Romney, conservatives and conservatives
[Posted by Karl]
Jay Cost did a little mythbusting Monday regarding conservative support for Mitt Romney:
The conventional wisdom is that conservatives are dissatisfied with Romney, whose electoral coalition is comprised mostly of moderates and even liberal voters. That might be true of conservative media elites, but the broader electorate of conservatives have been much more amenable to Romney.
***
No doubt, Romney is dominating among moderates and liberals, but his haul is just as strong among “somewhat conservative” voters. It is only among the “very conservative” that Gingrich has a lead – although even this is much less than what one might have thought based on the way the media has been covering the story.
RTWT, as Jay has plenty of insights about how Romney’s voter base has changed from 2008 and the potential strength of his coalition. It’s also a detailed example of one of Jay’s enduring truths of elections: strong partisans do not dominate the political process. I would almost be tempted to end the summary here, as people who are sufficiently absorbed with politics to be reading (not to mention writing) are likely those most in need of a reminder that we are not all that representative a sample, even of Repbulicans or conservatives. That message might be even more important the day after Rick Santorum sweeps Romney in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado (an impressive feat, but one involving low turnout caucuses where Romney did not camapign much).
However, as useful as Jay’s analysis is as a tonic, I doubt he would claim it tells the entire story of the GOP primary campaign. Notably, Jay wrote earlier this month about the growing regional divide among conservatives:
Those in the North and Midwest are more sympathetic to Romney, viewing him perhaps as one of their own. But when we turn Southward, the links between Romney and the right seems to be much more tenuous. What is so fascinating about this is that we’re talking about people in different states who answer the ideological question similarly. This is geography, not ideology.
I’m not sure that last bit (emphasis in original) is entirely true, depending on what Jay means by it. It seems entirely possible to me that Northerners who self-identify as conservative do not always mean the same thing as Southerners do when self-identifying as conservative. And the same is possibly true of other regions. Indeed, based on last night’s results in Minnesota and Missouri, it’s not clear that the Midwest is as sympathetic to Romney as Jay may think. Minnesota ends up looking more like Iowa than Iowa, let alone New Hampshire, Florida or Nevada (where, as Jay notes, Mitt won 57% of the somewhat conservative voters and 48% of the very conservative voters).
The easy explanation of some of these regional differences would be religion, but in examining that issue, Sean Trende adds the following caveat: “religion could be a stand-in for ideology, and that, regardless of self-identification, a self-described conservative evangelical Republican is significantly to the right of a self-described conservative who is non-evangelical.”
In sum, while I basically agree with Jay that political junkies tend to overstate the case that Romney does not appeal to conservatives, I also think we should be careful when we throw around the conservative label. To take a more obvious example, many look at polls showing twice as many identify as conservative than identify as liberal without considering that: (a) some still self-identify as conservative Democrats and are likely more liberal than moderate or liberal Republicans; and (b) many self-identifying moderates are functionally liberal, but have fled the label. Relying on self-identification may be a necessary evil in political polling. However, in a nation as diverse and sprawling as the US, we need to always keep in mind the limitations of self-identification and the necessity of any candidate appealing to more than one type of conservative.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (8cdbad) — 2/8/2012 @ 6:49 amRacist
JD (c32343) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:19 amSelf identification has always seemed silly to me. It always makes me harken back to the days when Kos declared himself the new center.
JD (c32343) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:23 amI like that we’re moving past talking about the stool
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:26 amWhile I heartily commend your skepticism re: ‘self categorization’ I believe the tenor of the piece unduly respectful of Jay’s work over the last couple of weeks.
Certainly, Deep South conservatives are more socially conservative than Heartland Luddites. Your comment “Minnesota ends up looking…” teases out the crucial fulcrum.
Minnesotan conservatives, very surprisingly, proved unified, like SC conservatives, NH Yankee conservatives, and Missouri conservatives.
No one would have expected FL to mirror that consensus, and IA absolutely did not.
But the biggest suprise of all, Mormon conservatives-muddiers of Cost’s identity calculations-are proving not nearly as unified as expected. Conflicted?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:36 amI wonder if conservatives, having briefly accepted Romney’s inevitability, reconsidered and decided not to make him inevitable after all.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (336384) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:49 am6. Or briefly disgusted that their torches and pitchforks are blithely ignored, broke out of a stunned paralysis to fight.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:00 amfeets!
I dunno if we have moved past the stool. Maybe righties in different parts of the country self-identify based on their own assessment of the stool.
Karl (f07e38) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:14 amOr briefly disgusted that their torches and pitchforks are blithely ignored
Ignored by whom?
