A lot of people voted for Obama on the basis of race, personality, Hurricane Sandy, or some other factor that didn’t involve agreement with moral liberalism. Whether liberalism is now a majority position depends on the issue involved. It varies from case to case and, sometimes, from year to year.
Democratic turnout this year was significantly higher than expected. Republican turnout was significantly lower than anticipated (including what was forecast in some polls, which means that the polling wasn’t as accurate as people often suggest). If the Democrats have a white candidate in 2016, while the Republicans have a Hispanic candidate, for example, that could reverse this year’s result. Or if the Republicans nominate a candidate who’s less vulnerable to class warfare efforts or who motivates the Republican base more, for instance, this year’s results could be reversed. There are many ways for the Republicans to win in 2016 without much of a change. Some changes should be made, such as reaching out more to groups like Hispanics and single women. We should also try to produce a better turnout effort, for example. But there hasn’t been any change in the electorate that’s so radical as to require a major change in the Republican party or to suggest that the Republicans are likely to lose in 2016. Some of the biggest surprises this year, such as disappointing Republican turnout and the willingness of so many independents and moderates to vote for Obama on such shallow grounds, can be reversed in 2016 without much difficulty.
The problem with a lot of voters isn’t that they’re so liberal. It’s that they’re so ignorant and easily swayed. They vote for a liberal in an election like this one, but similar motivations will move them to vote for a conservative the next time. Factors like the personality of a candidate, incumbency, or how well he handles a natural disaster (like Hurricane Sandy) don’t single out any one political party or liberalism or conservatism. Those factors can favor either party, depending on the circumstances surrounding a given election.
I'd like to think you're right. I'm British, remember, so I'm constitutionally cynical and pessimistic. You're the perennially optimistic American. ;)
I didn't claim that there has been a radical change in the electorate -- at least, not in a short space of time. Rather, my point is that there has been a long-term cultural shift toward social liberalism. There's no reason to think that shift won't continue and humanly speaking it's very difficult to reverse that cultural degeneration. This is the challenge faced by the Republicans.
The problem with a lot of voters isn’t that they’re so liberal. It’s that they’re so ignorant and easily swayed.
I half agree with this. The unfortunate reality, however, is that ignorant and easily swayed people are more likely to be swayed in a liberal direction than in a conservative one (in part because of the unscrupulous rhetorical tactics that liberals are quite happy to use).
I agree that there's been a move toward liberalism. I also agree that in some ways it's easier for liberals to persuade people to their position than it is for conservatives to persuade people to theirs. But we're starting out with a larger number of conservatives than liberals. Conservatives remain a larger minority than liberals. The 2012 exit polls tell us so, and it's been the case for many years. However much the gap is closing, there's still a gap. There are some easy pathways open for conservatives to build a majority around their candidate without abandoning their conservatism (on social issues or otherwise).
And we have to distinguish among the social issues. Conservatism isn't rapidly losing ground on abortion in a way comparable to what's happening with homosexuality.
Conservatives remain a larger minority than liberals. The 2012 exit polls tell us so, and it's been the case for many years.
Exit polls only tell us whether people consider themselves to be conservative. I've seen some studies which suggest that people typically consider themselves to be more conservative than they really are. Self-professions don't tell us a whole lot about whether people really understand and are committed to conservative principles.
However much the gap is closing, there's still a gap.
Yes, there's still a gap. My argument is premised not on the absence of a gap but on the closing of the gap.
There are some easy pathways open for conservatives to build a majority around their candidate without abandoning their conservatism (on social issues or otherwise).
I hope you're right.
And we have to distinguish among the social issues. Conservatism isn't rapidly losing ground on abortion in a way comparable to what's happening with homosexuality.
Fair point about distinguishing among the social issues. But how much more ground on abortion could conservatism lose? Apparently the public are more willing today to vote for an extreme pro-choice Democrat than a moderate pro-life Republican. Again, there's a difference between a voter claiming to be pro-life and a voter actually being committed to a pro-life agenda. Didn't even Joe Biden claim to be "personally pro-life" (or words to that effect) in his debate with Paul Ryan?
"I'm British, remember, so I'm constitutionally cynical and pessimistic. You're the perennially optimistic American. ;)"
The Doctor (Who) always seemed optimistic to me though! To say nothing of William Wallace in Braveheart. Alas. :-( (As an American, not only do I tend to lump together British peoples from totally different historical, cultural, etc. backgrounds into one big entity, but I also tend to derive my understanding of British history from TV shows and movies. ;-) )
A similarly themed post from Michael Kruger. Likewise well-worth reading.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people voted for Obama on the basis of race, personality, Hurricane Sandy, or some other factor that didn’t involve agreement with moral liberalism. Whether liberalism is now a majority position depends on the issue involved. It varies from case to case and, sometimes, from year to year.
