Voting to Spoil

John Judis has an analogy:

Anderson provided the margin of victory for Reagan in eleven states. Some of these were Southern states where Carter was strong, and Anderson got just a few percent, but others were the same kind of states where Democrats, with Independent votes, now win majorities. In these states Anderson got between 9 and 15 percent. They included Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin. In addition, Anderson racked up large votes in Colorado, Arizona, Montana, New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Maine. Most of these are states that a Democrat needs to win to win the presidency. That's why the Democrats have more to fear from a Bloomberg candidacy than the Republicans.

I think this is true, but also potentially misleading. Jimmy Carter was an incumbent president widely judged to have failed in office (recall Ted Kennedy's very strong showing against him in the 1980 primaries). This created a large pool of people ideologically inclined to pick Carter over Reagan, but who also really didn't want to vote for Carter. Much the same could be said about people who defected from George H.W. Bush to Ross Perot; in both cases actual incumbent performance drove disaffection and a proclivity for third party voting.

It seems to me that this kind of dynamic is pretty uniquely associated with incumbency, and probably doesn't apply at all to the 2008 election and certainly doesn't apply to the Democrats in 2004.

Comments

John Judis is right, Matt is wrong.

Bloomberg would really hurt Democrats.

Forget the current polls showing him getting more votes from the GOP. Most people have no idea who he is or what his views are.

Bloomberg is a liberal from NY. He is to the left of most Dem candidates on gay marriage, death penalty, legalizing drugs. There is no way GOP voters in states like Florida will defect to him. Far more likely he will be attractive to liberal voters. And don't forget the money.

BTW, there was a story last year about Bill Clinton being really worried about Bloomberg running.

Posted by DonB | June 21, 2007 11:57 AM

"Much the same could be said about people who defected from George H.W. Bush to Ross Perot;"

This is also wrong. Unfortunately it has become an urban legend. People still think Perot cost Bush the election.

Exit polls showed Perot took votes evenly from Bush and Clinton in 92 and in he took more votes from Clinton in 96.

Posted by DonB | June 21, 2007 12:00 PM

It seems that at first glance the independent run hurts the party with more the most disaffected voters. Wouldn't that be Republicans?

Now, I don't see how a Nader campaign could ever hurt the Republicans, but he probably only gets traction in an environment where many Democratic voters were upset with the rightward drift of their party.

I don't remember Anderson well enough to see how he fits in, but 1980 might as well be last century for as much as those political dynamics still exist.

Posted by DC | June 21, 2007 12:00 PM

Bloomberg boosters are real big on broad stroke analysis and digging up historical events with marginal importance to today's world.
Which voters are bolting? Why are they bolting? What will Bloomberg evan stand for?

I just don't see large numbers of Kerry voters jumping ship in 2008. What would be the rationale? What about the last few years convinces anyone that voting for Kerry was a mistake?

Posted by ChrisB | June 21, 2007 12:05 PM

I'm not so sure incumbency doesn't apply to 2008. Yes, Bush and Cheney won't be on the ballot, but the election can't help but be a referendum on the previous 8 years. Or it should be about that if the Democratic candidate has any sense which unfortunately is not a given.

Especially if Clinton wins the nomination, I agree that Bloomberg would hurt Dems more by giving independents and soft Democratic voters who don't want to vote for the Republican because of Bush an alternative to voting for the Democrat. It could put northeastern states in play while preventing the Democrat from taking states that were narrowly lost in '04 like Ohio ultimately leading to a Republican electoral win even though the Republican candidate may not get the highest national popular vote. (Anybody making an effort to get rid of the electoral college before '08?)

Posted by Ron | June 21, 2007 12:10 PM

Re: There is no way GOP voters in states like Florida will defect to him. Far more likely he will be attractive to liberal voters.

But he isn't Ralph Nader either. No way he picks off the far Left of the Democratic spectrum the way Nader did in 2004. So who's he going to get? The centrists? Only if the Democratic nominee goes really far left and the DLC folks bolt. And given the utter outrage and disgust now present among all Democrats (and many independents) with Bush and the GOP I don't see anyone wasting a vote on Bloomberg if what they really care about is getting the GOP out of the White House. His most natural constituency is whatever is left of the old Rockefeller Republicans, people who might vote Democrat in 2008 out of disgust with Bush, but they are not a natural Democratic group.

Posted by JonF | June 21, 2007 12:22 PM

Of course Reagan beat Carter 489 Electoral votes to 49 so I doubt that Anderson could really be called a spoiler. Assuming that the states Judis mentioned are the ones where Anderson provided the margin of victory (except Hawaii which Carter won) and would have gone to Carter minus Anderson's participation Reagan would have won 378-160.