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:17 amok but we need to add an abo leg to the stool I think
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:18 amFrom Prof. Jacobson:
“In Colorado, 65,479 voters turned out versus 70,229 in 2008. In Minnesota, 47,836 voters turned out (95% reporting) versus 62,828 in 2008. In Missouri, 251,868 turned out versus 588,720 in 2008.”
The Romany wins low turnout contests string is broken. The Ginrich streak of one winning when the base is stoked remains.
So if turnout in the general repeats off-year 2010, 38%, or just the modern low point, 49% in 1996, who does it help?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:42 amMaybe righties in different parts of the country self-identify based on their own assessment of the stool
Or maybe we should break down the label a bit more? As it stands, anyone who wants to limit government regulation and spending is a conservative as much as social conservatives–but you don’t necessarily need to be one to be the other. I suspect–based purely on anecdotal evidence–that Northeast conservatives are often people who are the first but not the second, and Southern conservatives are both.
JBS (46fd97) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:45 amJBS,
I think your definition leaves out fiscal but not social conservatives who embrace Ron Paul. (I don’t support Ron Paul because of his foreign policy but I like his fiscal attitude.) If you include them, there could be far more Southern fiscal conservatives than Northeastern fiscal conservatives.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:59 amI must have been a bit unclear.
I’m including fiscal conservatives in the category of those who want to limit government regulation and spending. I know that fiscal conservatives are to be found all over the country–I didn’t mean that they are found only in the Northeast. But I think the sort of person who is fiscally conservative but not socially conservative is found more in the Northeast than in the South (or probably the West), and that the sort of person who is both fiscally conservative and socially conservative is probably found more in the South (and West?) than in the Northeast.
But that’s semi-speculation based mostly on personal experience, and actual evidence might line up the other way.
JBS (46fd97) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:09 amI suspect–based purely on anecdotal evidence–that Northeast conservatives are often people who are the first but not the second, and Southern conservatives are both.
You forget those who are free-spending, big-government social conservatives. Like W. Or culture warriors who worked for the ultra-liberal Nixon, like Pat Buchanan.
Many “social conservatives” think the litmus tests of conservatism are gay rights and abortion when many small government and/or fiscal conservatives couldn’t give a rat’s ass about either of those “issues”. Like me.
Goldwater supported gay rights even back in the 80’s, and few would deny he was conservative.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:26 amWe’ve all seen political sentiment cast on a Cartesian plane with social values on the abscissa and fiscal disposition on the ordinate.
But that schema leaves us crippled in distinguishing the current crop, four government veterans. How about a third variable creating a octovalent cube?
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
This may not adequately account for differences in foreign policy but the big versus small government variable we are currently struggling with is accomodated.
I put Paoulus on the anachist/opportunist border bottom center.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:28 amYou forget those who are free-spending, big-government social conservatives.
Like Senator Santorum. As opposed to Presidential candidate 2012 Santorum.
You are right–but at the moment the non fiscally conservative social conservatives seems to be on the wane, which is why I skipped them. Let us hope that’s a permanent trend.
Like me.
JBS (46fd97) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:35 amOr me. More precisely, to the very limited extent I focus on them, I support them. Which I suppose makes me one of the “Northeast style” conservatives.
It seems like every two weeks this race is completely different.
Apparently. Not to detract at all from Santorum’s impressive success, but I just don’t understand the priorities here. I want a president with a record of success (meaning they didn’t govern like a liberal) as an executive, as the stakes of another weak or inexperienced president are high, but that this is not a major factor in how everyone else picks presidents anymore.
Of course, none of the three remaining qualify under that analysis.
We’ll see what the race looks like in two weeks.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:42 amAnd what happened to the Tea Party?
I thought ‘taxed enough already’ and ‘balance the budget’ would be THE issues.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:43 amHere’s the problem: Only partisans, in the rare occurrence of their being elected and gaining meaningful power, are able to slam the brakes on everyday insanity that everybody accepts as The Way Things Are Done. For example, it took a Speaker of the House like Newt Gingrich — as G.H.W. Bush called him, “a bomb thrower” — to spur the GOP base in a manner sufficient to stop Hillarycare in its tracks. On the other hand, even though he only regained the Speaker’s chair because of the partisan Tea Party, John Boehner — a prototypical even-keel “my friends on the other side of the aisle” type of guy most of the time — can’t get stuff done.
L.N. Smithee (7b0e77) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:50 amThe next measure of ‘like Europe’ to be broached by Amerikkka:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/european-bank-run-full-frontal
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:51 am20. Word. The first and last priority of the Established is to remain.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:03 amCouldn’t happen to a nicer guy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290501/tee-pawed-john-j-miller
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:27 amI am Shiv, destroyer of VP short lists and generic enthusiasm:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/republican-enthusiasm-issue-is-real.html
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:38 amand you know who waits
Colonel Haiku (895552) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:32 amhe stands tall, ready to serve
shot last coyote
HEY! (hey) YOU! (you) get offa his tongue!
