Ideological identification and the implications for 2008

[Democratic Hawk]

I know the exit polls were rather flawed this year but I've been taking a look at how the states boil down ideologically and the prognosis isn't good for a liberal Democrat.

In terms of ideological identification, liberals lag behind both moderates and conservatives across the US as a whole. The highest plurality of liberals (DC aside) is in Massachusetts (34%), while the highest plurality of conservatives is in Tennessee (47%)

Either way you look at it, conservatives are much stronger numerically than liberals.

In 28 states, liberals comprise less than 20% of 2004 voters
In 20 states, liberals comprise between 20 29 per cent of 2004 voters
Only in Massachussetts and Vermont do liberals comprise more than 30%, while in DC the figure is 45%

In 10 states, conservatives comprise between 20-29 per cent of 2004 voters
In 27 states, conservatives comprise between 30-39 per cent of 2004 voters
In 12 states, conservatives comprise between 40-49 per cent of 2004 voters
Only in DC are conservatives sub-20 percent

However, self-styled moderates comprise the largest of the three ideological blocs topping more than 50 per cent or more in 5 states.

I think most people would agree that Democratic activists are more liberal than Democratic voters and Republican activists are more conservative than Republican voters.

Generally, I've found that in Bush states, a higher percentage of liberals voted Bush than in Kerry states and that a higher percentage of conservatives voted Kerry in Kerry states than in Bush states. Similarly, moderates in Bush states gave the edge to Bush, while those in Kerry states gave the edge to Kerry. (Please bear in mind this is a general pattern and there may be exceptions)

From this, one can deduce that a conservative Republican candidate has a much stronger base than a liberal Democrat

These findings further add strength to my belief that only a moderate Democrat has a fighting chance of being elected President in 2008

In Indiana 46% of voters identified themselves as Republicans compared with 32% Democrat (independents comprised 22%); while, 42% identified themselves as conservatives compared with 14% liberal (moderates comprrised 43%) - yet the centrist Democratic Senator Evan Bayh defeated his Republican challenger by 62% to 37%

I seriously doubt that a liberal Democrat can win the presidency. Only a centrist can because the future of the country lies in the ideological and geographical centre. Moderates are easily the most numerous ideological bloc

Dave

[Bogart]

I think most people would agree that Democratic activists are more liberal than Democratic voters and Republican activists are more conservative than Republican voters.

This is the crux of the problem with our nomination process and I'm not sure exactly how to fix it. It goes without saying that the party activists have an inordinate impact in the primaries and, thus, who is nominated--very often with little regard to actual electability.

These good, moderate Republicans are the type I would prefer seeing run as opposed to the George Bush's of the world. There are also a good many moderate Democrats I could envision in the same way.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think most people would agree that Democratic activists are more liberal than Democratic voters and Republican activists are more conservative than Republican voters.

This is the crux of the problem with our nomination process and I'm not sure exactly how to fix it. It goes without saying that the party activists have an inordinate impact in the primaries and, thus, who is nominated--very often with little regard to actual electability.

These good, moderate Republicans are the type I would prefer seeing run as opposed to the George Bush's of the world. There are also a good many moderate Democrats I could envision in the same way.

I've been looking at the exit polls (though I doubt they are 100% accurate). In 45 states, self-styled moderates are the largest single plurality. Only in DC are liberals the largest single plurality; while in 5 states, conservatives are the largest single plurality: Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and Utah

I'm now of the belief that only a centrist/moderate Democrat has any real chance of winning the presidency.

According to exit polls, 45% of voters are self-styled moderates; while conservatives number 34% and liberals 21%

I think both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans stand a good chance of being elected - but as to whether they'd get the nomination is another story. A conservative Republican can win, but a liberal Democrat can't

Dave

[Lunar]

I think most people would agree that Democratic activists are more liberal than Democratic voters and Republican activists are more conservative than Republican voters.

This is the crux of the problem with our nomination process and I'm not sure exactly how to fix it. It goes without saying that the party activists have an inordinate impact in the primaries and, thus, who is nominated--very often with little regard to actual electability.

I know how to fix it.  Scrap the primary process and let the leaders of the party choose intelligent moderates like they used to.  Or at least reduce the number of delegates the primaries have.

