With Barack Obama's victory and Democratic gains in Congress, more than a few commentators are talking about that "r" word so important in presidential politics -- "realignment." Was 2008 a realigning election? I don't think so.
many analysts compare 2008 to the 1980 election -- and it is true they have some similarities. Both Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan are seen as transformational figures. Both are thought of as Washington outsiders who would bring needed change in a time of domestic crisis. Both energized their party bases and attracted new voters.
But there's another similarity that disqualifies both contests from constituting a realigning election: The elections turned on their predecessors. Reagan's sound bite "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" encapsulated what his campaign was about. The election was a referendum on Jimmy Carter's performance, and voters rejected it.
And 2008? George W. Bush's failures hung over the campaign. John McCain tried to distance himself from the president, but an October PSRA/Newsweek poll showed that 48% of those surveyed believed that if elected, he would continue to "carry out the policies of George W. Bush."
Even more to the point, the congressional election results also cast doubt on the thesis that this year's election, or that of 1980, signals a political realignment. Republicans picked up 33 seats in the House and control of the Senate in 1980. But two years later, Democrats picked up 26 seats in the House and regained control of the Senate in 1986.
In 2008, Democrats picked up 19 House seats (with a few races still too close to call), but this represented the continuation of a trend from 2006, a year in which Democrats picked up a more impressive 31 seats. It is too early to conclude that 2008 marked the start of an enduring period of one-party domination or the continuation of short-term voter dissatisfaction with the GOP.
The 2008 election was an important election. But it can hardly be considered realigning.
Mr. Obama won by portraying the Bush presidency as a series of mistakes that need to be avoided in the future -- essentially encouraging voters to think about the short-term past, not the long-term future.
Put another way, Mr. Obama got about 40,000 fewer votes in Ohio than John Kerry got four years ago. Mr. Obama carried the state when Mr. Kerry did not because Republicans stayed home.
many analysts compare 2008 to the 1980 election -- and it is true they have some similarities. Both Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan are seen as transformational figures. Both are thought of as Washington outsiders who would bring needed change in a time of domestic crisis. Both energized their party bases and attracted new voters.
But there's another similarity that disqualifies both contests from constituting a realigning election: The elections turned on their predecessors. Reagan's sound bite "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" encapsulated what his campaign was about. The election was a referendum on Jimmy Carter's performance, and voters rejected it.
And 2008? George W. Bush's failures hung over the campaign. John McCain tried to distance himself from the president, but an October PSRA/Newsweek poll showed that 48% of those surveyed believed that if elected, he would continue to "carry out the policies of George W. Bush."
Even more to the point, the congressional election results also cast doubt on the thesis that this year's election, or that of 1980, signals a political realignment. Republicans picked up 33 seats in the House and control of the Senate in 1980. But two years later, Democrats picked up 26 seats in the House and regained control of the Senate in 1986.
In 2008, Democrats picked up 19 House seats (with a few races still too close to call), but this represented the continuation of a trend from 2006, a year in which Democrats picked up a more impressive 31 seats. It is too early to conclude that 2008 marked the start of an enduring period of one-party domination or the continuation of short-term voter dissatisfaction with the GOP.
The 2008 election was an important election. But it can hardly be considered realigning.
Mr. Obama won by portraying the Bush presidency as a series of mistakes that need to be avoided in the future -- essentially encouraging voters to think about the short-term past, not the long-term future.
Put another way, Mr. Obama got about 40,000 fewer votes in Ohio than John Kerry got four years ago. Mr. Obama carried the state when Mr. Kerry did not because Republicans stayed home.
Bill Kristol wrote it this way:
What's more, this year's exit polls suggested a partisan shift but no ideological realignment. In 2008, self-described Democrats made up 39 percent of the electorate and Republicans 32 percent, in contrast with a 37-37 split in 2004.
But there was virtually no change in the voters' ideological self-identification: in 2008, 22 percent called themselves liberal, up only marginally from 21 percent in 2004; 34 percent were conservative, unchanged from the last election; and 44 percent called themselves moderate, compared with 45 percent in 2004.
In other words, this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country.
And, don't forget the longest-running indicator of political leanings in America:
Sixty percent of Americans considered themselves conservative. Does this mean that most Americans do not know what "conservative" means? No: The question specifically provides an out to people who are not sure about their ideology; it provides an out to people who want to be considered "moderate." Americans reject those choices. They overwhelmingly define themselves as "conservative." This is a huge political story - except that it is not "new" at all. Look at the thirteen Battleground Poll results over the last six years, and how do Americans answer that very question? Here are the percentages of Americans in those polls who call themselves "conservative" since June 2002: 59% (June 2002 poll), 59% (September 2003 poll), 61% (April 2004 poll), 59% (June 2004 poll), 60% (September 2004 poll), 61% (October 2005 poll), 59% (March 2006), 61% (October 2006), 59% (January 2007), 63% (July 2007), 58% (December 2007), 63% (May 2008), and now 60% (August 2008.)
