limited government and the rights of Americans to make basic decisions about how to conduct their lives, and a belief that separation of church and state preserves the integrity of both church and state. On a policy matter, the only issue that I would jettison in order to fit in with liberalism, as I define it, is to get rid of support for gun control. There is absolutely no reason in the world why Americans should trust the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party to "protect their Constitutional rights". Gun control is ineffective and, for the vast, vast majority of gun owners, an onerous indictment against a rural culture that has always valued hunting and shooting sports. Other than gun control I think liberals are fairly consistent.

by elrod 2005-03-16 12:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Then again

To a moderate, a true wishy washy middle person, Bush should look like a deranged moron. This number should be higher, which shows how badly Kerry's campaign sucked.

by Geotpf 2005-03-16 03:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Demonization

Exactly. And cut out this "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" crap. You're not fiscally conservative! You're fiscally responsible! Fiscal conservatives are the ones who keep ballooning the national debt!

A lot of my favorite politicians, like Howard Dean, Paul Simon, and Russ Feingold, either use the phrase or have used it in the past! It's a conservative frame! If you use it, you can't attack actual fiscal conservatives for being reckless!

by craverguy 2005-03-16 10:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

By definition . . .

reckless behavior isn't conservative.

An "actual fiscal conservative" wouldn't be ballooning debt, any more than a genuine conservative would be in favor of indefinite detentions without due process and the like. That's something we need to be driving home every day. The Reeps currently in power are not conservatives. They're reckless, big-spending, power-hungry corporate elitists.

by catastrophile 2005-03-16 01:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Don't Buy Their Frame! Conservative=/=Responsible

I take it back.

Conservative=Responsible.

Responsible for slavery.
Responsible for feudalism.
Responabile for monarchy.
Responabile for segregation.
Responabile for coddling Hitler, Musolini, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Responabile for demonizing gays, lesbians, blacks, women, Jews, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Southern & Eastern Europeans, Catholics, etc., etc., etc.
Responabile for just about anything un-American you can think of.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-16 02:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Not Just Demonization

Of course we should never under-estimate the power of demonization, when it comes to gauging our enemy. But the relatively low level of liberal identification goes back about as far as the eye can see, though it has gotten worse under constant attack, and with little over defense in the media. And to understand why, we need to entertain a number of ideas. For now, I'll just mention two:

(1) People don't know what the hell "liberal" and "conservative" mean. I'm serious. Back in 1964 there were people who labelled LBJ "conservative" as well as some who labelled Goldwater as "liberal". Not a lot of people, but enough to be measured, and enough to say that in any less clear-cut case there likely to be hordes more without a clue. Plus, studies have shown that a significant number of people self-identify just on the basis of a single issue, such as drugs.

(2) "Conservative" ideas, slogans, values, etc. are easier to grasp, they're less complex. And a lot of them aren't really conservative as opposed to liberal. They are just what conservatives hold onto. So people who find them attractive--stuff like loyalty, for example, a big one with conservatives since the dawn of time--will just assume that means they're conservative, even when their issue positions are liberal.

This is demonstrated by four decades of polling data that shows significant number of self-identified conservatives hold broadly liberal positions on the issues. (Roughly half of all conservatives are programmatic liberals by some measures.) In contrast, only a small fraction of self-identified liberals hold conservative views.
Basically, this means that there are a lot of people out there who are liberals, but don't even know it. To self-identify as a liberal, in general, requires a certain degree of self-reflection, which most people do not have when it comes to matters of politics.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-16 01:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not Just Demonization

How do self-identified conservatives with broadly liberal views on issues vote? Democrat or Republican?

by Curt Matlock 2005-03-16 04:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not Just Demonization

They vote Republican. If they didn't the GOP would never elect a dog-catcher.

As Chris has pointed out long ago, self-identified liberals vote overwhelmingly Democratic, self-identified conservatives vote overwhelmingly Republican.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-16 05:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not Just Demonization

So not only are 59 million Americans really that stupid, but a large percentage of them are so stupid they don't even know they're liberals, simply because they haven't thought about it. I am not surprised.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-16 06:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Too Harsh And Too Simplistic

Blaming people invidually like this is typical of how conservatives think--which should be a good tip-off that we should back off and examine things more critically and systematically.

