Exapno Mapcase
05-08-2011, 12:28 PM
Every few years the Pew Research Center does a massive survey and tries to identify the coherent belief blocs in America. This year's Political Typology (http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/) has just been released.
It's near book length (OK, not really, but 13 long pages with lots of graphs and charts) so I won't pretend to have absorbed it.
A couple of comments, though.
Pew divides the population into nine groups:
Staunch Conservatives take extremely conservative positions on nearly all issues – on the size and role of government, on economics, foreign policy, social issues and moral concerns. Most agree with the Tea Party and even more very strongly disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance. A second core group of Republicans – Main Street Republicans – also is conservative, but less consistently so.
On the left, Solid Liberals express diametrically opposing views from the Staunch Conservatives on virtually every issue. While Solid Liberals are predominantly white, minorities make up greater shares of New Coalition Democrats – who include nearly equal numbers of whites, African Americans and Hispanics – and Hard-Pressed Democrats, who are about a third African American. Unlike Solid Liberals, both of these last two groups are highly religious and socially conservative. New Coalition Democrats are distinguished by their upbeat attitudes in the face of economic struggles.
Independents have played a determinative role in the last three national elections. But the three groups in the center of the political typology have very little in common, aside from their avoidance of partisan labels. Libertarians and Post-Moderns are largely white, well-educated and affluent. They also share a relatively secular outlook on some social issues, including homosexuality and abortion. But Republican-oriented Libertarians are far more critical of government, less supportive of environmental regulations, and more supportive of business than are Post-Moderns, most of whom lean Democratic.
Disaffecteds, the other main group of independents, are financially stressed and cynical about politics. Most lean to the Republican Party, though they differ from the core Republican groups in their support for increased government aid to the poor. Another group in the center, Bystanders, largely consign themselves to the political sidelines and for the most part are not included in this analysis.
What jumps out at me from this is that it is almost impossible to sort these groups into two parties. Except at the extremes, the middle groups have a jumble of positions that don't neatly align with either party. But, and here's the other big point, they don't align well with one another either. Anybody looking to form a viable third party out of the middle will find it an almost impossible challenge to identify a set of positions that would attract a permanent coalition.
The other major point that makes me an election thread is the chart on p. 3, How the Typology Groups Voted in 2008 and 2010.
You normally expect a lower turnout across-the-board for non-Presidential elections. But the two conservative groups actually showed a higher turnout in 2010 than 2008. (Libertarians and Disaffecteds also voted more Republican but the total percentage who voted went down as expected.)
The four groups that voted overwhelmingly for Obama all turned out in stupendously lower numbers for Democrats in 2010.
For me, the obvious takeaway is that this gives the Republicans a huge obstacle toward taking the White House, and probably also in the Congressional elections. While there is 18 months for a bombshell to fall that will Change Everything, right now there is no reason to expect that the Democratic voters who stayed home in 2010 won't show up in 2008 numbers for the 2012 election. That means even without knowing who the Republican candidate is, or what the issues will be, or how the economy will be doing (assuming no bombshells), you can call the election as a Democratic sweep similar to 2008 just from voting patterns.
All politics is local, I know. More Democratic Senators are up for re-election and in vulnerable areas. Highly motivated minorities turn out in numbers proportionally far higher than those who are nominally satisfied. The 10% who are Bystanders and weren't counted in any of the opinions may become motivated. A Mitch Daniels candidacy would take Wisconsin from Obama. Each side will pour a couple of billion dollars into the races. An independent candidate could siphon votes from the middle.
Still. Any Democratic candidate reading these results has to be pleased. The Republicans aren't starting from even. They are starting about 8 percentage points behind, or exactly where they were in 2008. They either have to keep the Democratic millions who stayed home in 2010 from voting for President or they have to find more than that many millions to switch or come out for the first time. Either is extremely unlikely according to this.
Lots of other info for political junkies in those 13 pages, so go to it.
It's near book length (OK, not really, but 13 long pages with lots of graphs and charts) so I won't pretend to have absorbed it.
A couple of comments, though.
Pew divides the population into nine groups:
Staunch Conservatives take extremely conservative positions on nearly all issues – on the size and role of government, on economics, foreign policy, social issues and moral concerns. Most agree with the Tea Party and even more very strongly disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance. A second core group of Republicans – Main Street Republicans – also is conservative, but less consistently so.
On the left, Solid Liberals express diametrically opposing views from the Staunch Conservatives on virtually every issue. While Solid Liberals are predominantly white, minorities make up greater shares of New Coalition Democrats – who include nearly equal numbers of whites, African Americans and Hispanics – and Hard-Pressed Democrats, who are about a third African American. Unlike Solid Liberals, both of these last two groups are highly religious and socially conservative. New Coalition Democrats are distinguished by their upbeat attitudes in the face of economic struggles.
Independents have played a determinative role in the last three national elections. But the three groups in the center of the political typology have very little in common, aside from their avoidance of partisan labels. Libertarians and Post-Moderns are largely white, well-educated and affluent. They also share a relatively secular outlook on some social issues, including homosexuality and abortion. But Republican-oriented Libertarians are far more critical of government, less supportive of environmental regulations, and more supportive of business than are Post-Moderns, most of whom lean Democratic.
Disaffecteds, the other main group of independents, are financially stressed and cynical about politics. Most lean to the Republican Party, though they differ from the core Republican groups in their support for increased government aid to the poor. Another group in the center, Bystanders, largely consign themselves to the political sidelines and for the most part are not included in this analysis.
What jumps out at me from this is that it is almost impossible to sort these groups into two parties. Except at the extremes, the middle groups have a jumble of positions that don't neatly align with either party. But, and here's the other big point, they don't align well with one another either. Anybody looking to form a viable third party out of the middle will find it an almost impossible challenge to identify a set of positions that would attract a permanent coalition.
The other major point that makes me an election thread is the chart on p. 3, How the Typology Groups Voted in 2008 and 2010.
You normally expect a lower turnout across-the-board for non-Presidential elections. But the two conservative groups actually showed a higher turnout in 2010 than 2008. (Libertarians and Disaffecteds also voted more Republican but the total percentage who voted went down as expected.)
The four groups that voted overwhelmingly for Obama all turned out in stupendously lower numbers for Democrats in 2010.
For me, the obvious takeaway is that this gives the Republicans a huge obstacle toward taking the White House, and probably also in the Congressional elections. While there is 18 months for a bombshell to fall that will Change Everything, right now there is no reason to expect that the Democratic voters who stayed home in 2010 won't show up in 2008 numbers for the 2012 election. That means even without knowing who the Republican candidate is, or what the issues will be, or how the economy will be doing (assuming no bombshells), you can call the election as a Democratic sweep similar to 2008 just from voting patterns.
All politics is local, I know. More Democratic Senators are up for re-election and in vulnerable areas. Highly motivated minorities turn out in numbers proportionally far higher than those who are nominally satisfied. The 10% who are Bystanders and weren't counted in any of the opinions may become motivated. A Mitch Daniels candidacy would take Wisconsin from Obama. Each side will pour a couple of billion dollars into the races. An independent candidate could siphon votes from the middle.
Still. Any Democratic candidate reading these results has to be pleased. The Republicans aren't starting from even. They are starting about 8 percentage points behind, or exactly where they were in 2008. They either have to keep the Democratic millions who stayed home in 2010 from voting for President or they have to find more than that many millions to switch or come out for the first time. Either is extremely unlikely according to this.
Lots of other info for political junkies in those 13 pages, so go to it.