Both Sides Now

Should candidates chase their base or woo swing voters? Yes.

Donald Trump, second from left, makes a point as Marco Rubio, left, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, right, listen during the Republican presidential debate at the Milwaukee Theatre, Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2015, in Milwaukee.
AP Photo/Morry Gash
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Charlie Cook
Dec. 4, 2015, 5 a.m.

An age-old ar­gu­ment among polit­ic­al op­er­at­ives is the re­l­at­ive im­port­ance of per­sua­sion versus turnout. One group makes the case that scarce cam­paign re­sources should go to­ward tar­get­ing the mal­le­able voters in the middle, those with loose if any par­tis­an ties, and driv­ing them in the de­sired dir­ec­tion. The oth­er group ar­gues that truly swing voters are very few, and so it’s a bet­ter use of time and money to ex­cite voters who can be coun­ted on for sup­port, if only they’ll go to the polls.

Which can­did­ate Re­pub­lic­ans de­cide to nom­in­ate for pres­id­ent next year could well turn on that ba­sic ques­tion. As­sum­ing the GOP, through its primar­ies and caucuses, doesn’t roll the dice on a pure out­sider like Don­ald Trump, they’ll choose either a can­did­ate whose ap­peal reaches in­to the middle, such as (in al­pha­bet­ic­al or­der, lest any­one be of­fen­ded) Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, or Marco Ru­bio, or one de­signed to max­im­ize sup­port in the party’s con­ser­vat­ive base, like Ted Cruz, Mike Hucka­bee, or Rick San­tor­um. I sup­pose you could count both neurosur­geon Ben Car­son and busi­ness­wo­man Carly Fior­ina as out­siders and, on most is­sues, as con­ser­vat­ives.

Exit polls in 2012 showed that 92 per­cent of self-de­scribed Demo­crats voted for Pres­id­ent Obama; the same per­cent­age voted for the Demo­crat­ic can­did­ate for the House. On the oth­er side, 93 per­cent of self-iden­ti­fied Re­pub­lic­ans cast their bal­lots for Mitt Rom­ney and 94 per­cent for their dis­trict’s GOP House can­did­ate.

This makes sense when you con­sider that the Demo­crats most likely to vote for a Re­pub­lic­an were con­ser­vat­ives and mod­er­ates—vir­tu­ally ex­tinct and in­creas­ingly rare, re­spect­ively. So, too, among Re­pub­lic­an voters. The ones most likely to de­fect to a Demo­crat­ic can­did­ate were lib­er­als, who are just about gone, and the ever-few­er mod­er­ates.

We now see more party co­he­sion; each party is pretty much sor­ted out—lib­er­als to one side, con­ser­vat­ives to the oth­er. That trans­lates in­to more straight-party vot­ing, up and down the bal­lot, and less tick­et-split­ting than ever be­fore. It also leaves the mod­er­ates in both parties in­creas­ingly out­numbered and dis­en­fran­chised, without much say in se­lect­ing nom­in­ees.

This is a pro­cess that has ac­cel­er­ated stead­ily since Pres­id­ent John­son’s mid-1960s vic­tor­ies on civil rights laws ushered in Richard Nix­on’s South­ern strategy in 1968. Party lines held firm even in 1992, with its ex­traordin­ary three-way con­test between Pres­id­ent George H.W. Bush, Arkan­sas Gov. Bill Clin­ton, and busi­ness­man H. Ross Perot, when 73 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans voted for Bush and 77 per­cent of Demo­crats went for Clin­ton. Four years later, Clin­ton drew 84 per­cent of the Demo­crat­ic vote, while Bob Dole took 80 per­cent of the Re­pub­lic­ans.

And so on. In the 2000 elec­tion, that cliff­hanger, Al Gore car­ried 86 per­cent of the vote from Demo­crats, and George W. Bush took a re­mark­able 90 per­cent of the votes cast by self-de­scribed Re­pub­lic­ans. Four years later, Bush fared even bet­ter in his reelec­tion bid, pulling 93 per­cent of the Re­pub­lic­an vote, while John Kerry racked up 89 per­cent among Demo­crats. In 2008, Barack Obama and John Mc­Cain car­ried 89 per­cent and 90 per­cent, re­spect­ively, of their par­tis­ans. Par­tis­an voters are pre­dict­able.

So, where are the stor­ied in­de­pend­ents, who seem to hold the na­tion’s polit­ic­al bal­ance in their grasp? Ac­cord­ing to exit polls in the past six pres­id­en­tial elec­tions, the pro­por­tion of voters call­ing them­selves in­de­pend­ents ranged between 26 per­cent (in 1996 and 2004) and 29 per­cent (in 2008 and 2012).