It would certainly be stupid for people who think about politics alot and encounter a wide range of arguments to reflect on and respond to--such as the folks around here. But most people are not like this.

Nor does there seem to be good reason for them to be like us. They have a living to make, families to raise, all kinds of things to absorb their attention and intelligence which they can actually do something about--and reliably see results. The fact that politics is far less responsive is not just lamentable, it is a rational reason for them not to expend a great deal of energy, initiative, attention and intelligence. And conservatives know this. It's our job to change the conditions, so that it is rational for people to devote more of their attention and intelligence to politics.

This is only a partial response. But it should indicate the need to approach this information as a guide for our actions, not as a justification to relieve our frustrations by lashing out at people--no matter how well justified that may seem.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-16 08:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

asdf

How does this account for different states. i.e. you see a lot of diaries claiming that Democratic senators got more votes than their republican counterparts.

Basically, I am suggesting that while there may be in terms of pure numbers more dems than repugs, the more important numbers are the distribution weighted by the electoral college.

by mihirbhatia 2005-03-16 10:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Stating The Obvious

As I have argued before, our major blind spot on GOTV and cause for defeat was a failure to nurture our own base.

With conservatives outnumbering liberals by 2-1, and moderates outnumbering conservatives, it should be fairly obvious that Dems mostly lose elections because of insufficient appeal to moderates, not because they didn't get enough liberals. So the failure to nurture the base argument would only be true if the base wasn't liberal - which hasn't been the case for quite some time.

by SLinVA 2005-03-16 11:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stating The Obvious

Depends what you mean by "liberal". Opposing the bankruptcy bill, preserving Social Security, responsible economic policy and supporting ethical behavior by politicians are being pushed by the liberal base and liberal politicians.

Why would moderates oppose any of those?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-16 11:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

The Demographic Base Is Not Purely Liberals

While the core of Democratic base--especially those who are most active--is undeniably liberal, that does not mean that the demographic base is exclusively liberal. Quite the contrary. A good example is unionized white male workers. They routinely lean Democratic, while demographically identical non-union white male workers lean Republican. The partisan difference exceeds any ideological difference.

It doesn't matter that many of those union workers identify as moderates or even conservatives--they are still part of the Democratic base. If we fail to turn them out, fail to inform and motivate them, then we have failed to turn out our base.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-16 09:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Another Way to Look at the Situation

As far as traditional ideology the Democrats have won. I believe that history will view Bush as the President that ended conservatism as defined by Goldwater and Regan. Bush's biggest legacy will be a prescription benefit for seniors that is politically impossible to repeal. He will fail to restructure Social Security. Nation building is now good policy as far as the Republicans are concerned. The question now is how to exploit this and position Democrats as the populist party.

by CalvinR 2005-03-16 11:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Coalition Is the Key Word

I've always been disconcerted by the enmity between DLC-type Democrats and more liberal types energized by Howard Dean.

What we need is a multi-faceted party identification that will allow all sorts of left-of-center types, from the mildly moderate to the radical liberal, to see themselves as Democrats. The Republicans are somehow able to have religious conservatives and neocons and libertarian conservatives act as if they are the best of buddies. Some see the GOP as the Party of Lincoln, others as the Party of Reagan, and although these concepts are inconsistent, they are able to make it work.

Why, oh why, must we always try to strip away the illusions that permit us to act as a Democratic family, whether it be the get-Lieberman or the anyone-but-Dean approach? Let some people see the Democratic Party as the Party of FDR, others as the Party of JFK, still more as the Party of Clinton, and more as the Party of Dean or any other host of frameworks, but whatever the mindset, let us agree that the Democratic Party is a good thing, if improvable, and superior to the Republicans.

It seems like some people out there want to hate the other end of the party more than the other end of the political spectrum.