Posted by J | June 21, 2007 12:32 PM

I tend to agree with Matt that the analogy is not perfect. 1980 was my first election and I was very much a Democrat, but I volunteered to help get Anderson on the ballot in Michigan because Carter seemed so unlikely to be reelected . . . looking back, I wonder what I was thinking. But hey, I was 18. I don't necessarily disagree with DonB that Bloomberg could pose a problem for Democrats. But I wouldn't place much trust in any stories about Bill Clinton, and I have grown cynical enough to feel that people not knowing anything about candidates is a constant in electoral politics, and it often works in favor of candidates whose positions on certain issues might not bear up under scrutiny -- especially when said candidates are NOT Democrats).

Posted by mary | June 21, 2007 12:34 PM

On the other hand, he's a pro-Iraq war liberal, and that's going to come up as the deciding issue. If Obama or Edwards get the nomination, are the Lieberman Democrats going to defect and cast protest votes to throw the election? Bear in mind the motive for both Nader was that both parties were the same, and for Perot that neither party was addressing the deficit.

Plus as Matt pointed out, there are a hundred symbolic issues that makes Bloomberg unappealing to the fringe of either party. Nader supporters won't forget the treatment of protesters at the Democratic Convention. Libertarians won't forget that he's pro-gun control. And he's got a crapload of personal stuff in his past- he's quite the playboy, and during his mayoral campaign, the issue of how he treats female employees came up. It didn't stop his election, but the allegation that he bullied someone into getting an abortion could raise a lot of hackles in a nationwide campaign.

Posted by Davey | June 21, 2007 1:28 PM

It seems to me that this kind of dynamic is pretty uniquely associated with incumbency,

D's have around 38 % of the vote nationwide locked up, R's a few percentage points less. To get to 50% almost anywhere but the few hardcore blue states, D's need to shift blue-ish independents and in many states reddish independents to their column. The exception to this since 1976 has been when Ross Perot reduced the R's margin AND took away reddish I's from Bush and Clinton held on to his blue core and got some Blue I's.

Bloomberg (per your first, pretty good analysis) looks to draw mostly from the elites, the press and whatnot, who are collectively from the Blueist of Blue states. What I don't see is where he draws any reddish votes, except possibly with an anti-Iraq stance. To put it another way, I could see him drawing reddish votes if he turned into Ron Paul. Otherwise, he looks set to draw mostly from the blueish side of the ledger, which will reduce the D's margin. How much it will reduce the margin depends on how well Bloomberg does. He certainly will gets lots of friendly press help.

I dunno, man, everybody is running around announcing that a new wave of Social Demokracy is just around the corner (much like they were announcing Bush was the greatest leader EVER based on little evidence and much hot air), but it looks to me like a vast wave of disaffectation is just around the corner.

m, we'll see

Posted by Max | June 21, 2007 1:29 PM

Why go back to Anderson and Perot? Have you forgotten Nader? No incumbency issue there.

And of course, Bloomberg has absolutely zero appeal to any potential Republican voter of any stripe. A New York Jewish billionaire media magnate big-city mayor who's pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, and happens to be 5'6" tall and has a Jewish faintly faggy-sounding last name. If you were trying to invent an anti-Republican candidate Bloomberg would be it.

One question is, would he be a cipher or would he pull votes from the Democrat? If the Democrat is Obama, some elderly Jewish voters who don't trust the schvartze with the Arab name would choose the nice Jewish boy because he would be better for Israel. Could that swing Florida? Who knows?

The more important question is, how would he influence the campaign? Because his potential voters- such as they are- would be Democratic-leaning independents, his advertising would attempt to peel those voters away. Because he's got no issue-oriented message and no personal appeal, he would probably go to attack ads. And with his money, he could do some real damage to the Democratic nominee.

I really can't imagine why he's doing this. Does he think a national campaign will make him an admired national figure? More likely he'll be reviled. Does he think he can win? Then he's delusional. Does he think he can influence the national debate? On what issue?

The only thing that makes even the remotest sense is that he wants to help the Republican candidate win. But why would he want to do that?

Posted by Bloix | June 21, 2007 1:29 PM

There is no way GOP voters in states like Florida will defect to him. Far more likely he will be attractive to liberal voters.

Yes, but there is such a thing as a liberal Republican. And there are certainly plenty of moderate Republicans. It is Republicans -- far more than Democrats -- who are likely to have "nobody to represent them." I'm thinking in terms of Andrew Sullivan-minded voters. I could see plenty of Republicans casting a protest vote for someone like Bloomberg. If you're a Democrat or usual Democratic leaner, you'll almost certainly get a palatable ticket in 2008. But if you're a centrist/moderate/libertarian voter who usually leans GOP (think of all those suburban white folks whose fiscal conservatism has usually lead them to pull the level for the elephants) there's a strong chance you're not going to like the inevitable war-mongering, pro-torture, anti-science immigrant basher the Republicans will put up next year.