Colonel Haiku (895552) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:39 amAnd what happened to the Tea Party?
I thought ‘taxed enough already’ and ‘balance the budget’ would be THE issues.
Ironically, it was killed by the Paul candidacy sucking all the air our of it and Perry’s collapse. All that is left is Newt and he’s gone rather off-message.
Hobson’s Choice says Romney as Tea Party Lite if Gingrich can’t recover.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:40 amI am glad we’re tripping over ourselves at the Hormuz:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/report-iranian-special-forces-are-marching-into-syria/
We’re withdrawing from Afghanistan and departed Iraq to enjoy the our success as Peacemaker.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:41 amAs history is written, Ron Paul may be seen as having doomed the largest libertarian uprising in history. Irony is not dead.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:43 amStill, I would like to see the Tea Party converge on Tampa during the Republican Convention. And in Charlotte for the Dems for that matter.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:46 amI don’t think the Tea Party is gone, only that this election has prompted them to focus on local government and Congressional primaries.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:50 am27. “Hobson’s Choice says Romney as Tea Party Lite if Gingrich can’t recover.”
Which choice will be despised and justly ignored.
War gaming will then reduce, with an army withdrawn, to the Executive vs. Congress. Like sacrificing a rook having castled.
The point is to simplify the contest, lower the complexity and eliminate some unexpected disasters.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:50 amRomney’s electability promise has always been something I chuckled at. But even I didn’t see Santorum wiping the floor with Romney.
At the very least, I think we’re seeing that Romney’s electability is BS and we should rely on remaining factors. Romney retains the advantage of executive experience, but he is the opposite, in deed, of a Tea Party candidate. Romneycare and the gun tax mean something.
Newt has some merits, but he’s off message as Kevin said and he’s always going to tend to veer off message. Four years of president Newt would give us many headaches. He’s accomplished a lot, though. He’s got the best conservative record, IMO.
Santorum appears to be a damn good politician with much more fight, and has the capability of beating a much better funded liberal who fights dirty. You gotta respect that. If he had leadership experience I would be a lot more comfortable with this one.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:04 pmGood Reason magazine profile of Romney as the Consultant in Chief:
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:12 pm“If flip-flopping is Romney’s greatest weakness, his business experience is probably his greatest strength. But can the two be separated? Consultants don’t have ideology; they have strategy. Their job is to take their current client’s side, whatever it is, and put a good polish on it while restoring whatever’s underneath …
“Romney’s insistence on having it both ways at every opportunity reveals not just his own incoherence but a party with irreconcilable goals: a leaner federal government that cuts no major programs, a balanced budget with a beefed-up defense budget, entitlements that are reformed and reduced but never cut or changed. What does Mitt Romney believe? Like the PDF says, he believes in America—and anything America wants him to believe.”
FYI, I made a post involving Romney and conservatives and electibility and such on the Co,Mn,Mo, Zzzzz thread
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:17 pmFWIW
Posted as a helpful reminder to folks expressing a good faith interest in floor wiping, etc…
Vote Totals and The GOPBCS Rankings; #1 Mitt; #2 Rick; #3 Newt
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/2c2bfefe-fe77-4808-b40e-809b52473907
Colonel Haiku (895552) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:19 pmSmithee, gary,
Gingrich was not able to stop Hillarycare. The fact that Dems did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate stopped Hillarycare from ever reaching the House floor. Conversely, the existence of a 60-vote majority in the Senate for Obamacare is what caused it to get passed.
Boehner has the exact same power Gingrich had once becoming Speaker. He stops leftwing legislation from advancing in the House. He can’t “get stuff done” anymore than Gingrich could. Gingrich and Clinton clashed, but eventually accomodated each other. If Obama does not accomodate Boehner, Boehner cannot get stuff done.
I presume the slam on Boehner is that he didn’t pull a Newt on the budget or debt ceiling. Although I would agree that Newt’s budget tactics were ultimately not as damaging to the GOP as the conventional wisdom has it, Newt certainly did not win that encounter. The budget estimates later went into balance primarily due to the tech bubble, and entitlements obviously went unreformed, as Clinton rolled over the GOP with the whole “Save Social Security First” strategy.
Karl (f07e38) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:19 pmBrother Bradley,
While he’s made his name as a businessman, Romney is also a lawyer and his political positions and rhetoric remind me of a lawyer more than a businessman. Like most lawyers, Romney can plausibly argue both sides of an issue and he probably really believes what he says, even if it’s the opposite of something he said before. This works for lawyers because they are representing different clients in different situations. It doesn’t work as well in politics.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:21 pmgary (24),
Also, primary turnout is not predictive of general election turnout or victory. If it was, we all would have suffered the Dukakis administration.
