« Texas Wind | Main | Machine Girl »

Swing Voters

23 Feb 2008 12:48 pm

Given that I've never heard of anyone who believes that political parties face zero-sum choices between base-mobilization and persuasion strategies, nor have I ever heard of anyone who denies that both are part of political success, I'm a bit puzzled as to why The Democratic Strategist would bother to host a "debate" on this issue in which we'll discover that liberals and centrists alike agree that both are important and both sides just claim that adopting policies they prefer on the merits is also the key to electoral success. That said, it is worth pointing out that DLC honcho Al From is trying to trick you with this chart:

from_chart.png

From would clearly like you to believe that the combination of increased margin and higher turnout among self-identified Democrats in 2006 relative to 2004 was a smaller factor in the Democratic Party's superior election outcome than was the even larger increase in margin combined with lower turnout among self-identified independents. If you check the math, though, you'll see that this isn't true.

In 2004, 37 percent of the electorate were Democrats, and Kerry got 89 percent of their votes. Thus 32.9 percent of the electorate was Dems voting Dem. Independents were 26 percent of the electorate and 49 percent of them voted for Kerry, so 12.7 percent of the electorate was indies voting Dem. In 2006, 38 percent of the electorate were Democrats, and 93 percent of them voted Democratic. Thus 35.3 percent of the electorate was Democrats voting Democratic, an improved performance of 2.4 percentage points. Independents were 26 percent of the electorate, and 57 percent of them voted Democratic, making 14.8 percent of the electorate indies voting Democratic, an improved performance of 1.1 percentage points.

In short, contrary to From's chart, it's simply false to say that "the difference" between 2004 was that "centrist voters with loose party attachments voted Democratic in much higher numbers." The Democrats improved their performance among both groups, but the combination of turnout and vote-share factors clearly indicates that improved performance among self-IDed Dems was a more important factor than was improved performance among self-IDed Republicans. What's more, note that the numbers I used were identical to the exit polls From is using in his chart. But he presents the numbers in a such a way (using the change in margin of victory rather than showing actual vote shares) as to make it difficult to do a quick calculation of the change in performance.

I don't personally have a huge dog in this fight. As everyone agrees, both groups are important and it's not an either/or choice. But it's nice to have reviews of exit poll be done accurately.

Share This

Comments (23)

You expect honesty out of Al From? You are kidding, right? You do know about DLC Chair Harold Ford, Jr., blowing smoke up Chris Shays backside recently, right? Al From wants to take the Democratic Party to the right. The less anyone listens to him the better.

Yes, but regardless of any facts, it is always true that centrists are always right, every time, even when they lose elections, or when their agenda is trumped as it always is by the right, because by definition what some entrenched honcho says is "centrist" is in the center, i.e., "good", and the rest of us are all crazy and sick extremist fringe-y nuts who need to listen to our betters.

Sure, some people argue that most "independents" actually tend to strongly lean toward either liberal Democratic voting or conservative Republican voting, but this, too, is irrelevant, because the people defined as "centrists" are of course the only thing which exists in the entire universe.

I am considering making a sandwich and eating it for lunch or having no lunch whatsoever, but since these approaches are two harsh extremes I will pursue the sane, centrist course of making the sandwich but not eating it.

This is just typical From, claiming for the nth time that the Dems need to move to the "center" (never mind that the "center" has been dragged far to the right) to get all those "independents" while giving the metaphorical finger to the base, or as Atrios and Digby say, the "dirty f------ hippies." Why anyone continues to listen to this loser, who's been proven wrong over and over again, is beyond me. I'm hoping that one result of this primary campaign is that future Dem candidates will look at HRC's heavy and expensive use of utterly useless/clueless consultants, contrast that to Obama's successful ground organizing, and fire all the consultants forever.

I don't personally have a huge dog in this fight.

Matt, I don't think you can take a centrist approach to this. You have to either have a big dog in the fight or no dog in the fight. If you put a small or medium-sized dog in the fight, it will just get torn to shreds.

Math much? 14.8 minus 12.7 equals 2.1, not 1.1

But the key question is how did the Red-Haired Soccer Moms who prefer Pampers to Huggies vote?


Your math is wrong. 14.8 - 12.7 = 2.1 not 1.1.

