Centerfield

Very interesting stuff. My take is that this shows how effective both major parties have been in fostering the triumph of rhetoric over substance. In other words, it shows the toll that partisan framing has taken on the public's ability and willingness to tackle important issues.

And of course, it shows that the people have a TON of clarity when it comes to policies that effect them and that they desire. People want social security...not the program, the idea. they want protection from increased costs, and they want some guarantee of finanical security. When it comes to pocketbook issues, ambivalence and apathy disappear with astonishing rapidity.

As you point out Simon, this points strongly at the challenge for centrists. In a sense, we have to forge a credibity for a new morality, one that where we really sound and act like we are, well, less full of crap than the partisans, and willing to keep our eye on the ball. The big challenge is, can we really get people to listen and to respond.

If I had to pick the "ball" that we would show unflinching committment to watching, it would probably be, off the top of my head, composed of two things: fiscal solvency for the federal government, and a focus upon the views of the consensus in the middle when the wings wish to obscure it.

To me, this report indicates that some lower-income people may be unreachable for Democrats, and trying to attract them with populist economics will fail. Rather than try to bring back these ex-Democrats to the fold, they would be better off trying to appeal to blue state Republicans who are feeling alienated from their party.

As I see it, Democrats are frozen between these two choices--try to get back lower income cultural conservatives, or give up on them and try to bring in more high income cultural liberals.

Hmm, maybe so Rick. It's at least arguable. The problem I see with it is that proposing such a strategy is the equivalent in demographic terms of saying "hmm, you've lost your majority, how about trying to get it back by giving up on this very large pool of voters and concentrating on this much smaller pool?"

I may be wrong about the other problem I foresee, as I have no stats. But my gut tells me that the more wealthy you are, the more likely you are to vote based on tax/economic policy instead of social policy. I just can't foresee a way for democrats to draw a majority of upper income Americans.

A majority is not necessary, but more than they get now. Under this strategy, Democrats would accept that the fundamental divide is cultural, not economic, and build a coalition to 51% with that in mind.

This dovetails with an idea I've been mulling over for a while -- that all politics is populist now. This is an institutional change, I think, tied to the explosion of media channels and the amount of surplus money that can be devoted to political messaging.

Populism has its good side, I suppose, but one doesn't have to look far (talk radio, DailyKos) to see the bad: the class and culture warfare, the free-lunch economics, the demonizing of political opponents and opposing ideas, the fringe of bigotry and paranoia.

Congress is a populist institution now and will remain so, no matter which party controls it.

As for the Presidency, the first order of business for the Democrats is to stop running feeble candidates. If Clinton ran the same campaign as Gore or Kerry, running the same ads and saying the same things, he'd been in his fourth term now.

Democrats would accept that the fundamental divide is cultural, not economic, and build a coalition to 51% with that in mind.

Well, what do we centrists think? IS the fundamental divide cultural?

I know I don't think that. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that the primary divide now manifesting itself appears to be cultural. But I don't think it's fundamental to the nature of the American people. I think this is a schism that has been highlighted due to the way the parties have practiced politics. Current practices have driven away or excluded those for whom social policy is not a huge priority. It may perhaps take some sort of financial crisis to awaken the financial jacksonians.

Here's a question. What happens to this obvious "fundamental" cultural divide if the following 2 things occur:

• gasoline hits $3 or $3.50 per gallon

• The situation in Iraq becomes untenable because the insurgency somehow gains significant traction, and the majority of Iraqis turns against our presence

I don't have the answer. And I'm not predicting or hoping for either of these to occur, just asking "what if?"

I think the advantage Republicans have is that they have a large cohort of supporters, primarily in the South and Midwest, for which culture trumps everything else. Some (I don't know how many) are probably middle or working class people who might be attracted to Democratic economics if it wasn't for the cultural issues. I have read that Gary Bauer, for example, is not a fan of Republican economic policies but he votes for them because of their stands on culture and values.

When you talk about values vs. economics vs. national security as the decisive issue, I think you miss the point. People obviously consider different issues the most important, but if you win a baseball game 5-4, each of the five runs is equally as important. What I think is important for the Democrats is that they appear to be competent and that the electorate thinks they share a vision of the country with which they are comfortable. In this regard, I will, surprisingly, agree with Carla. I think the Democrats needs a candidate that can articulate a vision with which people are comfortable. That's a combination of economic, social, and foreign policy. I don't think the Democrats have to pretend that they are just like the Republicans on social issues, but they can't allow social issues to define their overall image. I think they need something that is distinctive from the Republicans. (Note, I did not say that they need to be "populist" or appeal to "class.") I really think that, at the presidential level, at least, the Democrats have suffered more from their appearance of incoherence and incompetence than from any specific policy.

i dunno, there's something odd about centrists disturbed about "populism".

Ah yes, the Great Divide. Check out Robert Kuttner's take.

Montana, which Bush won by better than 20 points, elected a Democratic governor and gave Democrats control of both houses of the Legislature. Wyoming, which gave Kerry just 29 percent, has a Democratic governor, too. Likewise ''red state" Arizona and Oklahoma. Even Kansas, the poster child for working people who supposedly don't vote their pocketbook interests, has a Democratic governor, too. Maybe there's nothing the matter with Kansas.

Ohio, which seldom supports a Democrat for president, is presumably a diehard ''red" state. Yet a Democrat, campaigning as an Iraq veteran against Bush's war, nearly won the state's most heavily Republican house seat in a 52-48 special election to fill a vacancy.

Conversely, even the ''bluest" of the blue states, such as New York and California, send dozens of Republicans to Congress, and elect GOP governors. True blue Massachusetts also keeps electing Republican governors (who reciprocate by leaving town, but that's another story.)

You don't get much more "red" than Kansas. So why is our governor a Democrat moderate? Beware the simplisticity of the "Great Divide."

All 3 axes important (millions of Bush+Kerry votes):
Iraq & Terrorism (22+22 ),
Tax Cuts & Economic issues (8.5+30 ),
Moral Values (27+5 )
Other (4+2)

The numbers (from my 3-d analysis) from Pew & exit polls on "Most Important Issue".

Dems prolly get more if they peel off pro-Iraq supporters through more pork -- but Bush is porking his friends pretty heavy now, don't hear many Dems say "spending cuts".

On morals Dems get more AFTER Roe gets repealed -- the intensity on gays is prolly an undebated abortion substitute. [Civil unions, w/o full adoption, is prolly coming.]

Mortgage owners (68% and rising) don't want big gov't programs that mean higher taxes AND fewer jobs... unless they already have multi-millions.

Oops, Moral Values (27+4); with rounding.