ReplyDeleteDemocratic turnout this year was significantly higher than expected. Republican turnout was significantly lower than anticipated (including what was forecast in some polls, which means that the polling wasn’t as accurate as people often suggest). If the Democrats have a white candidate in 2016, while the Republicans have a Hispanic candidate, for example, that could reverse this year’s result. Or if the Republicans nominate a candidate who’s less vulnerable to class warfare efforts or who motivates the Republican base more, for instance, this year’s results could be reversed. There are many ways for the Republicans to win in 2016 without much of a change. Some changes should be made, such as reaching out more to groups like Hispanics and single women. We should also try to produce a better turnout effort, for example. But there hasn’t been any change in the electorate that’s so radical as to require a major change in the Republican party or to suggest that the Republicans are likely to lose in 2016. Some of the biggest surprises this year, such as disappointing Republican turnout and the willingness of so many independents and moderates to vote for Obama on such shallow grounds, can be reversed in 2016 without much difficulty.
The problem with a lot of voters isn’t that they’re so liberal. It’s that they’re so ignorant and easily swayed. They vote for a liberal in an election like this one, but similar motivations will move them to vote for a conservative the next time. Factors like the personality of a candidate, incumbency, or how well he handles a natural disaster (like Hurricane Sandy) don’t single out any one political party or liberalism or conservatism. Those factors can favor either party, depending on the circumstances surrounding a given election.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to think you're right. I'm British, remember, so I'm constitutionally cynical and pessimistic. You're the perennially optimistic American. ;)
I didn't claim that there has been a radical change in the electorate -- at least, not in a short space of time. Rather, my point is that there has been a long-term cultural shift toward social liberalism. There's no reason to think that shift won't continue and humanly speaking it's very difficult to reverse that cultural degeneration. This is the challenge faced by the Republicans.
The problem with a lot of voters isn’t that they’re so liberal. It’s that they’re so ignorant and easily swayed.
I half agree with this. The unfortunate reality, however, is that ignorant and easily swayed people are more likely to be swayed in a liberal direction than in a conservative one (in part because of the unscrupulous rhetorical tactics that liberals are quite happy to use).
James,
DeleteI agree that there's been a move toward liberalism. I also agree that in some ways it's easier for liberals to persuade people to their position than it is for conservatives to persuade people to theirs. But we're starting out with a larger number of conservatives than liberals. Conservatives remain a larger minority than liberals. The 2012 exit polls tell us so, and it's been the case for many years. However much the gap is closing, there's still a gap. There are some easy pathways open for conservatives to build a majority around their candidate without abandoning their conservatism (on social issues or otherwise).
And we have to distinguish among the social issues. Conservatism isn't rapidly losing ground on abortion in a way comparable to what's happening with homosexuality.
Jason,
DeleteConservatives remain a larger minority than liberals. The 2012 exit polls tell us so, and it's been the case for many years.
Exit polls only tell us whether people consider themselves to be conservative. I've seen some studies which suggest that people typically consider themselves to be more conservative than they really are. Self-professions don't tell us a whole lot about whether people really understand and are committed to conservative principles.
However much the gap is closing, there's still a gap.
Yes, there's still a gap. My argument is premised not on the absence of a gap but on the closing of the gap.
There are some easy pathways open for conservatives to build a majority around their candidate without abandoning their conservatism (on social issues or otherwise).
I hope you're right.
And we have to distinguish among the social issues. Conservatism isn't rapidly losing ground on abortion in a way comparable to what's happening with homosexuality.
Fair point about distinguishing among the social issues. But how much more ground on abortion could conservatism lose? Apparently the public are more willing today to vote for an extreme pro-choice Democrat than a moderate pro-life Republican. Again, there's a difference between a voter claiming to be pro-life and a voter actually being committed to a pro-life agenda. Didn't even Joe Biden claim to be "personally pro-life" (or words to that effect) in his debate with Paul Ryan?
James Anderson said:
Delete"I'm British, remember, so I'm constitutionally cynical and pessimistic. You're the perennially optimistic American. ;)"
The Doctor (Who) always seemed optimistic to me though! To say nothing of William Wallace in Braveheart. Alas. :-( (As an American, not only do I tend to lump together British peoples from totally different historical, cultural, etc. backgrounds into one big entity, but I also tend to derive my understanding of British history from TV shows and movies. ;-) )