Voter survey says America getting more conservative

Interesting: this tracks the increase in TV wrestling ratings during the same period.

Seriously, is this a surprise? We liberals knew the smell of things long before Rush, Rove, and O'Rail-y made "liberal" such an epithet. If the GOP was smarter and would push for a more conservative fiscal policy, we'd have no hope in 2004. However...

 

Voter turnout 2002: 39%

Voter turnout 2000: 56%

It's generally accepted that as voter turnout increases, democratic votes increase.

not surpising at all.

 

My point is true, as is your implication. Republicans are more likely to vote, donate money, etc.

Look it up, I'm not being rude, I just don't have the time.

 

by whom? does the percentage increase, or just the real numbers? you also realize, if your point is true, that democrats are the least likely to vote.

Yeah, the larger the voting turnout, the more the % democratic vote tends to be. It's because the least likely to vote are urban poor and minorities, who vote Democrat in mass.

That's one reason Democrats have always focused so much more on get-out-the-vote campaigns, and why Republicans have tended to be against things like voter holidays. (Nothing wrong with that - both parties just are focusing on their own interests)

 

I've found a cause for conservatives - send money to Ralph Nader so he'll run again!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/23/elec04.prez.nader/

Green Party: Nader mulling independent run
From Adam Levine
CNN Political Unit
Tuesday, December 23, 2003 Posted: 12:31 PM EST (1731 GMT)



A Green Party official says Ralph Nader will not seek the party's nomination for president in 2004.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader will not seek the Green Party's nomination for president in 2004, but he's still considering a presidential candidacy as an independent, a Green Party official said Tuesday.
.
.
.

 

I'd like to see a survey from a more reputable service. Voter News Service went out of business in January 2003 after several scandals involving miscalculations in exit polls in 2002 and complaints from the networks that they served that they were providing false results to them and creating all sorts of problems.

I'm not disputing the survey necessarily, but I'd like to see Gallup's results.

 

Hopefully, that's the "2 to 1" margin.

 

As I have stated for quite some time, the liberals are in DISARRAY. Party leadership *cringes* as they see extremists like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean leading the Demoncrats further and further to the extreme left. Honestly, it's great for fundraising if you appeal to the professional protestors and the upper crust Yale and Berkeley elitists, but will this win you votes? A very questionable strategy. The party is on the verge of collapse, as the vocal minority who support the lunatic fringers is seizing power and influence within the party.

With the capture of Saddam, the War on Terror continues to gain momentum, further setting the liberals back in the polls. Let's be honest, folx (Haiku River -- that's for you).... it *ain't* a pretty picture out there if you're a liberal.

 

He didn't say every news outlet was disreputable, he correctly claimed that those networks stopped using VNS because of it unreliablity.

Big difference and a very valid point.

 

Damn, DAMN, DAMN!!!

 

LEAVE ME ALONE JJ

 

well, i expected someone to attack the source, but i didn't expect it to be you jeff!

ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, and AP, are/were the owners of the VNS, and it used their own in-house resources. nice to know you consider every major news outlet in this country disreputable!

You don't think its appropriate to question a poll from a source that went out of business because they provided false polling results?

 

More people are seeing the light and the righteousness of good ole fashion common sense...Good!

 

The Democratic party is on the verge of collapse

Sanchez is on the verge on becoming Houston's next mayor. Nice Try Rookie!!!

 

Is this statement to say democrats are more lazy/less patriotic?


D smiley)

 

The more young white males there are, the more conservative the numbers skew.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-men28dec28,1,6148891.story?coll=la-home-headlines


December 28, 2003 E-mail story


For 2004, Bush Has Strength in the White Male Numbers
His wide advantage in that right-leaning group may trump Democrats' edge elsewhere.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — President Bush's overwhelming strength among white men looms as a central obstacle between Democrats and the White House as 2004 approaches.

In an election season heavily shaped by terrorism and national security, several recent polls suggest Bush could dominate white male voters as thoroughly as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did during their three successive presidential victories in the 1980s.

"Clearly, it is where the Democrats are going to have their biggest difficulty," said Ruy Teixeira, a public opinion analyst at the Century Foundation, a liberal think tank.

In the modern political era, Democrats never expect to carry white men, who reliably tilt Republican. But the emerging threat to Democrats in 2004 is that Bush will win white men so decisively that the party can't overcome his advantage with other voter groups that lean in their direction, such as minorities and college-educated white women.

Analysts in both parties agree that Bush is benefiting among white men from his aggressive use of force against terrorism and his alternately folksy and blunt "bring 'em on" personal style. Some senior strategists on both sides believe the risk to Democrats with white men could increase if the party nominates Howard Dean, whose opposition to the war, liberal positions on social issues and buttoned-down persona create clear contrasts for Bush.

"That's the best situation for us, and the worst situation for them, with this group," said David Winston, a Republican pollster.

White men compose just under 40% of the electorate, with white women just over 40%, and minorities composing the rest.

White men have given Democrats problems in presidential elections for decades. Since the 1970s, Democrats have won when they kept the Republican advantage within sight and lost when they didn't.

"It's a damage minimization strategy," Teixeira said. "If it's too much of a landslide with white men, it just creates a hole you have to dig out of."

But just reaching that minimal standard of support hasn't been easy for Democratic nominees. Republican incumbents Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 carried white men by 35 percentage points en route to landslide reelections, according to network exit polls.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Democrat Michael S. Dukakis by 27 percentage points among white men, the same advantage Reagan enjoyed over Jimmy Carter in 1980.

