Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Opinion

Peter Roff

U.S. More Conservative Than Obama's 2008 Win Suggests

August 18, 2009 01:39 PM ET | Peter Roff | Permanent Link | Print

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Liberal glee over Barack Obama's election was accompanied in some quarters by smart people who claim to know something about U.S. politics engaged in a smug, even triumphal dance of joy over the defeat of American conservatism.

Gary Kamiya, the executive editor of Salon.com, equated the voters to "dogs" and conservative policy proscriptions to "dog food" when he wrote in a post-election essay that "The painful truth for conservatives is that the dogs aren't eating their dog food—and every national trend indicates that they will never eat it again."

Explaining that the ouster of conservatives from Washington "has been a long time coming," Kamiya opined that the road ahead for the Republicans presented "a wrenching choice: remain true to its increasingly irrelevant and rejected ideology and fade into political insignificance, or remake itself as essentially a more moderate version of the Democratic Party."

What a difference six months make.

The most recent Gallup poll on national ideological leanings, released August 14, shows quite clearly that, while not a majority of the country, today "more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal," something that is a far cry from the collapse of conservatism analysis Kamiya and others advanced in the wake of the 2008 election.

In the new survey, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states while liberals outnumber conservatives, and this is no great surprise, in the District of Columbia. More to the point, the lead is statistically significant in 47 states while being inside the margin of error in only three: Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

The map shown here breaks the data down by gradations, with states where the conservatives' advantage over liberals is greater than 25 percentage points defined as "Most Conservative." Net conservatism registering 20 to 25 points is defined as "More Conservative"; from 10 to 19 points as "Somewhat Conservative"; and from 1 to 9 points as "Less Conservative." Ominously for President Obama, the states that are "Somewhat," "More," and "Most Conservative" resemble a map showing a victory in the Electoral College.

In terms of party identification, the Democrats are still in better shape than the Republicans. The president's party has a significant advantage over the Republicans in 30 states while the GOP leads in only four. But party identification is quite a different thing than ideological affinity.

Voters will often cross party lines to vote for a candidate whom they like better, as Reagan's 1984 landslide over Walter Mondale reminds us; it is very rare, however, that a self-described liberal will vote for a candidate viewed as a conservative and even rarer still that a self-described conservative will vote for the candidate who is perceived as the more liberal of the two major party nominees on a general election ballot.

The fact that conservatives outnumber liberals, however, does not determine the outcome of elections. Moderates, as has been observed many times, hold the balance—which is why the center-right vs. center-left discussion matters—and why the ideology in opposition (as opposed to the party in opposition) can so easily assemble a critical mass that does affect election outcomes. As Merle and Earl Black showed in their excellent book The Rise of Southern Republicanism, Republicans gain when rural and suburban moderate Democrats begin voting like national, or urban liberal Democrats, as they have been doing for six months on issues like the stimulus, the cap-and-trade national energy tax and, now, healthcare reform.

Rather than embrace either side, it appears that the voters are returning to their natural inclinations, which are more moderate-to-conservative than they are moderate-to-liberal. Which is not at all to say a GOP landslide is in the offing in 2010; what it does say is that the death of conservatism, to borrow a line from the great American author Mark Twain, has been greatly exaggerated.

Tags: liberals | presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama | conservatives | Gallup

Tools: Share | | Comments (4) | Print

Reader Comments

Not surprising

Yes, the left misunderstood what happened in the last election. It was more a reaction against what many saw as a Republican party that had gone against what they claimed to stand for (Bush's spending and policies were often not conservative by any stretch, nor were the actions of Republican congress) and put out another candidate that seemed no better with John "I love illegal invaders" McCain. The Republican party just generally deserved a kick in the teeth after allowing the ascent of the so-called "neocon" faction.

However, kicking out the Republicans for being incompetent fools did not mean the general population wanted us to morph into a hopped up version of France. Unfortunately for themselves the Democrats thought that disliking the other guys meant that everyone now loved the far left and this is not the case by a long shot.

The Republicans also need to understand that just because some of us strenuously oppose the big government philosophy of the left does not mean we are looking to hand power back to them either. I hope we get another viable party or two myself, as I see it the two party system is utterly corrupt and we are now at the point where our only choice when voting is "Which of these two lying crooks is going to screw me the least?"

The National Popular Vote bill

In the next presidential election the issue may not be how well candidates do state-by-state. Every vote in every state could be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote could be equal. We could have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates have concentrated their attention on the handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of their visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers in 19 states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Good article

Good article. The media would have us believe that everyone is turning gay and agnostic and you're way out in left field if you're not on board. Sorros and his many lap dogs can't be too happy with this article. I just now heard the wailing, whining, whippering sound coming from the extreme liberal left.

Up till now, Obama, Pelosi, Reid have acted like they have some kind of clear cut social mandate.

Obama better start walking Clinton's line if he wants to be re-elected. Clinton learned quickly to walk down the middle of the aisle.

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Now

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

People who read this also read ...

Thomas Jefferson St.

Turkey Tax

Uncle Sam is joining in on your Thanksgiving dinner.

Ideological Labels Just Don't Fit

Hard-liners don't understand that some of us don't toe an ideological line.

A Decade in Biased Review

How well does the video sum up the last decade?

GOPers Push European-Style Litmus Tests

Some RNC members want strict party platforms. Why do they hate America?

Can Conservative Carly Fiorina Carry Cali?

Ronald Reagan's state is now one of the most liberal in the nation.

Opinions Clash on Wars in Iran, Afghanistan

Fewer favor the effort in Afghanistan, support rises for hostilities against Iran's nuclear program.

Bennet's Senate Seat Is Already at Risk

His vote on healthcare would be less a case of political martyrdom than it may seem.

Bush Airport Reflects Its Namesake

Could Houston's Bush Intercontinental airport be number one because of its name?

Cartoon Gallery

Editorial Cartoon

Political Cartoons

Check out our most recent cartoons.

Public Opinion

Should the GOP Have a Litmus Test?

Should the RNC exclude politicians who don't match the party's platform?

advertisement

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Make USNews.com your home page.