But, even most of these pro­fessed in­de­pend­ents don’t ac­tu­ally be­have, well, in­de­pend­ently. The Amer­ic­an Na­tion­al Elec­tion Stud­ies are a series of na­tion­al sur­veys im­me­di­ately be­fore and after pres­id­en­tial elec­tions, led by polit­ic­al sci­ent­ists at the Uni­versity of Michigan and Stan­ford Uni­versity. In 2012, it found that 87 per­cent of in­de­pend­ents who, when pushed, con­ceded they feel closer to the Demo­crat­ic Party wound up vot­ing for Obama. The same per­cent­age of in­de­pend­ents who ad­mit­ted a soft spot for Re­pub­lic­ans went for Rom­ney. In 2008, Obama’s hope-and-change cam­paign drew a whop­ping 91 per­cent of Demo­crat­ic-lean­ing in­de­pend­ents, while Mc­Cain won 82 per­cent of in­de­pend­ents who leaned Re­pub­lic­an. Simply put, many of the people who self-identi­fy as polit­ic­al in­de­pend­ents are, for elect­or­al pur­poses, par­tis­ans. They vote al­most as pre­dict­ably as Amer­ic­ans who simply la­bel them­selves as a Demo­crat or a Re­pub­lic­an.

True in­de­pend­ents, who don’t lean to­ward either party, made up only 5 per­cent of the 2012 elect­or­ate, ac­cord­ing to the ANES sur­vey. (They pre­ferred Rom­ney over Obama, 54 per­cent to 46 per­cent.) In 2008, these hard in­de­pend­ents ac­coun­ted for 6.5 per­cent of the elect­or­ate (break­ing for Obama, 55 per­cent to 45 per­cent), and for 5.5 per­cent in 2004 (sid­ing with Kerry, 56 per­cent to 44 per­cent). Note that in all three elec­tions, more in­de­pend­ents voted against the party that held the White House—and in two of the three, in fa­vor of the can­did­ate who lost.

All of which serves to re­mind us that pre­cisely who goes to the polls—the turnout of par­tis­ans and of par­tis­an-lean­ing in­de­pend­ents—can de­cide an elec­tion.

Here’s the truth: In most polit­ic­al cir­cum­stances, neither side of the ar­gu­ment is com­pletely cor­rect. Polit­ic­al parties must walk and chew gum at the same time. They need to hold and mo­tiv­ate their base while try­ing to per­suade those few voters in the middle who are truly up for grabs. Par­tis­ans mat­ter, and swing voters do, too.

What We're Following See More »
SAYS HIS DEATH STEMMED FROM A FISTFIGHT
Saudis Admit Khashoggi Killed in Embassy
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Saudi Arabia said Saturday that Jamal Khashoggi, the dissident Saudi journalist who disappeared more than two weeks ago, had died after an argument and fistfight with unidentified men inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Eighteen men have been arrested and are being investigated in the case, Saudi state-run media reported without identifying any of them. State media also reported that Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, the deputy director of Saudi intelligence, and other high-ranking intelligence officials had been dismissed."

Source:
ROGER STONE IN THE CROSSHAIRS?
Mueller Looking into Ties Between WikiLeaks, Conservative Groups
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is scrutinizing how a collection of activists and pundits intersected with WikiLeaks, the website that U.S. officials say was the primary conduit for publishing materials stolen by Russia, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Mueller’s team has recently questioned witnesses about the activities of longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone, including his contacts with WikiLeaks, and has obtained telephone records, according to the people familiar with the matter."

Source:
PROBING COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION
Mueller To Release Key Findings After Midterms
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue findings on core aspects of his Russia probe soon after the November midterm elections ... Specifically, Mueller is close to rendering judgment on two of the most explosive aspects of his inquiry: whether there were clear incidents of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, and whether the president took any actions that constitute obstruction of justice." Mueller has faced pressure to wrap up the investigation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, said an official, who would receive the results of the investigation and have "some discretion in deciding what is relayed to Congress and what is publicly released," if he remains at his post.

Source:
PASSED ON SO-CALLED "SAR" REPORTS
FinCen Official Charged with Leaking Info on Manafort, Gates
19 hours ago
THE DETAILS
"A senior official working for the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has been charged with leaking confidential financial reports on former Trump campaign advisers Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and others to a media outlet. Prosecutors say that Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior adviser to FinCEN, photographed what are called suspicious activity reports, or SARs, and other sensitive government files and sent them to an unnamed reporter, in violation of U.S. law."
Source:
FIRST CHARGE FOR MIDTERMS
DOJ Charges Russian For Meddling In 2018 Midterms
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Justice Department on Friday charged a Russian woman for her alleged role in a conspiracy to interfere with the 2018 U.S. election, marking the first criminal case prosecutors have brought against a foreign national for interfering in the upcoming midterms. Elena Khusyaynova, 44, was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Prosecutors said she managed the finances of 'Project Lakhta,' a foreign influence operation they said was designed 'to sow discord in the U.S. political system' by pushing arguments and misinformation online about a host of divisive political issues, including immigration, the Confederate flag, gun control and the National Football League national-anthem protests."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login