This has been the case for many, many years I believe.
Which brings up the question: Why don't conservatives win consistently election after election?
There are many theories, but here is mine.
Moderates are mostly apolitical, i.e., they don't care that much about politics, but they will vote when one or the other party makes a clear case for their agenda. Democrats are quite good at that (whether they govern in accordance with that agenda or not is another topic).
When moderates vote with liberals we generally get narrow or solid Democrat victories in national and presidential elections (Clinton, Obama). When moderates vote with conservatives we generally get solid or landslide Republican victories (Reagan, Bush I). When moderates split or don't show up, we get narrow Republican victories (e.g., Bush II vs Gore, Kerry).
In short, it essential for Democrats more than Republicans to convince moderates to side with them. Reagan and Newt Gingrich were able to clearly articulate a positive agenda and they won big. Obama articulated a positive message (although not very detailed) and had a somewhat solid victory, but no landslide. Moderates are a fickle group and they change as easily as the weather, but as it stands now, they appear to be turning away from the Democrat agenda, which is leading many to predict substantial Democrat losses in fall elections.
4 comments:
My worry is will a shift in the 2010 elections pacify enough moderates and conservatives that they will not turn out to make a change in 2012.
I think Alan is right. Moderates hold the key. Nearly always.
However, I think that the percentage of conservatives vs liberals is not quite as important as the poll and graph may lead us to believe. Why? Because of the electoral college. A great many conservative votes can be, in some circumstances, a moot point. Utah of course is a good example. All five electoral votes go to the Republican candidate nearly automatically each time. 70% R to 30% D is not important. 51%R to 49% D yields the same result.
Naturally, I am only talking about presidential elections.
Doug is correct, of course. The electoral college puts a damper on the numbers, and I have often wondered whether the electoral college is useful at all since it almost always conforms to the popular vote. Both parties have benefited in the past in the rare times it is wrong. However, based on recent events with Acorn, SEIU, and the like, I think the electoral college serves to hamper the effect of fraudulent voting in presidential elections. And let's not fool ourselves, vote fraud happens and it tended to be localized until recently. It is an increasing problem that has become more nationalized.
With the new machines, it seems to me, there is more chance for manipulation by the few on on the inside. On the other hand one would think that tracking actual votes and precise recounting would be easier.
As for the electoral college, I think that I am finally against it. This is because in Utah my Democratic vote for president is of no consequence. The state votes about 65% R and 35% D. Each Dem could vote twice in some years and the R would still win. Even though I don't like the expression that I often hear in Utah Democratic circles, "My vote for president doesn't count anyway." I must admit that is rather true. The abolition of the electoral college would instantly make every vote count!
Post a Comment