This also means that winning primary candidate doesn't emerge into the general election already bruised and battered.

Anyway: In response to the original post.  Kerry came close - and he was a blatant liberal.

[A18]

If Kerry had actually run on being a superliberal, do you honestly think he would have gotten 40% of the vote?

[Bogart]

I think most people would agree that Democratic activists are more liberal than Democratic voters and Republican activists are more conservative than Republican voters.

This is the crux of the problem with our nomination process and I'm not sure exactly how to fix it. It goes without saying that the party activists have an inordinate impact in the primaries and, thus, who is nominated--very often with little regard to actual electability.

I know how to fix it.  Scrap the primary process and let the leaders of the party choose intelligent moderates like they used to.  Or at least reduce the number of delegates the primaries have.

This also means that winning primary candidate doesn't emerge into the general election already bruised and battered.

Anyway: In response to the original post.  Kerry came close - and he was a blatant liberal.

You know, I wouldn't have a problem with this idea personally, but in our rush today to make everything bend to the will of the majority, I don't see it as realistic. Perhaps we could increase the power and number of the "superdelagates."

[iosip]

the democrats have to be the liberal party.

yes i said "have to".

there's no point in having two conservative parties.

[Lunar]

You know, I wouldn't have a problem with this idea personally, but in our rush today to make everything bend to the will of the majority, I don't see it as realistic. Perhaps we could increase the power and number of the "superdelagates."

Yeah, I know it's not realistic.  Most people fail to see the merits of scrapping the primary system and would accuse any such proponents to be "anti-democracy" and whatnot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush commercials constantly reminded all of the swing voters who the #1 liberal was.

[A18]

I said if he ran on being a big liberal. Not if Bush commercials called him one.

[M]

Good argument for banning parties, iosip. The people do not want Left or Right, they want leaders of strong character whom they choose via democratic process, and hope that overtime this will lead to the policies the people prefer being voted for. Arnold or Rudy vs Evan would turn the world of the fanatical ideologists on its head, and I would savor it, oh how I would savor it!

[iosip]

Arnold or Rudy vs Evan would turn the world of the fanatical ideologists on its head, and I would savor it, oh how I would savor it!

ick ick ick.

we need a liberal vs. conservative election.

i am a conservative democrat...but i would strongly support a liberal democrat like dennis kucinich. as i supported kerry.

[Democratic Hawk]

Arnold or Rudy vs Evan would turn the world of the fanatical ideologists on its head, and I would savor it, oh how I would savor it!

ick ick ick.

we need a liberal vs. conservative election.

i am a conservative democrat...but i would strongly support a liberal democrat like dennis kucinich. as i supported kerry.

I'd probably through my weight behind the Democrat whether liberal or centrist. I just strongly believe that a moderate has a better chance.

Come to think of it, liberalism as a political ideology posits itself in the centre of the ideological spectrum, while conservatives are to the right

I've done some more number crunching identifying the actual base of the Bush and Kerry vote

Party ID:

Bush - Democrat 4.07 + Republican 34.41 + Independent 12.48 = 50.96%

Kerry - Democrat 32.93% + Republican 2.22 + Independent 12.48 = 47.89%

Ideology:

Bush - Liberal 2.73 + Moderate 20.25 + Conservative 28.86 = 51.54%

Kerry - Liberal 17.85 + Moderate 24.30 + Conservative 5.10 = 47.25%

As you can see a majority of Bush voters were conservatives and he attracted more votes from Democrats than Kerry did from Republicans; while, a majority of Kerry's voters were moderates. Clearly, conservatives can win in a way liberals can't

I honestly think that a centrist Democratic candidate in '04 could easily have defeated Bush - but we'll never know

Many think that America is becoming a more conservative nation; however, I reckon that America is becoming less liberal. Future presidential races will won and lost in the centre, where the Democrats have a better chance of being successful with a more centrist candidate. Kerry had a majority of the moderate vote but it was not enough to offset Bush's huge lead among conservatives who significantly outnumber liberals among the electorate

Democrats need to be pragmatic when selecting their candidate in 2008 - think "electability" and not "litmus tests"

Dave