resurrectionsong

November 04, 2004

Stats for the Stat Junkie

Political Junkie sent a set of stats out. I'm not sure how I got on the mailing list, and, while I haven't confirmed his numbers, they do match up mostly to numbers I saw posted on a news site earlier this morning. The one thing that seems a bit short is the Hispanic jump-- I had seen a report of 35% in 2000 and 44% in 2004, a much bigger jump than these numbers show. Until I have time to check later, I'm not sure what to think of that.

Anyway, for people wondering how Bush did with voters, here are some raw numbers for us to chew on.

Bush 2000/Bush 2004

African-Americans: 8%/11%
Whites: 54%/58%
Hispanic: 41%/44%
Married: 53%/56%
Not Married: 38%/40%
Union Members: 37%/40%
Gays: 25%/23%
Gun Owners: 61%/67%
Protestants: 63%/59%
Jewish: 19%/25%
Catholics: 45%/52%
Republicans: 91%/93%
Democrats: 10%/11%
Men: 51%/55%
Women: 43%/48%
18-29 year olds: 46%/45%
30-44 year olds: 49%/53%
45-59 year olds: 49%/51%
60+ 47%/54%

So, Bush actually shored up in support in all the age groups except the 18-29 age range where he lost only a point--so much for that youth vote wave that was supposed to wash Bush right out of office. He gained with both men and women, Republicans and Democrats. He gained significantly in both the Catholic and the Jewish vote, while losing a good percentage of the Protestant vote. He gained in the White, African American, and Hispanic vote, along with gun owners, union members, and married and unmarried voters. The small drop in gay support was to be expected--and in fact was smaller than many people probably expected.

If these numbers are right, then the left's attempt to reduce the difference in this election to just a bunch of protestant red necks and bigots is seriously misguided.

They just keep missing the point. The reason the electorate voted for Republicans so solidly is that the country is simply more conservative than the Democrat base. Until the Democrats move further to the right or can manage to completely change the debate, they will probably face continued losses.

While the GOP has moved in many ways a little to the left, the Democrats have moved wildly to the left. Honest question: does anyone really think that John F. Kennedy would be completely at home in his party if he were alive today? And would he be such a poor fit in the Republican party? I don't mean that in an entirely good way, but Kennedy was a supply-sider before we even had the word. He was pretty hawkish on military issues, too.

If the Democrats continue on a path to becoming the party of Michael Moore, then they are bound to be irrelevant. While the Democrats choose to minimize the beliefs, ideals, and values of a huge portion of America, they are bound to be irrelevant. While the Democrats refuse to honestly admit the problems within their own party (not just that they ran the wrong guy or that the youth didn't "get out the vote" or whatever excuse justifies the loss), they are bound to be irrelevant.

This is not a good thing. The country needs a fresh, respectful exchange of ideas, and no side of the political debate has a complete lock on truth and what is best for the country. To be completely honest, there was one Republican that I was unhappy to see returning to office and one Democrat who took a seat in a race where there was no way I could ever have voted for the Republican.

While I voted a pretty party line ticket this time around, I don't find it so painful that Salazar won over Coors. Sure I had a preference, but Salazar is an honorable man who will do his best in DC--he will also probably represent the interests of his constituency well. During his acceptance speech, the smile on his face was infectious and huge--the only time it broke was when someone from the audience said something impolite about Coors. Salazar's response was immediate and gratifying.

Pointing to the person, he said in almost a paternal tone, "Don't say that!" He continued to praise Coors as a good man, and then on to the normal acceptance speech patter.

I can't imagine being embarrassed about having Salazar representing Colorado in DC. He isn't my ideal candidate, but I honestly think that he will do his level best to do what is right for Colorado and for the country. I think he'll make us proud. He isn't what you could call a right-leaning man, but he does have respect for his constituents and Americans in general.

If the Democrats could break away from the leadership provided by people like Nancy Pelosi and toward people who are more moderate and reasonable, the elections will tighten up in those contested areas and the country will be better for the competition.

Mark Hasty has some thoughts that dovetail nicely with these.

Posted by zombyboy at November 4, 2004 12:50 PM

Comments

I'm actually surprised that he gained with Catholics and lost with Protestants. Any thoughts on this?