The percentage of Americans who define themselves as "somewhat liberal" or "very liberal" has always been puny. In thirteen straight polls, this percentage has never been higher than 38% (June 2004) and it has usually been much lower. ... Have you ever wondered why liberals like Obama never call themselves liberals? Maybe their advisers have read the Battleground Poll internals.
Are these remarkable results skewed? This has always been the argument, but it is a hopelessly flawed argument. The poll results are incredibly consistent over time. These results are the same when President Bush has poll numbers at rock bottom and when Republicans were facing electoral disaster, like in October 2006 when 61% of Americans called themselves conservatives. The very consistency of these percentages is powerful evidence of their inherent validity.
If people did not know what conservative, liberal, and moderate meant, then the poll results to that question would bounce around over time and people would flock to define themselves as "moderate" or they would say "don't know." When given four different options to the conservative label, respondents overwhelmingly chose to define themselves, instead, as conservatives.
The percentage of Americans who define themselves as "somewhat liberal" or "very liberal" has always been puny. In thirteen straight polls, this percentage has never been higher than 38% (June 2004) and it has usually been much lower. ... Have you ever wondered why liberals like Obama never call themselves liberals? Maybe their advisers have read the Battleground Poll internals.
Are these remarkable results skewed? This has always been the argument, but it is a hopelessly flawed argument. The poll results are incredibly consistent over time. These results are the same when President Bush has poll numbers at rock bottom and when Republicans were facing electoral disaster, like in October 2006 when 61% of Americans called themselves conservatives. The very consistency of these percentages is powerful evidence of their inherent validity.
If people did not know what conservative, liberal, and moderate meant, then the poll results to that question would bounce around over time and people would flock to define themselves as "moderate" or they would say "don't know." When given four different options to the conservative label, respondents overwhelmingly chose to define themselves, instead, as conservatives.
I do think it is interesting to note that, while the Reps in the primary were boasting about who was the better conservative, the Dems in the primary were doing their best to make up new words (i.e. 'centrist' or 'progressive') to describe their liberalism. Coincidence? I think not.
Regardless, as you can see, there is ample evidence that America is still a fundamentally center-right nation. Have no doubt of that! Whether Rep or Dem, if you consider yourself conservative, you are a part of the vast majority of Americans.
The problem on the Right is with the Republican brand. The party has wandered away from the things that used to make it fundamentally conservative (smaller government, etc.), and support for the party has eroded. If people want big government, they'll vote Democrat. Most of the country wants less government, but neither party is truly providing that option right now.
That's the key to understand.
The Left and the big-government Reps love to blame McCain's loss on Sarah Palin, but the reality is quite different. McCain is classic big-government/moderate, and Palin is fundamentally conservative, and their individual effects on the base were obvious throughout the campaign. Palin drew far bigger crowds. McCain was cash-strapped until he announced Palin as his VP, and the money began pouring in. I've mentioned this phenomenon before, but here's another outright example: Michelle Malkin reports on two right-wing polls that speak directly to the question of what the GOP base thinks. Right Wing News ran two polls, one asking who the least favorite person on the Right is, and who the least favorite person on the Right is. Guess who won both polls?
Least favorite: John McCain
Most favorite: Sarah Palin
Most favorite: Sarah Palin
This is the internal battle in the GOP right now. The big-government types are stamping their foot and screaming that they weren't the problem, but after 8-10 years of running the party, they've managed to soundly thrust the GOP out of majority status. It is time for them to go back to the back of the bus. Don't misunderstand, we definitely still want them on the bus, just not in the driver's seat. The conservatives have the backing of a massive amount of the country (including a lot of Dems and Indies), but lack the high-profile leadership around which to coalesce. That is the mission of conservatives at the moment: find that man or woman who stands for rock-solid conservatism, who has a consistent track record of conservative values and success, and who can captivate the country again. Until that person emerges from the battle, the GOP will remain in minority status. When that person steps out, the liberal Left will once again start losing.
In the meantime, the conservative base has a responsibility to clearly communicate its wishes to the leaders of the party, and the sooner that happens, the sooner we can begin rebuilding around the correct core principles. That's why it's important for people like you and me to be involved in the political process - it is our country, and it is our future, so let's take our share of ownership in it! Make your wishes known to your elected representatives and your party's leadership. That's how this whole thing works. Without you, it works a little less well, and, if you're one of those 60% of conservatives, you'll be governed by people who have radically different views than you. That's what's about to happen, so buckle up and take note of what happens when conservatives are absent from our national leadership.
I don't think it will be long before people will want another change.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment