Center-Left Nation Update--Party ID Since 1972

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 17:18


The main objections to my diary "Center-Left Nation: Congress Since WWII" seemed to be two-fold: first that I was only using a single data source.  Second, more significantly, that I was making an argument that ignored the racism of the Southern Dems.  My answers were that (1) You only need one data source to disprove a thesis ("center-right nation"), and advance (not prove) another ("center-left nation"); (2) It was still true in the aggregate, as shown, for example, by the Congressional DW-Nominate scores.

I stand by those answers, but of course, they don't need to be the last word.  And, indeed, they shouldn't be the last word.  Hence, a look at party ID since 1972, from the General Social Survey (GSS).  It should be noted that the figures here--which include partisan leaners--are not as strikingly Democratic as those from Pew, which is also a very reputable pollster, and I have no explanation for the discrepancy.  But GSS figures are available going much further back.

(GSS polls not taken every year, see tables below for exact dates.)

So, the Democrats have lost their crushing 2-1 advantage enjoyed in the early 70s, but still have maintained an edge in every GSS poll since that time.  And as for arguments about Southern racist Dems, well, that's what God made regional crosstabs for...

Paul Rosenberg :: Center-Left Nation Update--Party ID Since 1972
As it turns out, though there are clear regional differences, they are generally less striking than the similarities.  And though we don't have figures from the '40s, '50s and '60s, the figures from 1972 on show that Democratic majorities were never solely dependent on Southern voters during this time, even when those voters were still overwhelmingly registered as Democrats.

First up, in the Northeast--New England plus the Mid-Atlantic states--Republicans briefly outnumbered Democrats in 1992, but the Democratic advantage has been up around 1970s levels for a while now.

Second, in the South, the GOP's new stronghold--from the Southern Atlantic seaboard to Texas and Oaklahoma--they came close to surpassing the Democrats in 1994, but lost ground after that, with a post-9/11 resurgence in 2002.

Third, in the Midwest--from Rustbelt Ohio to the Great Plains--the Republicans pulled ahead of the Democrats in the early 1990s, but have since fallen behind again.

Fourth, in the West--Mountain and Coastal--Republicans pulled ahead during Reagan's second term, but fell behind again under Clinton--an early profile of GOP gains, followed by losses, than in any other region.

Summary

Again, this is not presented as definitive proof that America is center-left, but it is proof that we are not center-right on the level of partisan politics, which is the level this debate is all about.  The Versailles rhetoric is out of touch with reality, once again.


Tables

    Party ID--Nationwide
    YearDemIndRep
    197260.910.628.5
    197355.810.134.1
    197459.010.530.4
    197555.513.730.8
    197655.916.327.9
    197758.011.230.9
    197852.914.432.7
    198051.716.931.3
    198260.211.728.1
    198352.413.034.6
    198451.411.537.0
    198549.89.340.9
    198649.713.237.0
    198756.410.832.8
    198848.812.638.6
    198946.113.041.0
    199045.411.043.4
    199144.213.142.7
    199346.512.541.2
    199447.513.039.5
    199645.216.438.4
    199846.517.835.8
    200044.020.735.3
    200243.420.036.6
    200444.416.239.4
    200642.323.534.2

    Party ID--Northeast
    YearDemIndRep
    197253.212.633.9
    197358.89.631.6
    197462.38.429.7
    197555.413.031.6
    197654.415.729.7
    197753.911.834.5
    197849.413.637.0
    198045.919.234.9
    198255.614.130.2
    198351.015.533.5
    198452.512.535.0
    198547.911.440.7
    198653.010.936.1
    198749.712.537.8
    198851.514.234.3
    198943.614.741.7
    199046.410.443.2
    199137.615.247.2
    199349.312.138.6
    199450.611.837.7
    199648.118.932.8
    199850.320.828.9
    200047.425.227.4
    200245.624.729.6
    200449.214.436.4
    200648.323.028.7

    Party ID--South
    YearDemIndRep
    197271.38.620.1
    197354.89.435.7
    197459.58.632.0
    197560.612.427.1
    197655.616.927.4
    197759.411.728.9
    197856.614.528.9
    198057.114.828.3
    198266.89.823.4
    198356.813.230.0
    198455.711.033.3
    198556.37.236.7
    198656.012.631.5
    198760.89.929.2
    198851.012.436.6
    198947.712.539.8
    199051.69.239.2
    199150.610.538.8
    199344.911.343.8
    199444.513.841.7
    199643.014.742.4
    199845.016.238.6
    200044.019.536.4
    200241.418.340.2
    200444.816.139.2
    200641.724.833.5

