Regulars here at R4’08 know that I’ve been analyzing the election returns with the utmost scrutiny for the past couple of weeks trying to pinpoint the precise demographic traits of America’s new “it” voter — the voter that kept Republicans in power from 1994-2006, but decided to shift to the Dems this year.? As my posts over the last couple of weeks demonstrate, the numbers suggest that this voter is more likely to live in the north or west than the south or plains states, is more secular than?religious, and is more likely to be a political independent than a Republican or a Democrat.
Well, thanks to the NYT, we now have a comprehensive analysis?of Election 2006 that compares demographic voting trends over the past few election cycles.? Not only were my theories largely confirmed, but thanks to this analysis, we can add a few more traits to the bloc that will likely be the “it” voter of 2008.
Here are some key findings:
* The most significant regional shifts toward the Demcrats appear to be in the east, midwest, and west.? I’ve combined the east and midwest in my analysis, referring to both as the north.? By this I mean the 18-state bloc that includes New England, the mid-Atlantic region, the industrial north, and the Great Lakes states.? This is the region where we lost 19 of 29 House seats, and the finding that this region went disproportionately Democrat seems to be backed up by the NYT.
* Not only did independents shift toward the Dems, but moderates made a more significant shift than either liberals or conservatives.
* A majority of men voted Democratic for the first time since 1992.
* The Dems won a majority of the suburban vote for the first time since 1992.
So we now know the demographic profile of the “it” voter of 2008: secular,?moderate, politically independent?male voters who?reside largely in the suburbs of?the north and the west.? They kept the Republicans in power for 12 years, and it was this voter who pulled the plug on GOP rule this year.? Victory in 2008 means winning this voter back.
Now, every “it” voter has a catchy identifier.? We’ve had soccer moms, NASCAR dads, security moms, values voters, and so forth.? As such, this new “it” voter will need a label too.? Something that sums up their demographic status in a pithy and witty phrase.? Think you can come up with one?? Then leave your suggestions in the comments section!? The winner will see his idea used, at least by me, for the foreseeable future whenever I refer to the sort of voter that Republicans need to win back in 2008.? And who knows?? Maybe the term will be so clever that it will eventually be picked up by the talking heads.
So go to it!? And Happy Thanksgiving!
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
so they are the Porn and Guns Males?
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
ok want about The Southpark Dads?
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Good start. But they’re not necessarily dads. Keep going. You’re onto something.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:36 pm
The facts are what they are. But the devil is always in our interpretation of the facts. What makes me nervous is the knee-jerk reaction (and I’m not implying that you did this Dave) that some people could take away from this…”Gosh, maybe the GOP should be more secular and moderate”.
The demographics of the voters we lost are only half the story. The other half of the story is what happened in the country with our party in charge for the last 2 years. An increasingly unpopular war, high level incidents of corruption and scandal, perceived incompetance handling national disasters, a Congress unwilling or unable to tackle the big domestic problems, etc.
Something changed between 2004 and 2006, and it wasn’t the religiosity of the GOP. Sending the party in a more secular and socially liberal direction may not win back these “it” voters, and it will certainly lose a lot of values voters. In other words, abandoning the religious right would be the wrong fix to the problem.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Modularpendent Males?
I don’t know that we’ve lost the Modularpendent vote for good, or even for 2008; just for 2006. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy into the idea that the majority of folks we lost sat there and contemplated platform positions and party histories: they just didn’t like the direction of a failed Republican congress. This same voting bloc may come out for Rudy or McCain, and they may come out in droves for Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or Newt Gingrich; it depends on who the Democrats nominate and how the Dems do in congress for the next two years. “Normal” people tend to vote for the candidate and their rhetoric more than anything else; the fact that our Republican congress failed to do anything does not mean that Modularpendent voters won’t support a Republican with the right message.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
“Modularpendent Males?”
LOL.
“In other words, abandoning the religious right would be the wrong fix to the problem.”
Agreed. I think we need to get back to issues that the religious voters and the leave-me-alone voters can agree on. Both seem to like conservative judges, low taxes, being tough on terror. And no one likes corruption, deficits, or incompetence. Republicans do better when they embrace broad themes.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
I’d say “Angry white males” but since they voted Democrat this time, the phrase won’t stick.
How about John & Ken men? John & Ken host a popular talk show on KFI LA, are anti-illegal immigrant, anti-Iraq war, anti-spending, social moderates who helped spearhead the California recall and remain loyal to the GOP at the state level but have since switched their federal allegiences to the Democrats.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I say “MetroVoting Males.” A metropolitan area includes much more than just the urban districts but rather the suburbs and everything in between. Just as metrosexual males often have their orientation questioned because of a clothing or hair style choice these MetroVoting Males are having their voting tendencies brought into question due to one abnormal voting cycle (2006). These men will vote republican again and in the past have solidly voted republican. Simply, this year, (just like one trip to the spa for a metrosexual) a long unpopular war and a party that has not maintained its roots have caused these MetroVoting Males to try something new this time around.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
I am still trying to choose btw Romney, Huckabee, and Condi. Someone please tell me who I should support and why.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm
You could go “Metro Males” for short.
rgb
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
I know it is not too catchy, but how about “Football Dads.” They are white males who are not very religious but might go to church on occasion. They are deeply patriotic, anti-illegal immigrant, anti-speanding, but dont care about issues like the pro-life/choice debate. They feel Republicans are now as dangerous as democrats because both want to tell everyone how to live and grow the government. They are skeptics and have a “leave me alone” libertarian streak. They leaned held their nose and voted Bush in 04 because they want strong security, but left the Republicans in 06 because they feel Iraq discredited Republican foreign policy. And as you guessed from the name – a common characteristic i see is they are obsessed with sports. They are the male football fans of the Northeast and midwest.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:15 pm
RayB, when you choose a candidate, you should always pick the person who’s values you share the most.
Since Condi won’t be running, pick between Romney or Huckabee. If your man wins the nomination, you’re in luck.
If not, support whoever the Republicans nominate for ’08.
I like Romney myself, but no one can tell you who to like.
November 23rd, 2006 at 6:55 am
They should be called “The Beach Boys”. Its a good name for moderate men in the west, and its really catchy.
By the way, I check this website once a day. I love it, keep up the good work!
November 25th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Thanks MeThePeople. I am just having a tough time distinguishing between Romney and Huckabee – but I am leaning Romney myself. I just wish he would announce (I know it is coming after the new year) so he could launch his website and I could garner more information. Thanks again.
November 26th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
[...] Thanks to all those who participated in my contest to come up with a catchy moniker for America’s new swing voter: the independent, moderate, secular male residing in the suburbs of the north and the west. All of the suggestions were good, and assigning a fitting label to these voters remains a challenge. As such, I’m not committing to any label just yet, and will wait to see what comes naturally when referring to that group of voters most responsible for delivering the country to the Democrats this year. [...]