During the 1990s, Bill Clinton significantly reduced those margins, losing white men by just 3 percentage points in 1992 and 11 points in 1996, according to exit polls. But Clinton didn't win a much higher percentage of the white male vote than Carter, Mondale and Dukakis did; the GOP margins fell in the 1990s because independent candidate Ross Perot siphoned away so many white men from Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996.

With Perot off the ballot in 2000, the Republican advantage among white men ballooned again, as Bush carried them by 24 percentage points over Al Gore. That margin was just small enough to allow Gore to narrowly edge Bush in the popular vote by running strongly with other groups.

But now leading strategists in both parties say Bush has the potential to run even better with white men in 2004 — which could create a deficit too great for Democrats to overcome.

"I don't know if it can get back to the [Reagan] level, but he does have the potential of widening the margin from 2000," said Matthew Dowd, the polling director for Bush's campaign.

Stanley B. Greenberg, the pollster for Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 1992, agreed. "Younger, married white men are disastrously, overwhelmingly Republican," he said. "They are trending more Republican over time. Everything about George Bush speaks to them."

Recent polls underscore the challenge for Democrats with white men. In an ABC/Washington Post survey released last week, white men preferred Bush over an unnamed Democrat in 2004 by 62% to 29%, a head-turning 33-point margin; by contrast, white women gave Bush just a 10-point lead.

Similarly, a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll this month found Bush leading an unnamed Democrat by 30 points among white men and enjoying a 68% approval rating with the group.

Democrats note these gaudy numbers reflect the immediate boost Bush is receiving with all groups after the capture of Saddam Hussein this month. But even in September and October, when Pew showed the country divided exactly in half between Bush and a Democrat for 2004, and white women narrowly preferring a Democrat, the president still led among white men by 27 percentage points.

Dowd, the polling director for the president's campaign, said those numbers show that Bush is "solidifying" the support from white men he had against Gore.

"In 2000, he obviously did extremely well, and now on things they care about, these people have seen he's done what they hoped he would," Dowd said. "It is just an affirmation of what they thought they believed about him in 2000."

Bush's strength among white men derives as much from his personal style as his policy choices, most analysts agree. Blunt in his words, comfortable on his ranch, dismissive of ceremony, impatient with diplomacy, Bush fits "an old-fashioned male ideal, deeply embedded in our cultural mythology," said Bill Galston, a former Clinton advisor now at the University of Maryland.

The ideal "is that a real man is a man of few words and determined, resolute action: like in [the movie] 'High Noon.' And Bush captures this almost perfectly and effortlessly."

The president's black-and-white pronouncements on terrorism and war — from his promise to capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" to his "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi resisters — which generate unease among many women and even some more affluent men, help cement Bush's attachment to blue-collar men, who, recent polls show, support him at higher levels than men with college degrees.

In the latest Pew survey, white men without college degrees preferred Bush to a Democrat in 2004 by 60% to 25%.

"I go back to the bullhorn in New York," said GOP pollster Winston, referring to Bush's speech in the rubble of the World Trade Center just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "There was a sense this was a guy you would want to be in a foxhole with. I'm not sure who on the Democratic side at the moment is someone you would want to be in a foxhole with."

Bush is benefiting, too, from a political environment focused on terrorism and national security issues that highlight the aspects of his personality that many men like best. Men have traditionally been more inclined than women to support military action, and recent polls show white men significantly more enthusiastic about the decision to invade Iraq than other Americans.

"He kind of runs a testosterone-driven White House, in terms of both the rhetoric and the dominant issue, which is war," said John Anzalone, an Alabama-based Democratic pollster. "It's a natural resonance with men, particularly white men. Usually the only thing that knocks that down for a Democrat is the economy."

Indeed, Democrats are depending largely on an economic message to erode Bush's advantage among white men. Paul Maslin, the pollster for Dean, said that if the former Vermont governor wins the nomination, he'll run much better with white men than analysts expect by offering them a fierce populist critique of the president.

"I believe that nobody has made the economic or special-interest case from the Democratic Party in a fundamental way, and we are going to do it," Maslin said. "We are going to go after Bush on deficits, on trade, on cozying up to corporations, on job loss, on all the hard stuff."

The key question for Dean if he wins the nomination will be whether he can establish enough credibility on cultural and national security issues to win white men around economic concerns — the strategy he suggested when he spoke of using health care and job loss to appeal to "guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks."

Maslin said Republicans are underestimating Dean if "they think they can characterize us as Vermont, gays, war, and it's game, set, match."

But other Democrats worry that if Dean's liberal positions on social issues, such as civil unions for gays, and his emphatic opposition to the war in Iraq allow Republicans to typecast him as a Northeastern cultural elitist, "he could get wiped out among [white men] not by a 24-point margin like Gore, but by a 30- or 35-point margin," Teixeira said.

Indeed, two polls this month pitting Dean against Bush gave the president crushing 36-point leads among white men.

Some analysts in both parties say Wesley K. Clark's background as a retired general might open doors with white men if he wins the nomination. But many believe that the depth of Bush's connection with these voters will create problems for whomever the Democrats pick.

"The notion that any Democrat is going to be able to close the male gap substantially may be wishful thinking because of Bush's strength," Galston said. "I think it is going to be tough for everybody."