Here's a graph I made off some Pew data that Paul Rosenberg pulled. On the one hand, you see that the GOP collapse over the past couple of years has been truly dramatic. On the other hand, you see that these party ID numbers are pretty volatile and can change a lot in response to events, so it's not totally clear what this signifies for the long run. The short-term opportunity for Democrats, however, is hard to miss.
« Wall Street Journal: Intel Insufficiently Politicized | Main | The Limited Relevance of Ideology »
Party ID Trends
09 Dec 2007 05:22 pm
Comments (16)
Use a png, gif, jpeg or tga file please.
You know, this question, how responsive to events is party id, is one of the central questions of American politics that remains highly contestable. The dominant view is probably that party is minimally responsive to long-term trends and largely cohort-stable. The best book is The Macro Polity, which is a heck of a good book.
ditto on the tiff business. try jpeg or gif instead
"The short-term opportunity for Democrats, however, is hard to miss."
Right. Emphasis on "short-term."
Does this mean you're not part of the MSB anymore?
I dunno, we seem to be doing a pretty good job missing it so far.
Right. Emphasis on "short-term."
It's hard to create long-term opportunities in the absence of exploiting short-term opportunities.
"The short-term opportunity for Democrats, however, is hard to miss."
The two most similar previous years to 2007 on the graph are 1987 and 1999.
We must have done pretty damn well in the 1988 and 2000 Presidential elections, right?
Of course, what happens in the next 7 weeks of the nomination battle is going to determine what happens next November. Party ID leads a year out are pretty useless if we nominate the wrong candidate.
This graph is actually kinda discouraging.
The historic ineptitude of the Bush presidency has shaved 4 percentage points off of GOP identification, with no corresponding upward bump for the Democrats.
And as Petey mentioned, there doesn't even seem to be a good correlation between ID and electoral success
party ID numbers are pretty volatile
Remember back in 2004, when various Democratic pollsters predicted a Kerry win precisely because party ID was immutable?.
I can't see the graph either, but you should switch to .gif, not .jpg. jpg's are usually terrible for displaying text.
This graph is actually kinda discouraging.
It's not discouraging, obviously, it may be not encouraging enough. It would've been discouraging if when the opposite way.
I don't find the flat Democratic ID discouraging, I find it reasonable. Bush has been a horrible President and the Republican Congress shamefully complicit and corrupt, so I'd expect Republican party ID to fall. But the Democrats haven't been inspiring. I've seen neither ringing rhetoric nor clever politicking from them, on any of myriad issues like Iraq, wiretapping, torture, healthcare, deficits, and corruption. Independents are leaning Democratic because the Democrats are clearly the better of the two parties but they remain independent because the Democrats are only OK. If the Democrats want to pull people in they must either show they'll go to the mat for what's right or that they're smooth and know what they're doing.
Your site Cool :)
I am very pleased with the service. Thank you for the extra 4 samples. When dealing with people so far away, and through the internet, I sometimes wonder if I will even receive anything for my money. I would not hesitate to use your services again or to recommend you to friends. Again, Thank You.
Thanks to Chris for the in-flight repair. Looks like a double helix to me.
What about the fact that for the first time in a long time, "None of the Above" is the leader? Most people don't self-identify as either Republicans or Democrats.
Comments closed December 23, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The graph's not working for me. It just says, "partyID.tiff" in a box.
Posted by southpaw | December 9, 2007 5:50 PM