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 — ...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...