Centerfield

That report sounds like good stuff. I'll hafta read it. 'Course, it seems to me that Democrats' biggest problem during Bush' terms has been selecting mediocre leadership, both as opposition to Bush directly, and as Congressional and Democratic leadership. Where do we get these guys?

Posted by: Jon Kay at October 8, 2005 10:35 AM

The bigger problem for the Dems is that the GOP has a more coherent base made up of fewer-but-larger interest groups. The GOP logistics are just plain simpler than the Dem logistics.

It's much harder for the Dems to construct a good unified "message" that keeps all their varied interest groups under the same tent, much less one that expands their numbers. To use a bad illustrative analogy, herding cats is hard work.

As the article points out, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 3 to 2, polarization is a technique that will (does) yield better results for conservatives than for liberals. To gain electoral ground, the Dems have to bring in the voters of the Great Middle at higher rates than the GOP does, and polarization works actively against that.

Many of us have been pointing this out for years. There's a "Prisoner's Dilemma" trap here. The Great Middle does not respond positively to polarization, but negatively. Thus extensive polarization of the electorate actively works in the GOP's favor, regardless of who's doing the polarizing. For the GOP to alienate enough of the GM to enable Dem gains requires that Dems move towards the GM rather than away, to capture the alienated moderates and centrists. But the Dem Left base won't allow it, insisting on the polarization. Catch-22.

Posted by: Tully at October 8, 2005 12:52 PM

Good stuff. This caught my attention:

The propensity of evangelicals to vote Republican in 1988 was greater than in 2004

Wait a minute, I thought the Religious Right was taking over the Republican Party? My opinion: thats an exageration perpetuated by the Left AND the (Religious) Right.

Another point, part my opinion, part conclusion from this paper. The Left wing of the Democratic Party incorrectly feels its views represent the "majority" of Americans. The Religious Right Wing of the Republican Party beleives its views are not in step with the majority of Americans but simply think "they are right". So what? The blindness on the left leads to repeatedly developing candidates that won't win the middle. On the flip side the Religious Right Republican candidates begin with a suspicion by the broader party (and sympathizers) that they may be unelectable. Unfortunately, the Primary season muddles that by mainly bringing out the "true faithful".

Put succinctly, the Democratic Party needs to take its blinders off.

Posted by: c3 at October 8, 2005 02:04 PM

As the article points out, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 3 to 2, polarization is a technique that will (does) yield better results for conservatives than for liberals.

Any suggestions on how to drill that through the skulls of the Democratic activists?

To gain electoral ground, the Dems have to bring in the voters of the Great Middle at higher rates than the GOP does, and polarization works actively against that.

A slight modification: Dems have to bring in the voters of the GM at substantially higher rates than the GOP does.

One effect of polarization that might also be present is that it riles the Moorons to denounce any compromise with the right as "Republican-lite" thus making it less likely that a candidate courting the GM vote would win a primary. Pure speculation, for what it's worth.

Posted by: Scott Smith at October 8, 2005 10:57 PM

Any suggestions on how to drill that through the skulls of the Democratic activists?

I tried all last year, Scott. All it got me was the joy of being called a fundie Xian and a right-winger, and those were the nice responses. (I'm an agnostic centrist-pluralist, if you want to use labels.) No doubt if we still had the stake I'd have been hunted down by a torch-carrying mob and burned as a heretic.

Posted by: Tully at October 9, 2005 06:16 PM

Now, you know I wouldn't burn you, Tully; just singe you a little.

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 9, 2005 07:48 PM

I see what you were referring to Tully. I shared the Third Way report with a coworker today. He responded by asking if Republicans wrote it. He then went on to claim that "every poll" he had seen indicated that America was 1/3 each liberal, moderate and conservative. Any light on debunking that claim?

Posted by: Scott Smith at October 11, 2005 11:35 PM

Scott,

The Harris poll indicates that the American voting public self-identifies as 33% conservative, 18% liberal, and 40% moderate with 9% "I dunno." For a somewhat more dated poll (but with better sub-category breakdowns) that shows time trends, U. Mich. has this one that indicates 35% conservative, 23% liberal, and 22% moderate with 22% I Dunno. It can also be read as 25% conservative, 14% liberal, and 41% moderate, if you take the "slightly" categories and include them in "moderate". If pressed, most of the I Dunno's would self-declare as moderates, even if they couldn't spell it.

Much was made of a Battleground poll last year that indicated 60% conservative. I think that one's utterly bogus, both in non-random selection methods and in "forced" response methodology.

From experience in political demographics and a lotta campaigns, I'd say that the general split falls along the lines of 4 parts moderate to 3 parts conservative to 2 parts liberal to 1 part utterly apathetic. Of course, you can show stats to people all day long, and no matter how vaild the numbers are people still won't accept them. Good luck with that. It's safe to say that the conservatives have a 3 to 2 edge on the liberals.

For the most part moderates repudiate the strident philosophies of the wingers, but accept winger issue positions on an individual basis if it fits their "common sense" prejudices. But hey, even wingers are right sometimes.