    Party ID--Midwest
    YearDemIndRep
    197254.612.532.9
    197354.610.734.5
    197458.113.228.7
    197546.916.936.2
    197653.916.429.7
    197759.59.430.9
    197847.317.035.4
    198050.517.831.4
    198259.211.329.3
    198350.412.736.9
    198452.412.934.7
    198547.710.641.4
    198648.314.737.3
    198761.410.028.6
    198848.516.035.5
    198944.713.242.1
    199038.414.947.0
    199142.614.842.6
    199341.115.044.0
    199447.313.039.8
    199645.916.737.4
    199844.617.038.4
    200038.822.338.8
    200243.120.636.4
    200441.817.640.8
    200639.822.238.0

    Party ID--West
    YearDemIndRep
    197263.77.928.5
    197354.911.633.5
    197456.212.431.4
    197561.111.127.9
    197661.616.122.7
    197757.012.030.5
    197860.210.629.2
    198050.016.433.2
    198251.513.734.4
    198349.810.339.9
    198441.48.849.8
    198542.39.348.5
    198637.915.147.0
    198745.312.042.8
    198842.66.650.9
    198947.811.640.9
    199043.79.546.4
    199141.013.345.4
    199353.111.335.6
    199450.012.937.1
    199645.416.238.2
    199847.318.134.4
    200046.316.437.5
    200244.717.337.9
    200443.116.440.5
    200641.222.935.7

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Oops he did it again! (0.00 / 0)
Somewhat OT, but I couldn't resist mentioning that on ABC's This Week today, George "I cannot tell a truth" Will told the exact same lie that Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman shot down last week so deftly, that the New Deal was a failure. And once again, yet another highly-regarded progressive economist had to shoot it down, this time Robert Kuttner, who reiterated that the New Deal got us halfway through the depression, and that it was in fact FDR's ill-chosen decision to try to raise taxes and balance the budget in 1937 that stalled the New Deal's success, and not the New Deal itself.

I imagine that Will will continue to tell this lie each and every week that he continues to appear on This Week, and in his WaPo column, because this is what he has been doing for his entire pundit life, telling lies. And he knows it. This is who he is. This is what he does. He is the conservative "soul" in a nutshell: a liar who can't stand it when people unlike himself do well. He's literally got nothing else to offer but pithy lies. A one trick pony (heh) who ran out of ideas after reading Atlas Shrugged at 16, and therefore has to lie in order to get taken seriously by establishment media asshats like George S.

Like they do about it's being a center-right country. Yeah, right. Only in their poniest dreams. And I bet that Will is dreaming of nothing but ponies these days. Ones named Herbert, and Amity, and Milton, and Ronnie, and Barry, and William, and Joe...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Funny You Should Mention This (0.00 / 0)
I'm still trying for a New Deal denialist post today. Running out of time.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Party ID Does Not Seem To Be Strongly Correlated To Voting (0.00 / 0)
At the Congressional level. A higher Dem. party ID did not translate into Democratic victories at the polls.

I'd say there are two factors:

1. Gerrymandering
2. Incumbency.

Gerrymandering ensured some safe seats and incumbency kept some Congressmen in power despite a "hostile" party ID in their district.

Remember that this is also the period where big-money lobbyists really took over the Congress and BOTH political parties. Before the 1980s business tended to favor Republicans, but Democrats made a big play for K-Street to help raise more money for Democrats.

That probably helped Democrats in the South between 1968 and 1994, and Republicans in the North and Northeast between 1972 and 2008.

Obviously the party ID figures for the South are meaningless in terms of actual results, since "Conservative Democrats" especially in the South are simply Reagan Republicans who never bothered to change their registration.

This is somewhat less true in the North, but still. . . . For instance, my father keeps insisting on registering as an "Independent" although he hasn't voted for a Democrat since LBJ and is a hard-core ditto-head who reliably votes the straight Republican ticket.


