Changeable voters

Time magazine argues this election was about voters “reaching for the center.” It signaled “the end of the conservative pendulum swing that began with Ronald Reagan,” writes Joe Klein. I disagree. While some believe this election signaled the triumphal rebirth of the vital center in American politics, a closer analysis paints a different picture.

The numbers suggest GOP losses were more about a crisis in confidence in unified Republican government, as opposed to a rejection of conservative principles or a new embrace of some nebulous concept like “centrism.” The “vital center” — such that it is — may indeed have abandoned Republicans, but so did a lot of other voters. And the shift of the “middle” toward Democrats says more about its mounting frustration with President Bush and congressional Republicans, as well as the fickle partisan attachments and beliefs of these citizens, than about a broad ideological lurch in voter sentiment.

Comparing exit-poll data from 2004 and 2006 reveals some fascinating patterns that help punctuate and highlight a clearer narrative about this year’s congressional elections. First, Republican defections compared to two years ago were not just from disgruntled self-described moderate or independent voters — there was broad, across-the-board frustration.

Exit-poll data comparing the last two elections reveals some sobering conclusions for Republicans — they literally lost ground in every category compared to 2004. The percent voting for GOP congressional candidates went down among Hispanics (15 percent), Catholics (6 percent), Jews (10 percent), men (6 percent), women (3 percent), higher-income voters (9 percent) and lower-income voters (4 percent). You get the picture. Indeed, in more than 20 socioeconomic categories I compared, Republican support declined.

One of the most fascinating categories is income. Looking at nine categories, ranging from those who earn less than $15,000 per year all the way up to those who earn over $200,000, Republican support declined in every category compared to the 2004 presidential election — but sunk the most among the wealthiest Americans, dropping by nine percent compared to two years ago. True, wealthier voters still chose Republicans over Democrats, but by a much smaller margin than 2004.

What about the vaunted GOP “base?” Despite hugely successful get-out-the-vote effort (GOTV), even self-identified Republicans and conservatives voted for the GOP in slightly lower numbers than compared to 2004. These results suggest Republican GOTV efforts may have turned out some citizens who voted Democrat.

Self-described moderate or independent voters also indicate they shifted for reasons other than a lock-step move to the middle of the ideological spectrum. In fact, it’s not even clear “centrists” are a unified group. Research suggests these voters are among the most ill-informed, volatile, and unpredictable groups. They are also not ideologically homogeneous, but in many ways what University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter, speaking at a recent Pew Forum, called a “statistical phenomenon.”

In other words, they are best defined by what they are not — neither Democrat nor Republican, liberal nor conservative. Some of them were upset about the conduct of the war, others repulsed by scandal or immigration policy; many were mad about earmarks and too much spending; while some even thought Republicans needed to spend more on issues like stem-cell research. In other words, they exhibited a widespread frustration and discontent with the ruling party, not a coherent ideological shift to the center.

It’s even possible that some conservative voters — particularly conservative Christians — are beginning to question their allegiance to the Republican Party or politics in general as a forum to address their cultural grievances. That is a significant issue that I will address in a future column. But, as Mr. Hunter and others argued at the Pew Forum, these disaffected voters are more likely to drop out of politics altogether than reclassify themselves as independents. They certainly are not consciously rejecting Republicans because they want to “moderate” American politics.

In the midst of this electoral carnage, there are rays of hope for Republicans. In nearly 20 House seats Republicans lost in 2006, President Bush won or nearly won in 2004. And as a well-known GOP political consultant told me last week, “we win ten back automatically if we just run a candidate not tainted by scandal.” Further, many of the electoral shifts described above could easily swing back. As I wrote in my column last week, many voters don’t make partisan lifetime commitments — to either party. The electorate is better described as “changeable” than “changing” — more fickle with politics than finished with the GOP. As the incoming House Republican leader John Boehner told his colleagues last Friday, winning these voters back in two years is possible, but they will have to do it the old-fashioned way — earning it.