Percentagewise the increase of Indies voting Dem more then doubles the increase of Dems voting Dem from 2004 to 2006. (.163 to .073)

From's loose playing with the numbers would seem to argue in favor of Obama's superior electability. Matt's evisceration of From's loose playing would seem to argue in favor of Hillary's superior electability.

Obviously, little Matthew neglected to learn math at Dalton.

It's stuff like this from Al From that makes me admire the purity of Kos's focus: if Kos felt that pivoting right would win a few more elections for the Democrats, he'd support doing that. Al From, on the other hand, doesn't care if the Dems win or lose-- he only cares that the Dems follow his ideological formula in their campaigns. It makes a bit of sense, though, if you consider that the goal of the DLC is not to win elections but to make the Democratic party "brand" more attractive to corporate donors.

And what's with that glaring math problem?

Besides the fact that 2.7 is actually larger than 2.4, there's also the fact that From doesn't talk about independents but "voters with loose party attachments," which could cover the 2.4 percent of Democrats that voted Republicans last time. I can't stand From, but Matt, your analysis simply doesn't hold a drop of water.

AARGH...2.1 not 2.7, which is close to but not larger than 2.4...

Also "voted FOR" Republicans...

This is why I stopped complaining about Matt's own typos.

Still Undecided, The problem with that is the number of actual votes is what really matters in elections, not the percentage increase from that demographic. If I get 6 gay guys to vote for me, when only 2 votes for me last time, I have received a 200% increase in my male-gay vote, but I've only gained 4 votes. If I get 40 black guys to vote for me, when 30 voted for me last time, I have only increased my percentage of the black male vote by 25%.

Which do you think gets me closer to victory?

I've always been of the belief that you can't trust people named after prepositions.

Soullite:

That just shows that you aren't cyincal union-busting pollster gettig paid millions to do this speculation professionally. If you were, you would know that the only vote that counts is the Red-Haired Soccer Moms who prefer Pampers to Huggies--if you win that vote you win the election.

Soullite

I would agree the percentages don't tell the whole story. You have to factor in turnout to get to an actual number of votes.

In any case I'm strongly against basing issue positions on a "strategy". I don't like From's approach. You support what you think is the right thing - period It would be acceptable to emphasize certain issues strategically but bottom line you have to be who you are.

Furthermore, From assumes that the greater independent vote for Democrats in 2006 must have been because the Dems were taking more "centrist" positions (because that's what the DLC always believes, with the same fervor that movement conservatives believe cutting taxes raises revenue.) That this is implied with no evidence makes it in some ways an even bigger lie than the lying with charts and statistics.

Does it really matter. The demographic changes in the U.S. will eventually make the Republican party irrelevant. The stupidity and incompetence of the Bush Administration has just sped up the process by about 20 years.

If the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate in 2009, the Republican party becomes irrelevant in 2009. If you want to see the future of politics, one should begin to look at California where the Republican party is currently irrelevant.


The real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state.

I'm "centrist" I guess but it's more my views aren't divided all that cleanly between right wing and left wing, it's become a mix of both. However, the Republican party has been so appalling over the last 6 years and abandoned the issues they used to be campaign on I have more in common with Democrats than Republicans.

I'd also recommend Schmitt's classic essay:

http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2004/09/its_what_the_is.html

I suspect that most self-identified moderates and independents aren't driven by issues as much as by impressions of the candidates themselves -- their character, their honesty, their intelligence, etc. Many of the "centrist" pollster/candidate types seem to focus on finding the middle of public opinion, but it's not clear that's the way to win those people at all.

It's absurd to say this isn't a zero sum game and then toss your hands in the air. From has a clear agenda to move the Dem party to the right. It's an agenda that's bad for the country and bad for the party. His argument is also based on false premises. This campaign season did a lot to discredit Mark Penn. Al From is next on my personal list of DNC elites I want to see discredited and removed from influence.

The part of From's commentary that most fascinates me is what he ignores about the 2006 campaign: Congressional leaders spoke out early and often about refusing to go along with Bush's demands, starting investigations and considering impeachment, and the like. It turned out to be lies, but at least some of that was due to things the public at large couldn't have known at the time (like the secret briefings back in 2002). The public was offered a chance to show its desire for some restraint on the administration and took it, as was no surprise for those looking at polls about public disenchantment with the war and other such issues.

To claim that vote as support for From's collaborationism is pretty impressive.

I didn't know Al From still toured!

Thought he was retired or playing Branson-only gigs by now.


Comments closed March 08, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.