×
Some time ago, we talked about the Reagan Democrats, and whether it was worth continually trying to capture their votes. Implicit in that conversation is the idea that we know who the Reagan Democrats were -- downscale whites who switched to Reagan because of race, religion, and frustration with liberal wimps. Using focus group data from Macomb County, Stan Greenberg claimed they were working class whites who "no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, the unemployed, African Americans, and other political pressure groups." Yesterday, however, John Sides brought some actual political science data to the question. Sides hauled out a 1984 paper that examined "New Republicans" -- voters who switched from Carter in 1976 to Reagan in 1980. It suggests that the popular conception of the Reagan Democrats was pretty wide of the mark:
Himmelstein and McRae find that these New Republicans supported Reagan for much more ordinary reasons: they disapproved of the performance of President Carter, especially with regard to the economy. This kind of behavior — retrospective voting based on the performance of the national economy — is well-documented and, well, a lot more pedestrian than prevailing theories either then and now...Himmelstein and McRae’s findings strongly suggest that Democratic defections to Reagan had more to do with current economic circumstances than some sort of deep-seated ideological discomfort with the Democratic Party. This likely explains why not very long after Reagan, Democratic loyalty to the Democratic presidential nominee was at or above its historical norm. [see graph -- Ezra]There's a tendency in American politics over-interpret the rejection implied in electoral losses. In 1980, Democrats lose, and it's because of interest groups and a moribund liberalism. In 2004, Democrats lose by three percent amidst a war and a fairly good economy, and suddenly Democrats have a huge problem with religion and "moral values." Two years later, with nothing changing in their ideology or religious make-up, Democrats take back the House and the Senate, and it's Republicans who need to overhaul their agenda.It's much better for all manner of political professionals to argue that elections are controlled by actions rather than events. When one party or another loses, it's because of what they did (nominated an elitist like Kerry), didn't do (go negative early enough), but not because of what was going on (economy sucked). If that's true, then politics is much more interesting. new strategies can be tried, new approaches tested, new theories offered.But, fairly often, "what's going on" is the best explanation of what happened. This is why, in general, the political scientists I've talked to are totally confident Obama will win. Voters don't like the economy and they don't like Iraq. If Bush were running, he'd be slaughtered. The question I've not quite been able to answer is whether McCain's personal brand is so strong, and so distinct, that he'll be evaluated as an individual candidate, or whether he'll be the stand-in for the Republican Party. If the former, he may have a chance. if the latter, he's going to get crushed.