What's interesting in the Harris poll is how the party identifications have changed enormously with time, while the conservative/liberal/moderate split has stayed near-constant. Clue-hammer hittin' there for the Dems! Conservatives appear to have peaked in the 1990's, but the %age movement isn't that large in the first place, so who knows?

Posted by: Tully at October 13, 2005 04:47 PM

As long as you pour cold beer on me to put out the fire, Jean. DON'T use the hard liquor!

Posted by: Tully at October 13, 2005 04:48 PM

The below piece was written in the wake of the 2002 Congressional elections. Since that time, a re-analysis of the data led us to somewhat modify our conclusions. Though we still did find an "extremist" effect in the important 1994 U.S. House elections, when Democrats took a beating, our basic conclusion now is that, overall, liberal and conservative incumbents did just as well electorally as did moderates in 1992-2000 U.S. House races. (It is difficult to do an analysis for non-incumbents because they do not have a voting record that can be quantified.)

This result still contradicts the political maxim that being a moderate is more likely to bring electoral success. Thus one could hold onto a more liberal or conservative ideology that was perhaps abandoned for fear of an election loss.

Methodological reasons made it of little value to carry on with our analyses past 2000, principally because of the very limited number of incumbents who now lose. Given redistricting or other factors, it is unclear whether the effect theoretically still holds, but certainly few "extreme" (or any) incumbents have lost recently. Thus there is no evidence for any change in our conclusions. =========================================================================================================================Neil Wollman, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology; Senior Fellow, Peace Studies Institute; ; Manchester College, N. Manchester, IN 46962; 260-982-5346; fax 260-982-5043; njw@manchester.edu

==============================================================================================================================

STRATEGY FOR DEMOCRATS: TURN LEFT

Neil Wollman

Interpreting biennial election results is an American tradition, and so is Monday-morning quarterbacking. The most sacred tradition involves second-guessing the strategy of politicians and giving advice to the losers. Some commentators feel comfortable in taking the outcome of a few high-profile races and manufacturing a national trend. The good news for this past election is that, for the most part, analysts concluded that there was no major realignment in party allegiance. The bad news is that, none-the-less, they have recommended changes for Democrats that imply the need for a major shake-up in strategy. This seems odd given the fairly evenly divided Congress, the small numbers change from 2000, and the almost complete domination by incumbents from both parties (98% success rate).

The message of the midterm, say some commentators, is that the Democrats did not have a distinctive message—or even a unified one. Yet others are saying that Democrats should avoid moving to the “left,” where presumably they would have a more distinctive message than preaching the mixed message of moderation. What’s a poor Democrat to do?

Let me suggest a path for Democrats, realizing that I, myself, am giving overall strategic advice when fine tuning is perhaps more in order given 2002 results. But at least I'll give advice geared toward the long term, based on analyses of past elections over a decade, and derived from examining global election results rather than on the outcome of high profile races. First, there will be no attempt here to analyze the results of the most recent election or its individual races, beyond agreeing that there was no major change. Doing so would feed the same problem just discussed.

So let's begin the history lesson to see if, indeed, Democrats need to somehow find a distinctive message that is not liberal--if that is possible. Our analyses of House elections over most of the nineties found that it was the liberal Democratic incumbents who did better than their moderate colleagues in some election years --while at other times there were no differences (Neil Wollman, Leonard Williams, Abigail Fuller; Roll Call, Campaigns and Elections; reported in Washington Post, New York Times, etc.). But what about the signature election of 1994 that supposedly highlighted the vulnerability of a more extreme, liberal position? In that blowout, liberal ideology was not the cause of losses for Democrats. Analysis revealed that while only 7% of liberal incumbents lost, a whopping 26% of moderates did so (judging ideology by voting patterns on congressional bills). Thus, if Democrats need a distinctive message, a liberal one seems more likely to bring success, at least at the congressional level that is relevant here.

But turning to history again provides evidence of a bigger picture, one that leads to a recommendation for extreme (non-centrist) political strategies for both parties. Democrats need to learn the correct lesson from Republican congressional successes in the nineties. They won elections not by shying away from ideology, but by embracing a consistent message of conservatism—even when those views earlier consigned them to the political wilderness. Newt Gingrich was once labeled an “extremist,” but now conservatism appears as “mainstream” as New Deal or Great Society liberalism once was. But what about the rebuke of Newt and conservatives in the election of '96, when the Republicans lost a number of seats. As with '94, the elections were misinterpreted. Our analyses revealed that it was the moderate Republican incumbents who were more likely to lose than those more conservative.

The upshot is that Democrats should not embrace a, perhaps, mushy centrism.. Rather, Democrats should commit themselves to showing that liberal ideas matter, particularly in a time of economic and political turmoil. They need to make the case that progressive values are also American values. While change in the short term may be small given the dominance of incumbency, recent history shows that, at this point, that's where the more successful case lies.

Perhaps there are stirrings of that already with the party election of Nancy Pelosi and the post-election statements by some Democrats. Of course, if both parties follow the electoral strategy of the "extreme," then Democratic election attention will focus not on "old" vs "new" Democrats, but on how a liberal Democrat can best defeat a conservative Republican.

Posted by: neil wollman at October 14, 2005 10:37 AM