Our base isn't liberal; it's liberal AND moderate in a left-of-center coalition bound together by a progressive, reformist mentality that isn't inherently liberal. Our base includes people who agree with the Democratic Party 70% of the time and with the Republicans 30% of the time. These aren't swing voters; these are people on our side, or they should be. And unless we treat them as equals in the party, we don't win.

It's not as if we give in on that 30% of issues. For one thing, that 30% differs from person to person. But no single issue should be a litmus test except that, when it's a matter of political life and death, we all hang together for the good of the party. I can tolerate a certain McCain-ish maverick streak in a Democrat, to a point. It's sometimes admirable to not be a total party line kind of politician. To a point. The party has decided to draw a line in the sand with regards to Social Security and judicial nominations. I can tolerate deviance on some Iraq matters to certain degree or on gay marriage, but not on these issues which we've basically said are the ones that tug most at the soul of the party.

by Anthony de Jesus 2005-03-16 11:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

DLC <> Moderate

There is no such thing as a DLC-type Democrat. The DLC is purely a Beltway invention. It's a lot like the "Independent Women's Forum"--created by conservative foundation money and fronted by wives of prominent Republicans.

Sure, the DLC has been a lot more successful than the IWF, but its genesis is quite similar, as is its underlying rationale--which is basically to attack those with whom it is ostensibly identified.

You will find very few people around DKos or MyDD who will criticize moderate Democrats--Some of their arguments, yes. Some of their positions, yes. But not them, personally. But the DLC is a different story, and it's based on decades of DLC enmity to the Democratic base, hostility to core Democratic Party values, and attacks on Democrats that reinforce GOP attacks, and give aid and comfort to rightwing demonizers.

In short, it is DLC behavior that is the problem, not their positions. They are not being excluded in the name of ideological purity. It is, of course, typical of DLC dishonesty that they will claim this is the case. But they should not be believed. Look closely at what is really going on, and decide for yourself.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-16 02:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Patriot Penalty...

...wondering why Evan Bayh's push to help reservists isn't getting more play... seems like a good red state issue... especially since it highlights the neglect of our fighting men and women. I live in Georgia, and my neighbor is in the reserves, active now... families are getting knocked around pretty hard with all the extended duty... some are even facing bankruptcy, which of course just got harder with last week's vote...

from a press release:

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Evan Bayh today introduced legislation to eliminate the Patriot Penalty, a pay cut many National Guard and Reserve members face when they are called to duty and lose their civilian salaries. Since first outlining the details of his proposal, Bayh has spent the last month working with the Reserve Officers Association and others to ensure that his plan will effectively target the pay cut hurting Reservists and dragging down recruitment numbers in the National Guard. "It's not right to force the men and women in the Guard and Reserves to choose between love of country and love for their family," Senator Bayh said. "The Patriot Penalty is hurting the heroes of our country and threatening the strength of our military. Our Guard and Reserve families make countless sacrifices when a loved one is deployed - financial hardship because of their service should not be one of them."

by HKingsley 2005-03-16 11:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Patriot Penalty...

I don't understand this either HKingsley. NPR and Pacifica Radio have been giving this story big play and it's a dynamite issue. The only reason I can think of for it not getting bigger play is that Democrats are too stupid to drive it into the media. They need to learn how to coordinate their message when something like this comes along.

Bush is spending $10 billion per year on missle defense, which is pouring money into a concrete bunker. I still haven't heard a single Democrat criticize it. I think Kerry mentioned it once.

Put those two issues together and it is political dynamite. I don't get it. Why is that bonehead who released the Bush tapes and then issues a quivering apology news, but this isn't?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-16 07:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

So I'm guessing the dip in

Dem registration in 02 and 03 was due to 9/11. I think for really two years almost after 9/11 Dems really didnt do enough to build the party. I think they though Bush would cruise and so what's the point. Dean's rise changed that and groups like ACT seemed to really gear up on registration in 04. I think we beat the GOP in registration. I understand, that's just half the equation, GOTV is incredibly importnat, but I hope groups like ACT continue to register since I think we got some momentum from this election.

by jj32 2005-03-16 02:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

I absolutely agree

that we need to grow Liberalism, but I also think that a large part of those ideological ids are meaningless symantics. In the end, people believe what they believe no matter what they call themselves.