[ Parent ]
And Will, joined by fellow dishonest fabulist David Brooks (4.00 / 2)
proceeded to make every tired old argument we've been hearing about why (union-contracted) US automakers are doomed, can't be salvaged, shouldn't be bailed out, and should just be allowed to go bankrupt, even if it means their demise, and the model to be followed is that of successful foreign automakers with non-union US plants.

The visceral hatred that these people have for labor is simply unreal. They literally cannot stand it when someone not as privileged as themselves has a guaranteed decent income and standard of living that is not the result of their class's noblesse oblige (when and where they chose to dispense it, which is almost nowhere these days), but rather the result of collective action. They cannot stand it when members of the underclass (which is anyone who is not a member of the upper class) exhibit any sort of independance of thought or action, or collectively act in furtherance of their individual and class interests. The can't STAND this.

There is, indeed, "class warfare" in the US. And it's ENTIRELY of the upper class's origination, due to its inability and unwillingness to share wealth, power and privilege. That is literally what this is all about. They want it all, to dispense as they see fit, and do not want anyone else to have any of it, except as they allow. It's all about control and dominance.

What small and miserable "men" these upper class propagandists are.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
And yet another lie! (4.00 / 1)
About how Obama supporters had supposedly been hoping that he would appoint an anti-capitalist, anti-market economic team. I literally can't think of a single serious Obama supporter, or member of the Obama-supporting left (as opposed to anti-Obama far-left lefties who seriously need to up their meds because La Revolucion! is simply not gonna happen), who wanted, let alone expected, Obama to do any such thing. (And even the far-lefties never expected Obama to do this, which is why they couldn't support him.) They simply wanted, and were hoping--but didn't really expect, if they'd been paying attention--that he'd appointed at least a few true progressives, to balance out the inevitable centrists and center-rightists.

We're talking multiple levels of lies here, a veritable symphony of lies, a baroque concoction of lies that only a far-right fabulist like Will could dream up. So many lies that one imagines that Will himself would disappear should these lies all be exposed at once. He is literally riding a wave of self-manufactured and perpetuated lies. It's almost funny. But not really.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Some of us left of center-left lefties WERE ... (4.00 / 1)
...listening to what Obama was saying and rightly assumed he would appoint some left-progressives at least to the advisory teams - NEC, NSC. Which is why some of us supported him, even though we know he himself is not left-progressive. Not many such appointments, of course, but a handful. Because, he did, after all, say he wanted opinions from across the spectrum. And that we were in an age of "bottom-up politics." What we're seeing - so far - is a lopping off of left-progressives so that the Obama team can claim it's reaching across the spectrum.

[ Parent ]
Arriana Huffington thankfully shot down (0.00 / 0)
both the "we're a center-right" lie, and Will's specific lies, on today's This Week, aided by progressive economist Robert Kuttner. This may well be the first time ever that more than one progressive has appeared on any of the Sunday shows, since perhaps the Carter administration. And that's probably only a slight exaggeration.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Mmm.... (0.00 / 0)
So who are these Independent critters, and more to the point, why are they? Seems like all their little yellow data points are trending continuously up. Are my children at risk?

Thanks, Paul (0.00 / 0)
Helpful, useful, interesting.

In a partial response to WT, many of the college age students I've come into contact with are a good deal more likely to register as independent/unaffiliated, as opposed to Republican or Democrat, in the Colorado front range region.  I recognize that anecdote(s) does not equal data, however.  Does your data source give you a sense of the age breakouts by party affiliation, Paul?


Yes, More Younger Voters Are Independents (0.00 / 0)
For example, in 2006, 18-29s were 29.4% independent, compared to 18.0% for age 50+.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Party ID a lag variable (0.00 / 0)
Six Congressional districts in NY have more registered Republicans than registered Democrats but elected a Democrat to Congress in 2008: NY 1 (135,475 D; 169,674 R), NY 19 (153634 D; 155,577 R); NY 20 125,486 D; 196,118 R), NY 24 (134,929 D; 163,012 R), NY 25 (149,074, D; 153,071 R), and NY 29 (130,091 D; 180941 R).  5 of these 6 districts flipped in either 2006 and 2008.


Yes, And No (0.00 / 0)
Party ID is a lagging variable in the sense that people tend to be reluctant to switch party ID.  Look at all the Southern Dems voting racist Republican for decades.

But it's also a kind of leading variable in the sense that the party ID of young voters tends to point to the direction party balance is headed in the future.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search