This is a continuation of a two-part series that began yesterday. The first part can be read here--Chris
Selective anecdotes can be used to support any thesis. However, a broad, quantitative analysis of long-term trends typically points to far more narrow conclusions.
This is the case with American politics as much as it is the case with any other area of investigation. Despite repeated claims by journalists, pundits and politicians that America is becoming less partisan and less ideological, and embracing bi-partisanship and centrism, every marco-trend in American politics indicates the opposite is occurring.
If America really were embracing centrism, then we would see the following:
- Americans would not be at their all-time peak of liberal policy mood;
- Moderate self-identification would be increasing, not decreasing;
- More moderate challengers would be defeating less moderate challengers in primary elections, not the other way around;
- More moderate members of Congress would have a higher retention rate than less moderate members of Congress, not the other way around.
Also, if America really were becoming less partisan, then we would see the following:
- More voters would be selecting the nominee of an opposing party, not less;
- More voters would be choosing third-party candidates, not less;
- More voters of all types would be self-identifying as Independent, not just Republicans.
Instead, what we see across all seven of these trends are either a movement toward an increasing embrace of partisanship and non-centrist ideology, or simply a movement away from Republicans and toward Democrats. Yerterday, I covered three of these trends in detail. Today, in the extended entry, I cover the other four (one of which was not mentioned in yesterday's post).
More in the extended entry. |
4. Is third-party performance improving in general elections?
Answer: No
Since 2000, third-parties have seen a consistent decline in their share of the national popular vote in U.S. House elections:
2006: 3.9%
2004: 4.2%
2002: 5.4%
2000: 5.7%
This is mirrored in the performance of third-parties in the presidential election, where the share of third-party votes has declined every cycle since 192, reaching a low of 1.00% in 2004.
While there are currently two independent members of the U.S. Senate, both of whom were elected in 2006, in both campaigns one of the two major parties failed to present a serious nominee. In Vermont, there was no Democratic nominee competing against Bernie Sanders, while in Connecticut, the Republican nominee only received 10% of the vote in the Lamont vs. Lieberman general election. In both cases, the independent candidate was already a statewide elected member of Congress, indicating that both campaigns were won because of well-known, popular local politicians were on the ballot, rather than through a rejection of the two major parties.
5. Are moderates challengers of both parties defeating incumbent non-moderates in primary elections?
Answer: No
Since 2006, six congressional incumbents have been defeated in primary elections. On five occasions, a more moderate incumbent was defeated by a less moderate challenger: Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, Tim Walberg's defeat of Joe Schwartz in MI-07, Donna Edwards's defeat of Al Wynn in MD-04, Andy Harris's defeat of Wayne Gilchrest in MD-01, and Jason Chaffetz's defeat of Chris Canon in UT-03. On only one occasion, a more moderate challenger defeated a less moderate incumbent: Hank Johnson's victory over Cynthia McKinney in GA-04. Clearly, the trend is for moderates to be defeated in primaries by less moderate challengers, rather than for less moderate incumbents to be defeated by more moderate primary challengers.
6. Are moderates challengers of both parties defeating non-moderates incumbents of the opposing party in general elections?
Answer: No
In 2006, twenty-four incumbent members of the House, and six incumbent members of the Senate, were defeated for re-election. The lone Democrat was Cynthia McKinney in the House.
Of the twenty-three defeated Republican House incumbents, the median ideological ranking, according to voteview.com, was 66th most liberal among the Republican caucus.
Defeated Republican Incumbents, Ranked By Most Liberal In Republican Caucus
Jim Leach: 2
Michael G. Fitzpatrick: 6
Rob Simmons: 7
Nancy Johnson: 9
Charlie Bass: 11
Jeb Bradley: 12
Sue Kelly: 15
Curt Weldon: 18
Joe Schwartz: 23
John Sweeney: 31
Clay Shaw: 60
Richard Pombo: 66 (median)
Anne Northup: 81.5
Don Sherwood: 92
Henry Bonilla: 116
Charles Taylor: 117.5
Melissa Hart: 117.5
Mike Sodrel: 126.5
Jim Ryun: 180
John Hostettler: 181.5
Gil Gutknecht: 191.5
Chris Chocola: 207
J.D. Hayworth: 208
Overall, 236 Republicans served at least some length of time in the 109th Congress. With the median incumbent ranking 66th most liberal of 236, defeated incumbents heavily skewed toward the moderate end of the Republican scale. An additional 16 of the 66 most liberal Republican members of the 109th Congress have since retired, representing half of the Republican House retirements in the 2006 and 2008 election.
Much the same pattern can be seen among the defeated in 2006 Senate incumbents, according to voteview.
Lincoln Chafee: 1
Mike DeWine: 4
Jim Talent: 8
Conrad Burns: 23
Rick Santorum: 26
George Allen: 37
Fifty-five Republicans served in the 109th Senate. Among those 55, the average "liberal" ranking of the six who were defeated for re-election was 16.5. While Democrats of any type suffer virtually no electoral defeats whatsoever, moderate Republicans bear the brunt of continued Republican electoral defeats.
7. Are voters increasingly splitting crossing lines to vote for the other party?
Answer: No
In 2000, according to exit polls, 7.1% of the electorate was either a self-identified Republican who voted for Al Gore, or a self-identified Democrat who voted for George Bush. In 2004, according to exit polls, such cross-over voters only represented 6.3% of the electorate. In 2006, in a further drop, such voters only composed 5.5% of the electorate, according to exit polls. The lack of exit polls for 2002, along with the presence of Ross Perot in the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, make longer-term comparisons difficult. However, in the short term, more voters are choosing candidates from their own party than ever before. This is demonstrative of increasing partisanship among voters, not less.
***
Selective anecdotes can be used to support any thesis. However, a broad, quantitative analysis of long-term trends typically points to far more narrow conclusions. In this case, it is simply unsupportable to argue that America is becoming less partisan and more moderate. No matter how often it is repeated by journalists, pundits and politcians, that simply is not true. |