Posted by: Jerry at November 4, 2004 01:20 PM

I alos think that many people are missing the point about the youth vote. The total percentage of voters in the 18-29 range was the same this year as it was in 2000. Bust only did 1% worse there than he did four years ago, and still got almost half. What this means is that the youth did turn out in greater numbers than in previous years, as did every other major demographic group. They just didn't list sharply to Kerry, as was predicted. What this tells me is that the youth of America aren't as liberal as many would have us believe.

Posted by: Jerry at November 4, 2004 01:24 PM

Jerry, re: losing with Protestants but gaining with Catholics:
one word: Abortion.

Posted by: Nathan at November 4, 2004 02:49 PM

I should clarify:
There are whole Protestant denominations who apparently support abortion rights, like Episcopalians, I think.
While there are individual Catholics who have made their personal peace with being a pro-choice Catholic, many others cannot or have not. Kerry's equivocation on that issue made sense to Protestants but lost some of the more literal-minded Catholics, I think.

Posted by: Nathan at November 4, 2004 02:53 PM

re: Protestant and Catholic votes

I also think there might be a regional component (New Hampshire flipped, but what was the issue that turned them?), too, but I'd need a lot more data to be able to tell. What surprised me was that he gained with the Catholic vote as much as he did.

I do think that Nathan is at very least partially correct.

re: The youth vote
Jerry, I think you nailed that on the head.

Posted by: zombyboy at November 4, 2004 02:59 PM

Let me pipe in as the recently backslidden Catholic.

I believe that the reason that Bush gained in the Catholic vote is not singular. I think it is likely a number of issues. Nathan is correct that abortion plays a big part in that. Also, for those on the “outside” or who do not follow Church politics very closely it is important to understand that for many years the Catholic bishops in America have suffered from the same sort of blindness regarding the Democrat party that many Irish Catholic and Union Catholics suffered. They could not see that the party of the so-called “working man” wasn’t what it used to be. I think Bush and Kerry both did good jobs pointing out this change. Other reasons:

1.Changes in the hierarchy in America (in part due to the death of many bishops appointed in the 1970s and 80s).

2.Definite shift toward a more traditional and conservative expression of Catholicism among the men entering the seminary these days.

3.The youth movements in the Church modeled on Protestant ministries are huge these days and have been working on the teens since the early 90s so most of those kids are now adults.

4.The massive growth of traditionally minded Catholic lay movement such as Opus Dei, Regnum Christi, , Neocatechumanal Way, etc

5.Growth and maturation of relatively young, traditionally minded Catholic colleges and universities such as Franciscan University of Steubenville, Christendom, Thomas Aquinas, University of Dallas, etc.

All things that tend to create a more educated and conservative (consciously conservative) Catholic population. Of course, I could just be talking out of my ass.

Posted by: Patrick at November 4, 2004 04:33 PM

I received the same email this morning.

The numbers he provides look reasonable and I was curious about the source of the data. Work intervened so I did not go look until I saw this post a bit ago.

There is nothing on his site to suggest the source of this data (exit polls perhaps?). How were the samples taken? What's the margin of error...most of the deltas appear to be within a typical polls margin of error. Therefor do they reflect meaningful changes.

My current take on The Political Junkie message: SPAM.

Just sayin...

Posted by: Steve at November 4, 2004 04:45 PM

For the most part I actually agree. In fact, the last time he sent out an email, I just ignored it. This time, though, the nubmers intrigued me. Even given that most of them, within a typical margin of error, don't indicate either a large move or, possibly, any real move, there are numbers that do fall into the meaningful category and even no movement is significant in some way--for example, the one point drop in the 18-29 might not indicate a real difference, but it does indicate that the expected youth vote turned out in a way that wasn't expected. A four point drop in the Protestant vote is likely to be right on the edge of the margin of error, but it's pretty surprisign that to a lot of people that the numbers didn't surge the other direction.

The final vote tally (again, more than 3.5 million more for Bush) indicates that there was movement by the groups that voted for the Democrat in the last election. Most importantly, in my mind, it does show a diverse group that broke or stayed for the President.

I really do want to know where he got his numbers, though.

Posted by: zombyboy at November 4, 2004 04:57 PM

There have been a few inquiries of where I found my numbers. I used two sources for the 2004 figures: The NY Times presented some numbers in their article on page P4 of 11/4/04 Elections Section and I had the raw data on CNN/USA Today/Gallup's presidential outcome poll. The 2000 stats were taken from my book. Michael Crane/Editor, PJH

Posted by: Michael Crane at November 5, 2004 08:55 AM