Tuesday, November 03, 2009
|
|
Who Voted and How Did Conservatives Split Their Votes: From 1980 (Reagan's first victory) to 2008 (Obama's first--and we hope last--victory)
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
3:18 PM
|
The figures gathered below contain several crucial revelations:
1- Republicans always win big majorities of self-described conservatives--even losing Republicans like Dole and McCain.
2- The ONLY Republicans who win are those who manage to split moderate voters. For instance, Ronald Reagan got 54% of the moderate vote in 1984 and earned a 49 state landslide. Meanwhile, even those Republican nominees who win big among "conservatives" don't necessarily win elections. McCain did better among self-described conservatives in 2008 (78%) than Reagan did in 1980 (73%), but he still lost the election. In fact, McCain beat Obama by 58 points among conservatives, but lost among moderates by 21 points, and so lost the election.
(See graphic after the jump)
(Graph prepared by Karmen Frisvold)
| 2008 |
| Pct. Voters | McCain | Obama |
| | Conservative | 34% | 78% | 20% |
| | Moderate | 44% | 39% | 60% |
| | Liberal | 22% | 10% | 89% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | 2004 |
|
| Bush | Kerry |
| | Conservative | 34% | 84% | 15% |
| | Moderate | 45% | 45% | 54% |
| | Liberal | 21% | 13% | 85% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | 2000 |
|
| Bush | Gore |
| | Conservative | 29% | 82% | 17% |
| | Moderate | 50% | 45% | 53% |
| | Liberal | 20% | 13% | 81% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | 1996 |
|
| Dole | Clinton |
| | Conservative | 34% | 72% | 20% |
| | Moderate | 47% | 33% | 57% |
| | Liberal | 19% | 12% | 81% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | 1992 |
|
| Bush Sr. | Clinton | Perot | | Conservative | 30% | 64% | 18% | 18% | | Moderate | 49% | 31% | 48% | 21% | | Liberal | 21% | 14% | 68% | 18% |
|
|
|
|
|
| | 1988 |
|
| Bush Sr. | Dukakis |
| | Conservative | 33% | 81% | 19% |
| | Moderate | 45% | 49% | 51% |
| | Liberal | 18% | 18% | 82% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | 1984 |
|
| Reagan | Mondale |
| | Conservative | 33% | 82% | 18% |
| | Moderate | 42% | 54% | 46% |
| | Liberal | 16% | 29% | 71% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | 1980 |
|
| Reagan | Carter | Anderson | | Conservative | 28% | 73% | 23% | 4% | | Moderate | 46% | 49% | 43% | 8% | | Liberal | 17% | 28% | 60% | 12% |
|
|
Rhetorical question (I'll answer it, anyway):
How do Republicans attract moderate voters?
Answer:
They attract moderate voters by being uncompromising, unapologetic conservatives! THAT's how Reagan did it. |
|
|
we're driving the "moderates" into the Dem/lib party where they belong. They will then liberate the party from you psychoLefties thus moderating the Party for the safety of all (in case the Dems win more seats). |
|
|
Well said. republicans have to be for responsible growth, responsible government, less onerous regulation. Drill home the message that GOVERNMENT has no money. Government gets money by printing or borrowing (which deflates the value of the dollar and HURTS the POOR the MOST), or by TAXING business. individuals get money by working for business (their own or others'), so tax revenue ALWAYS and ULTIMATELY comes from business/industry. Again: all taxes are taxes of business. Government jobs don't count because they are funded by other business. They are government SERVICES. Nothing the governement does can happen without robust business and therefore the party that supports robust business (less taxes, less regulation) and is fiscally conservative (less borrowing and printing of money by government) will be the party that is for the little guy and the middle guy and the upper guy. Republicans need to be that party because the lefties in the Dem party are off in outer space. |
|
You have to win "moderates" in order to win elections? No surprise there.
How could Republicans have run anyone any more "moderate" than McCain? Run Olympia Snow? We ran a "moderate" Republican and got our clock cleaned.
The question is how to appeal to "moderates". The answer is in an April Rasmussem poll: 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism. 20% believe socialism is better than capitalism. The remaining 27% are not sure.
Democrats do a good job of representing socialism, and still manage to win. Republicans merely need to do a good job of representing capitalism. When they see a speculative bubble (caused not by the free market, but by government interference), Republicans have to pop it quickly before it damages the economy rather than take credit for the growth. Republicans have a superior message, a superior product, and still they lose. It is because they don't believe in and PROTECT capitalism.
Prosperity comes from a strong currency, strong savings rate, low taxes and few, effective and well enforced regulations ... not by easy money, not by manipulating the highly leveraged stock or housing market. Republicans seem oblivious to the fact that all growth is not created equal. Some growth is healthy, some cancerous. Democrats benefit when the economy is growing (increasing tax revenues and government growth), then blame capitalism and Republicans at the first sign of trouble.
