I know I read this in relation to an SDMB thread years ago (but I don’t remember / don’t care to find the thread):
The data is four years old now, having covered the 2020 election. But the histogram in the top left is is crystal clear, the political leanings of voters in this country do not adhere to a normal distribution:
I would describe it as a ‘U’ shape rather than a double hump. However note that what Pew calls the “populist right” is neither a local peak nor the extreme right. Furthermore communist and anarchist left extremes are omitted (not significant enough, I would say).
I disagree slightly. I think it was their turn toward the Evangelicals/Christian Right that changed things. That’s when they started wrapping that bunch’s notions of morality into their very political platform. Before that, it was more… academic(?) in that the party wasn’t necessarily explictly hateful against diversity/inclusion/LGBTQ, etc. in the actual party platform.
Take a look at the 1984 Republican Party platform and see how dramatically different and less nutty than today’s is.
Well, we could argue about details, but I think that just supports my hypothesis. In 1984, the Republicans didn’t think they had to defend traditional morality, because at that point, most people still agreed with it. As the Democrats moved further away from traditional morals, and started calling out racists, sexists and homophobes, the Republicans started to feel like they needed to be more pro-active in combatting that.
Sure, that involved an embrace of the evangelical movement, but we’re in a bit of a cart-and-horse situation here. Which trend really drove the other?
Point of order though - leaving out changing consensus on LGBQT+ issues, those of us who are not, and were not Christians absolutely felt they were being pushed away by the Republican party after their embrace of the evangelical Christians. Even in the Bush eras, watching the Republican candidates spend all their time during the Primaries trying to out-Christian each other and then put on a facade of acceptance during the general was one of the huge issues for me looooong before the other bubbled up from underneath.
I’m pretty sure they courted the Evangelical/Religious Right because they were a large, somewhat organized, and conservatively aligned block that they could rely on. Their embrace of the Evangelical morals is a consequence/condition of that marriage, not the other way around.
You’re not wrong, I think both were a typical political two-faced illusion. But it was insulting - it’s not like we COULDN’T see them campaigning on their evangelical merits in the primary only to be told “All Americans” were important in the general.
But if they got elected based on the embrace of the Christian Right, we could see where their bread was buttered. And it distinctly made me at least feel unwelcome, or at a minimum, less important.
Americans are on average more ostentatiously religious than Canadians, so that just looked normal to us at the time. We expected them to go all “God&Flag”.
They were pleased with the President breaking the law, selling weapons to our enemies, and lying under oath to cover it up; hell they made a hero out of one guy who did it, and elected Bush Sr, who repeatedly lied about it and pardoned the people who did it. They were pleased to use their base’s racism to stoke fear and hatred ala Willie Horton. They were pleased to support a drug-dealing tyrant in Noriega and a murderous tyrant in Saddam Hussein. They were fine with the AIDS crises, the anti-gay marriage crusade, and the election of his simpleton son and the crimes and atrocities that came with him.
You can say they never would have supported an insurrectionist. I disagree. The only real difference I see is that the Republicans hadn’t lost a presidential election to a black man, hadnt had 40 years of massive disinformation spread by their supporters, and hadn’t lost on issues like gay rights, treatment of women, and increasing diversity of America. They became more desperate to cling to power. Thats the only difference I see about the Republican base. Not their ideals, their positions, the hatred, anger, fear, racism, and superiority. Their base didnt change politically, they only became more desperate
Excellent graph. Thank you for sharing that. The thing that’s missing is what the absolute numbers are as opposed to just a percentage. If we went by this graph, we might expect the Democratic Party to be dominated by the far left in the same way the Republics are by the far right. It seems to me that the reason that isn’t the case is because the moderate left outnumbers the far left, by significantly more than enough to make up for being less passionate. On the right, however, it seems clear that the far right is not only more passionate, but also outnumbers the moderate right. What I’m trying to understand is this. Has that always been the case, or did it just become true in the era of Trump?
To use a specific example, did the likes of Bob Dole, George Bush Jr., and Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination because those far right voters held their nose and grudgingly vote for a mainstream Republican, or were those voters actually mainstream conservatives who have since “gone crazy” over the past 8 years?
I think you’re missing my point -if you set the wayback machine to say… 1980 or even later, the political debate might have been about which policies were good or evil, or the relative evilness/goodness of each side’s approaches to solving agreed upon problems, but it was NOT a debate of one side or the other being inherently, irredeemably evil, and that ALL their policies must be thwarted and resisted.
THAT is what I’m getting at. There used to be a pretty clear popular understanding that the other side, no matter how deluded, confused, or flat out dumb they may be, had the best interests of the country in mind, as they saw them.
Now it’s completely adversarial on the GOP’s part. There’s no notion that the Democrats are on the same side and just wrong about how to go about it, they’re literally portrayed as evil and the enemy and to be resisted/crushed at all costs. And I think that along with a lot of other stuff they’re doing, is cultivating the same sort of attitude among Democrats as well.
Pew always gives a breakdown of the population into typology groups. You may be interested in their write up on the Democratic coalition based on the same underlying data.
However to address you directly, here are back of the envelope calculations on absolute numbers.
The population the sample represents in that top left graphic upthread (“Voted in 2020”) is supposed to be the total number of votes cast in the 2020 general election, which is 155,507,476 votes. (It does NOT necessarily represent primary voters.)
Typology group
Prog. L.
Est. L.
Dem. M.
Out. L.
Stress. S.
Amb. R.
Pop. R.
Com. C.
F&F C.
Percentage of general public
6
13
16
10
15
12
11
7
10
2020 Gen. voter turnout
86
78
68
57
45
55
67
78
85
Percentage of general public who voted in 2020 Gen. Election
6.88
10.14
10.88
5.7
6.75
6.60
7.37
5.46
8.5
Estimate absolute number of voters in 2020 Gen. Election
10,698,914
15,768,458
16,919,213
8,863,926
10,496,754
10,263,493
11,460,901
8,490,708
13,218,135
If you were to chart these last two columns, then you get a shape like this:
If you are curious you can make similar graphs based on previous surveys, since Pew has done this a few times before. For example this is from 2014:
I really don’t see any evidence for this. Tbe segment of the GOP who voted for Trump also voted for Bush Snr.
The difference is there was a respectable veneer of “country club” Republican (like Bush Snr) who could give just enough red meat to the base (anti-immigrant xenophobia, racist “welfare queen” rhetoric, etc) while still seeming respectable, and played the collegiate party political game nicely enough to appeal to the middle ground.
The difference now is that veneer is removed and that base is calling the shots and they and their chosen representative are saying exactly how they feel. Its only that moderating filter that changed in recent years not how they feel.
I think there’s been a fundamental change in the Republican base in what they’re willing to do and accept. I’m not the same person today I was in 1992, why would the Republican base be the same?
Because you’re a single person, and the Republican base is a conglomeration of millions of people, and it has institutional knowledge, hereditary political views, and a vast media empire pounding them with misinformation?
They are likely more white, male, and Christian. In 1992 and earlier than that white, male, Christian was more evenly supported by both parties. Both parties favored it, but it was not a way to distinguish the parties. So people who care about that would have moved to the Republican party, whereas before they would have been more evenly split.
Though that was just a change in degree. Since at least Reagan the GOP base was always older white males without a college degree. What changed is that went from being the core demographic to the only demographic the GOP cared about.