I just wish there was a way Bloomberg might actually have a shot.

Posted by Jasper | June 21, 2007 1:30 PM

This is also wrong. Unfortunately it has become an urban legend. People still think Perot cost Bush the election.

Exit polls showed Perot took votes evenly from Bush and Clinton in 92 and in he took more votes from Clinton in 96.

You're looking at it the wrong way though. The media was so fascinated by Perot's weirdness that they actually gave lots of airtime to him and his issues (the Deficit - HA!) Imagine what the 1992 election had been like had the MSM rolled over and let the GOP smear machine do it's work. Would Clinton/Gore been able to keep the media and the campaign focused on the issues the way it happened because of Perot? No way - it would have been Genifer Flowers or some other ginned-up scandal 24/7 and Bush probably would have cruised. The dynamics of the whole campaign changed totally because of Perot - and that only hurt Bush.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | June 21, 2007 2:11 PM

I would suggest that Bloomberg (much like Perot) would appeal to mostly grumpy no-nothings.

Voters that change their mind about the immigration compromise when you describe it, voters that agree that both evolution and creationism are both probably correct when asked about them seperately, voters that say we should spend less on foreign aid but then suggest 5% of budget would be a good amount, voters that can't identify if an idea comes from the declaration of independence or communist manifesto.

Salon.com did a piece on swing voters in 2004 and how out of it they are.

Also if
New York Jewish billionaire is a bigger problem for Florida voters then Texas obviously crazy billionaire then we're in trouble.

Posted by ChrisB | June 21, 2007 2:20 PM

The only thing that makes even the remotest sense is that he wants to help the Republican candidate win. But why would he want to do that?
Posted by Bloix | June 21, 2007 1:29 PM

I hate to say it, but the Isreal right or wrong my Isreal crowd, the one that dumped money into Lieberman's independent run and seems concerned that the United States is not on a path to bomb Iran, are the most likely culprits. Why else at this point would you want a Republican in the White House?

What amazes me is that there are elite leaders, like Joe Lieberman, that are willing to ignore all the bad stuff that comes with a Republican Presidency just to get their way on National Security issues. It's wrong and it'll cost America big if Bloomberg does spoil. Maybe he'll see sense but he's come a long way down the "i must do this" path to snap out of it now.

God America has terrible elites.

Posted by Northern Observer | June 21, 2007 3:14 PM

I said this elsewhere yesterday: analyses that see Bloomberg pulling more votes from the Dems and salvaging an otherwise hopeless GOP campaign assume voters are vacuous idiots who don't follow the campaign. The reason third party candidates almost always fade toward Election Day is, most voters actually have a preference between the two major party contenders, and are unwilling to see a close election swing the other way through a capricious vote. Those who vote third-party in the end are those genuinely indifferent to the outcome, however stupid a position that may be (talking to you, Bore/Gush-ites).

Matt is absolutely correct: third parties have done their best in years where there is major dissatisfaction with the incumbent party, and the idea that they would aid that party's re-election is without example in post-1860 history. Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency counts any third party getting 5% or more as a strike against the incumbent party -- thus, it worked against Bush in '92, Clinton in '96. (The fact that voters were evenly divided between Bush and Clinton in '92 isn't proof that his presence made no difference; the very existence of his candidacy spoke to the massive unhappiness with things as they were).

My guess is Bloomberg would turn out like Anderson, who, when he first announced, polled 20% (attracting alot of lifelong GOPers horrified by the Reagan movement), and made it look like the manifestly unpopular Carter could pull the election out, but, in the end, drew only 6%, almost all at that point from the so-called wine and cheese liberals disgusted at Carter's inattention to New Deal tradition.

What it comes down to is, do you believe elections are jump balls based on personality and/or issues, or performance referenda on the incumbent administration? I believe the latter: so, though on paper Bloomberg might have appeal to some traditional liberals (who elected him in NY), in the particular circumstance of the 2008 election, he's not likely to draw off Democrats who are desperate to reverse the country's course and will stick with their party.

Posted by demtom | June 21, 2007 3:16 PM

I'm starting to wonder why Bloomberg doesn't want to run as a Democrat. I can't believe his chances at winning the general election would be any better than his chances of winning the Democratic nomination.

Ethel-to-Tilly: good point. Of course, most of the folks who talk about Perot costing Bush senior the election don't think about it that way. My understanding is that people usually bring this up because they're trying to make Clinton seem less legitimate.

Posted by AlanC9 | June 21, 2007 3:22 PM

"This created a large pool of people ideologically inclined to pick Carter over Reagan, but who also really didn't want to vote for Carter."