Republicans should act like they are 100% responsible for how the economy performs, because they are. Does it make sense to blame Democrats for wrecking our capitalist economic system? Of course not. They are socialists. The GOP needs to quit looking at the opposition. The truth is, they have none.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gen eral_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than _socialism |
|
It seems to me that whenever a truly conservative Republican is selected as a candidate since the two modern versions of the parties were formed, they will win.
It is conservative principals, the principals of the foundation of this country, that win elections. When you pretend to be Democrat-Lite, you'll find that voters are going to stick with the original, not the cheap imitation. |
|
But I'll accept the premise of your argument for the moment. Let's say that when moderates break huge for them, that Republicans will always win. Well, in 2008, we ran perhaps the most moderate of candidates that we could have possibly run in this race unless Joe Lieberman switched sides, John McCain. It stands to reason that McCain, with a history of bucking both Democrats and Republicans, should have been able to carry more moderates than Obama, who was an unabashed far-leftist liberal progressive who kept trying to hide that fact from everyone. Of course, we all know that McCain was trounced with moderate voters, as was Bush Sr. in 1992 and Dole in 1996.
What is important about those two individuals? In Bush Sr's case, he was wildly unpopular because he raised taxes and abandoned his conservative principals, and in Dole's case, was torpedoed by Ross Perot and lack of money. |
|
Yes Mr. Medved, how does it feel now that the drawn swords and bared fangs of the far right are pointed at you and your moderate kin?
Going to be an interesting day tomorrow. |
|
Consider that many moderates voted for an extreme leftist Democrat over a moderate centrist Republican in 2008. This is because the political positions of a candidate are not the only factor, and perhaps not even the primary factor, that drives the moderate vote.
If staunch conservatives can present a likable, intelligent, qualified candidate whose message resonates across party and ideological affiliations, moderates will vote for that candidate. He can be more staunchly conservative than Goldwater, so long as his message in a general election is relatively apolitical and appealing. That's how a radical like the current President did it, and that's how Republicans can do it.
There is no need to flood the field with liberal Republicans - indeed such a strategy does more harm than good. When liberal Republicans are in charge, they often forward liberal policies that grow government, the federal budget, and the deficit. Liberal policies of so-called moderate Republicans are partially responsible for the mortgage meltdown that sparked the current economic debacle and ironically paved the way for a Democrat sweep in 2008. |
|
cons have never moved on their positions and are now considered far right extremists. the country moved left so these definitions do not apply now. The country will swing back towards us again as the nightmare of unfettered Liberalism haunts us.
Medved obviously doesn't get it that whenever you have a moderate Repub up against a seemingly moderate Dem, the Dem will win. Why not drink Coke instead of "New" Coke or Coke Zero? When people have a CONTRAST that's when they have to think with their pocketbooks as in, "Oh yeah, this SOB on the Left here is a gonna cost me and my kids a boatload. I'd rather go with the udder guy." When the two candidates are similar and both parties and the press are telling everyone that everything will be fine just vote for us - that's when the Dem wins.
We must have two separate identifiable choices. Reagan said we were in trouble due to govt control but was sunny and said we can do better. John McCain said, "Ehhh, I'll keep troops in Afghanistan!". Gee, thanks. |
|
You can draw any conclusion you want. It won't change the fact that it is conservatives who donate time and money to the GOP, and it is conservatives who've been crapped on by the moderate elitists who run the GOP.
I posted this yesterday; it bears repeating,
Sun Tzu writes,
"When generals are weak and lack authority, instructions are not clear, officers and soldiers lack consistency, and form battle lines every which way, this is riot. When the generals cannot assess opponents, clash with much greater numbers of more powerful forces, and do not sort out the level of skill among their own troops, these are the ones who get beaten."
Moderation is weak and lacks authority. The GOP will be the alternative to socialism and tyranny, or they will get beaten, every time.
"Put them in a spot where they have no place to go, and they will die before fleeing. If the are to die there, what can they not do? Warriors exert their full strength. When warriors are in great danger, then they have no fear. When there is nowhere to go they are firm, when they are deeply involved they will stick to it. IF THEY HAVE NO CHOICE, THEY WILL FIGHT." [emphasis mine]
The Left, regardless of party, has forced conservatives to into the position of having to fight. The elitists in the GOP who stand athwart a rolling boulder will be crushed.
The GOP leadership would be wise to re-read "The Art of War", as it is clear that they've forgotten most of it. I'll take Sun Tzu over Saul Alinsky any day of the week. |
|
|
|