As to polarization and mobilizing the base, I have to say I disagree with Chris. I think the Republicans basic strategy is to hold onto its base by driving as much wedge issues as possible between them and the democrats, and then to pick off the democratic voters. The Republicans only option is to eck out election after election in a polarized environment, mainly because, on an issue by issue basis, the electorate generally favor democratic positions. Therefore, the logical choice for the dems is to shot for more broadly appealling, less incrimentally policies in order to break the deadlock.

Besides, I seriously doubt that, at least in the short run, the dems will be able to match the kind of motivation to GOP has created over the past 35 years. To go toe to toe with the GOP base is IMHO a recipe for electoral defeat--and I really don't think its good for the country either.

by descrates 2005-03-16 06:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I absolutely agree

I agree with this. It is absolutely a recipe for a 1984 or 1988 disaster for democrats if they abandon the middle. Thank god those in power on the left know this and Dean himself wouldn't advocate such a suicidal platform in a national electoral campaign. It is simple math. There just aren't enough people in the liberal base to win the presidency alone because in such a case the GOP gets their base and the middle. It's impossible. Face reality.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-03-16 11:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Those numbers don't look right to me.

I meet far more independents these days than dems or reps. My feeling is that they are going to become the new majority in time. People are becoming more and more disgusted with politicians in general. Ideologically those numbers look correct...almost everyone I know considers themselves a liberal con or a conservative lib, ie moderate. As for myself, I'll never swear fealty to any party.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-03-16 11:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Those numbers don't look right to me.

Actually, indies are on the decline. In 1992, they almost became the majority what with the Perot wave, but since they have become the smallest of the three groups. They are static right now. In fact, partisan ID is up!

by raginillinoian 2005-03-17 05:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Those numbers don't look right to me.

See, you had to mention 1992 and make me all misty-eyed. Those were the days!

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-03-18 02:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Those numbers don't look right to me.

Indeed. I remember the Brown campaign with great fondness.

by craverguy 2005-03-18 04:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Well

As long as we have strategically placed voting machines set to "self- identify" as Republican, we really don't need to worry too much about GOTV, do we?

by bellarose 2005-03-17 04:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Well...

Some of those "Democrats" are in states like West Virginia and Kentucky and Louisiana - many of them vote Republican in presidential elections but Democratic in local elections (West Virginia and Louisiana especially).

But, it is true - GOTV is everything. Rove turned out the Jesus-freaks (no offense, I'm just being pragmatic here) and so he convinced everybody that Democrats are the minority. The turnout was 37%D, 37%R, and 26%I. It should have been more like 39%D, 35%R, and 26%I.

by raginillinoian 2005-03-17 04:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Well...

The Kerry GOTV team swamped New Hampshire. I was part of it and you couldn't toss a stone without hitting three of our people. While I supposed you could say "we won NH, so that doesn't count." We only won by a razor-thin margin.

And both Ohio and Florida GOTV's were even more crowded with Kerry volunteers.

There was however, an effective Bush GOTV taking place all over and it wasn't this "neighbor talking to neighbor" crap the GOP and their buddies in the media like to promulgate. It was on the Christian radio stations, and it seems to have been somewhat overlooked: particularly conspicuous in rural areas, where is little choice in radio programming, I kept coming across very slickly produced pieces of pro-Bush propaganda wrapped in "Christian" packaging.

I also received several of those "prayer" e-mails claiming Bush was appointed by God (the 2000 election fiasco as divine providence theory). Now if I, as a non-church going left leaning type was getting these e-mails, I can only imagine how widespread this type of e-mail campaign was.

The Republicans would have us believe their campaign consisted of "plain folk" talking with "kin." That's bullshit! As with everything else related to the GOP, Rove's GOTV campaign was top-down, heavily financed, rigidly organized, and reliant on great big fat, oft repeated lies.

But as I watch the all the questions and controversy about those voting boxes fade once again into the background, I fear analysis of strategy won't make much difference in '06 or '08, anyway.

by bellarose 2005-03-17 05:36AM | 0 recs