Matt is exactly right on this point. I remember seeing a poll, late in the 1980 campaign, that asked something like "If you thought John Anderson had a real chance at winning, would you vote for him" and something like 35% answered 'yes'.

There were an awful lot of people (myself included) who would have otherwise voted for Carter, but just couldn't do it, and voted for Anderson instead.

Posted by Robert Earle | June 21, 2007 4:39 PM

I just don't see large numbers of Kerry voters jumping ship in 2008. What would be the rationale?

Iraq.

Imagine a peace candidate running on a Naderist premise that there's no difference between the parties. A campaign like that could get get enough traction to tilt the election. I'm not saying that makes sense, any more than Nader 2000 did, just that it could happen. Honestly, it scares the bejeebers out of me. I'm sure Republicans are looking for a useful idiot to fund right now.

Posted by aretino | June 21, 2007 5:11 PM

Of course Reagan beat Carter 489 Electoral votes to 49 so I doubt that Anderson could really be called a spoiler.

This combines a misundertanding of the Electoral College with a fallacy of division.

Reagan won by a lot of electoral votes, but only by a single-digit margin in the popular vote.

Unlike recent contests, moreover, the close national vote translated into a large number of individual states being in play (because Carter ran well in the South). I actually don't see where Judis sees Anderson tipping the election in just 11 states, since Anderson + Carter > Reagan in 15 states that Reagan won. If you throw in Oregon and Washington (because of the discouraged Democratic voter effect), then you see Carter nearing the mid-200s in electoral votes. So that would makes the election turn on razor thin margins in Illinois and Pennsylvania, which could have been recounted for weeks with God knows what result.

Posted by aretino | June 21, 2007 5:43 PM

AlanC9: you think Bloomberg not running as a Dem has something to do with his being an ex-Dem? If he rejoined the Democratic party I think he'd give himself whiplash.

Ethel-to-Tilly: Damn right. It was never clear to me why he dropped out of the '92 election. Either someone got to him (look at the actual excuse he gave), or he was sabotaging himself. Neither of which would surprise me.

Posted by mwg | June 21, 2007 7:15 PM

At the very least Bloombers would force the Dem candidate to spend a lot of time and money in blue states like California and NJ.

I can't think of a single red state where Bloomberg would be a threat to the GOP candidate.

Lets face it the guy is a liberal jew from NY. He is against the death penalty, for gay marriage. Can you see people in West Virginia or Missouri voting for him? I can see moderate voters in those states voting for him. Which will make it easier for the GOP to win red states.

Forget comparisons to Nader or Anderson. They didn't have a billion dollars to spend on an election. Bloombers is also a more likable person than Nader or Anderson.

Posted by DonB | June 21, 2007 8:09 PM

The one poll I've seen on Anderson suggests that his 7% of the voters only slightly preferred Carter to Reagan (despite the latter's belief that Anderson was bleeding him dry) -- so Reagan would have beat Carter by about the same margin even without Anderson in the race (although Carter would have picked up Massachusetts). The same thing is true regarding the polls I've seen of how Ross Perot's vote would have split without him -- in 1996 this would only have slightly helped Dole, and in 1992 a slim majority of his voters seem to have actually preferred Clinton to Bush Senior.

And I suspect that Bloomberg, once again, will end up bleeding votes about evenly off both parties. The difference is that Bloomberg -- if he runs, and if he DOES spend that billion dollars on his campaign that we keep hearing about -- just might, possibly, actually win. He lacks Perot's self-destructive looniness.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 21, 2007 10:55 PM

"The one poll I've seen on Anderson suggests that his 7% of the voters only slightly preferred Carter to Reagan (despite the latter's belief that Anderson was bleeding him dry)...'

Make that the FORMER'S belief.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 21, 2007 10:56 PM

A point, and a plea, on Perot: As several have noted, the conventional wisdom that he effectively elected Clinton is flat wrong, and continues to damage the Democrats. From the time Perot dropped out to the time he dropped back in, Clinton was rarely less than 10 points ahead of Bush; to let the Republican revisionism stand is to reinforce their narrative that Dems haven't had the country's support for decades and that Clinton's presidency was illegitimate. Ethel-to-Tillie (and thanks for the Lucy flashback), you make some good points; but it was indeed a change election, and the fact remains that Perot's accomplishment was to deprive Clinton of the ability to claim a mandate, with serious consequences of which we're all too painfully aware.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I've clutched this bone in my teeth all these years (even emailed Matt about it long ago). It's just one more way we ourselves have actually facilitated the right-wing spin, to our grave detriment. Long past time to stop.

Posted by rj | June 22, 2007 4:04 PM