If I recall correctly, there are almost twice the number of democrats in the United States than Republicans. Logic seems to suggest that the dems would almost always win, but reality seems to suggest otherwise. What causes this to occur? My guess would be the GOP seems to be more geared towards protecting wealth so those so blessed with assets make it a point to always vote.
The last time I saw figures of registered Democrats versus Republicans - posted by someone on this board - it was about even.
Off the top of my head, the number of registered Democrats and Republicans in the US is around the 30% mark; everyone else either lists themselves as “independent” or refuse to state.
FullForce, let’s see something backing up that idea. It’s very likely going to be about even.
Your supposition that wealth alone captures GOP victories doesn’t hold. Putting up the recent dominance of the Republican party to one or another cause doesn’t do justice to the complexities of our system. We’ll see how the pendulum swings.
Some of it is tradition, going back to the Civil War or Great Depression. “My grandpa was a Democrat, my daddy was a Democrat, and I’m a Democrat”, even though the person in question is somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.
Hmm…I didn’t think of this before, but this may not belong in GQ. We’ll see.
Hung Mung writes:
> . . . the recent dominance of the Republican party . . .
In what sense has the Republican party recently dominated the vote? What’s “recently” mean? Since 1976? Three Presidential elections won by the Democratic candidate and five won by the Republican candidate, going by the electoral vote. If you go by the popular vote, it’s four and four. The Congress has been both majority Democratic and majority Republican at different points over that period. If you take “recently” to be since 1992, then it’s two and two by the electoral vote and three and one for the Democrats by the popular vote. If you want “recently” to mean in the last year, then you’re guilty of the fallacy in which the most recent vote obviously must predict all future trends. And, besides, there was only a 2 1/2 % difference in that Presidential election.
By the standards of most of the countries of the world, there hasn’t been any party in domination of the Presidential or the Congressional votes in the U.S. within the past century. In much of the world, it’s common for the votes for parties to vary widely from one election to the next. Indeed, it’s not uncommon for parties to disappear or for new parties to appear in some countries. In comparison, the party situation is extremely stable in the U.S. A vote difference of 60% to 40% would be considered a huge loss in the U.S., while in most countries it would be condidered only a mild loss. Most Presidential elections in the U.S. get decided by about 55% to 45% or so. Despite the usual reports of the news media that the percentages of representives in Congress change a lot in each election, in fact in many other countries of the world the percentages of representatives from each party in their national legislatures frequently changes by much wider margins than in the U.S.
In short, the party situation in the U.S. is very close and very stable by world standards.
Over the last decade and a half, the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Democrats is typically in the 30 to 34 percent range. The percentage who identify as Republicans is usually in the 28 to 30 percent range. Generally speaking, Democrats enjoy a slim but consistent lead in party identification. But that doesn’t mean much at the ballot box because the number of independent voters is quite high.
Over the long term, there have been major shifts between the parties.
1933-1945 FDR and Democratic domination
1946-1958 Post-FDR Backlash and Chaos
1959-1980 Democratic domination of the Senate
1959-1994 Democratic domination of the House
1995-Now Republican domination of Congress
1968 Death of the “Old” Democratic Party
There has also been a long term trend towards realignment in the South. Nixon and Reagan were successful in appealing to conservative Democrats. Republicans became electable in the South and many conservative Democrats were replaced by Republicans.
In presidential races, after Truman, we all like Ike. Cook County elects JFK. LBJ nukes Goldwater and later self-destructs, Wallace defeats Humphrey and Nixon wins, Carter wins largely due to post-Watergate backlash. Reagan wins largely due to killer bunny. Clinton triangulates his way into office. George W. Bush proves that mediocrity is no vice when the opposition is incompetent.
:::looks into room
[moderator hat ON]
Play nicely, now. Y’all are doing splendidly. So far.
Let’s keep it that way. If anyone needs to get too far afield and discuss politics or their opinions of politicians, take it to another fora.