Karl (f07e38) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:21 pmI hope that’s especially true this year, Karl.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:23 pmDRJ,
“Like most lawyers, Romney can plausibly argue both sides of an issue and he probably really believes what he says, even if it’s the opposite of something he said before.”
The latter part of your sentence sums up my worst fear about Romney.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:25 pmThen we have to make sure he remembers he’s a Republican and we’re the voters who will elect (or re-elect) him.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:27 pmI definitely think the GOP should have seized the moment and defined the party as a choice between more debt and a balanced budget, come hell or high water. Instead, the party is simply another version of the democrat party on spending.
This is similar to Beldar’s point that the balanced budget was in a way organic. I believe it actually was an impressive accomplishment, but whether or not that’s the case, we need politicians who will fight as hard as Newt did on spending. Of course, we also need these guys to avoid stabbing Paul Ryan in the back.
As far as reforming entitlements go, at least the GOP had some reforms in that era (like welfare reform).
It’s true they left the hardest fight unfought, only to be even harder to solve today. Yet this isn’t going to get me to resort to someone who promises to “preserve” entitlements (and he doesn’t mean via real reform).
Bradley’s quote is right that this is a confused party. If we were a party with some basic standards on reform, it would force more of us to choose between ‘don’t cut my benefits’ and ‘save the program’, and I think such maturity would attract nonpartisans.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:29 pmLike most lawyers, Romney can plausibly argue both sides of an issue and he probably really believes what he says, even if it’s the opposite of something he said before. This works for lawyers because they are representing different clients in different situations. It doesn’t work as well in politics DRJ
There is a structure in the brain called the corpus callosum which connects the R side to the L side. Sometimes this does not form during development and a person does not have this connection.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:52 pmBut I am unaware whther anyone has looked to see whether this condition is more common among lawyers.
😉
Colonel that’s interesting.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:20 pmHere’s some ‘too much information’ for you. Amazon.com is selling 100 condom packages for $12.99. Really, we are stuck here in this national debate over 13 cent contraception condoms. I enjoy blowing through a pack of 100 condoms just as much as the next guy … but this is just ridiculous. 13 cents.
Republicans need to get back economics. The country is on the cliff-edge of comprehensive financial disaster. Fix it. Wake the fuck up.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Wesson (1dbab0) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:22 pmMD in Philly,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:32 pmIf we see Romney’s left hand unbuttoning his coat while the right hand buttons it, that’d be a big clue.
Or if Romney does this . . .
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:35 pm39. But, of course, statistics aren’t predictive at all. A strong correlation might indicate an causal relation, but further analysis is indicated.
You’re saying they are weakly correlated, therefore no such relation is likely.
37. On the debt ceiling the House passed a Balanced Budget proposal and two compromises before the Senate felt the need to vote.
The approach on CR2011, 2012 and Ceiling was a fight and shutdown would hit GOP support hardest, a la Clinton/Ginrich which resulted in a loss of 9 seats.
Well, selling us cuts over 10 years as real looks more like self-preservation than representation.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:13 pmThat is funny!! Thanks.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:21 pmYou’re not a Conservative if you don’t have a bumper sticker on your truck saying:
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:37 pmShoot a Commie for Christ!”
Here’s what I wrote:
In the midterm election of 1994, Gingrich crafted the Contract With America, a manifesto against what was seen as Clinton’s attempt to expand government and government spending exponentially. I don’t believe a case can be made that the whopping gain of nine seats in the Senate by the GOP (reducing the Dems from a 57-43 advantage to a 48-52 deficit) would have been possible without the manner in which The Contract brought out Republican voters for their House races, giving the GOP a record net change of fifty-four additional Congressional votes. Maybe the Dems wouldn’t ever have gotten the three new Senators necessary, but what the ‘Pubs pulled off left no doubt, partially thanks to Newt.
Gingrich isn’t going to win either the Presidency or the nomination, don’t worry. I don’t think he should, based on the way he’s campaigning. But that shouldn’t mean we ought to pretend he doesn’t deserve a heckuva lot of credit for the GOP even being viable in the Legislative branch eighteen years hence.
L.N. Smithee (7b0e77) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:48 pmWe’re screwed again, is all.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:12 pmThe interesting thing about the MN caucus was there was nothing on the radio, no robo-calls, no signs, nothing. Local TV I wouldn’t know.
But Greaser won not one county. He took third virtually everywhere. No conspiracy, no GOP push, he’s week old sushi.
No one wants to reform government, tweak it, manage the decline. We are ready for bigger things.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/9/2012 @ 1:37 pm