Skip to main content

A different way to look at polling data

Rasmussen (h/t Waldo) recently completed an exercise in dividing the electorate along social/fiscal political lines.

I was less concerned with who supported Barack Obama or John McCain that with this picture of the American voting public:

Voters who are

Fiscal conservatives who are also social conservatives equal 24% of the electorate.

Fiscal moderates who are also social moderates equal 20% of the electorate.

Fiscal moderates who are socially liberal equal 15% of the electorate.

Fiscal conservatives who are socially moderate equal 10% of the electorate.

Fiscal moderates who are socially conservatives equal 10% of the electorate.

Fiscal liberals who are also socially liberal equal 9% of the electorate.

Fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal [Libertarians] equal 4% of the electorate.


This raises the question of how Libertarians build an electoral majority.

The Bob Barr people are obviously courting the largest group of voters [fiscal/social conservatives].

Recent polling suggests that strategy is paying off--at least initially--with Barr hitting 6% in the polls.

My thought is that a preferable strategy would be to target fiscal moderates/social liberals [15%] and fiscal conservative/spcoa; moderates [10%]--together those groups roughly equal the fiscal/social conservatives, and--without knowing exactly the issues used to distinguish liberal, moderate, and conservative in Rasmussen's poll, I'm more comfortable with appealing to those two group. Put another way: I'm more concerned with the damage that social conservatives do than the damage that fiscal moderates might do.

There is, obviously, room for Libertarians to argue this one.

However, there's one critical point here: breaking down the electorate this way--without reference to political party identity--is a far more fruitful strategy that attempting to go after sub-categories of Democrats and Republicans.

Thoughts?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...