[/moderator hat OFF]
Most of those aren’t major shifts. The most recent thing which might count as a major shift was the decline of the Democratic party among Southern whites (and mostly Southern white males) since at least 1964. (And, incidentally, there was an increase in Democratic votes in the rest of the country, so it was more a case of the parties trading their power bases.) And none of this has anything to do with my point that in the U.S. a party is considered to have a bad election cycle if it looses a Presidential election by more than 57% to 43%, or if they lose the Senate by more than a 55 to 45 margin, or if they lose the House by more than a 240 to 195 margin. These would be not considered big swings in most countries. Relatively speaking, the party situation is stable and close in the U.S.
From what I understand, GOP donations (which may not be relevant to members per se) tend to be more middling than Democrat donations. Demos tend to have a lot of small donations and a few really big ones. "Pubs are a bit more even. Obnviously, this is a very generalized tendency if it exists at all, and both parties have a lot of cross-class appeal.
My first thought on reading the title was that this was one of those collective nouns, like a pride of lions and a murder of crows.
It depends on how you count them. If you’re looking at registered democrats and republicans, then the numbers are pretty close to even (as others pointed out). If you simply ask people’s opinions, I think you’ll find that the vast majority of high school students would identify more with the democrats. If you’re counting people, they’d skew the numbers toward your hypothesis. If you’re counting voters, you’d have to leave them out.
I’d love to see some stats here. Aren’t most of the richest people in the country actually democrats?
Too funny. Although I would associate the noun more with Unitarians…
Being a baby boomer, during my lifetime “Democrat” has always equated to left of center. Has this always been the case (as in the old Southern Democrats), and if not, what distinguished one party from another before this?
I’d be surprised if that was the case, myself.
This study (PDF) by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs claims that political affiliation and income are fairly closely tied:
The full paper is available here (PDF), but I don’t have time to look at it deeper right now…
Well, a presidential race is actually 50 seperate state races which get totalled in the Electoral College, thus as in 2000 the total national number of votes a party receives in meaningless.
Almost all of the House seats are decided by gerrymandering, or a state in some cases only has one Rep, and therefore we have to look at compartmentalized voter registration and activity. Of course all of the Senate races are statewide.
In short, even if the number of independently or smaller party registered voters weren’t enough to render the gap between party registrations moot, a national totalling of party registrations still wouldn’t get you anywhere. You have to examine each state or district in isolate.
Keep in mind that there is no truly accurate measure of party allegiance due to various state registration laws. The most accurate is probably around 30-30-30 That most folks have already mentioned. Twice is wildly inaccurate. The Dems have traditionally had a slight advantage in raw numbers, however, many sympathetic groups tend not to vote as reliably as Republican voters. Black voters is probably the most glaring example.
You may of course have areas (especially in the south) where there are registered Dems who are quite reliable Republican votes. In Southeast PA, you have a ton of Registered Republicans who tend to vote democratic. This is due to history. People stick with a party because they always have in the past. But they vote their conscience.
In the end, guessing an election result purely by party registration is a fool’s errand. Elections are often a result of local issues, personalities and preceptions. How can one explain that the Democrats have not elected a governor in liberal Massachusettes since 1986 or in Rhode Island since 1990?
Very interesting study–and very enlightening. Thank you for posting it.
However, that wasn’t my question. I asked, “Aren’t most of the richest people in the country actually democrats?” If you look at just the top few thousand Americans in terms of wealth (not income), the list would include many Hollywood and media liberals, and a lot of the Silicon Valley business types who also tend to support liberal candidates.
Which party tends to get the most high-dollar donations from wealthy individuals?
The great advantage for the GOP is single issue politics. Is your most important issue gun control? You vote Republican. Is it abortion? You vote Repubican. Prayer in schools? You vote Republican. Gay marriage? You vote Republican. There isn’t a single single-issue that works to the Democrats’ advantage.