How large is the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" constituency anyway?

[King of Kensington]

It's a pretty common outlook in the media, among affluent professionals etc. And certainly we're told that's the ideal position for running "in the center."

But how large is this group among the general electorate? 

[All Along The Watchtower]

Impossible to determine - and frankly, a pointless exercise.

[RINO Tom]

If you're pretty much asking how many SJW (social) liberals don't get all excited about higher taxes and increased regulations and how many self-describes conservatives couldn't care less if gays marry or there are some gun control measures as long as you stay out of their pocketbooks, then I'd say it's a very sizable group.

[KingSweden]

I'm a part of that constituency, certainly. Social issues (and, generally, the overall behavior of many Republicans since the Bush years) are why I'm a Democrat in the first place. I'm not a very liberal man.

I think there's a large number of people, especially professionals, like somebody else said, who fit into this category but are by and large at this point Democrats who, like me, vote more against the GOP than for the Democratic Party.

[smoltchanov]

I'm a part of that constituency, certainly. Social issues (and, generally, the overall behavior of many Republicans since the Bush years) are why I'm a Democrat in the first place. I'm not a very liberal man.

I think there's a large number of people, especially professionals, like somebody else said, who fit into this category but are by and large at this point Democrats who, like me, vote more against the GOP than for the Democratic Party.

Essentially my position too, though i always preferred to stay Indie..

[Stranger in a strange land]

A lot less common in real life than the opinion pages of major newspapers and magazines would have you believe. Probably about 5-10% of the electorate.

[Goldwater]

I mean, the term is vague enough that you could probably use it to describe quite a few people, but those people wouldn't necessarily agree with each other on much or vote similarly.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I mean, the term is vague enough that you could probably use it to describe quite a few people, but those people wouldn't necessarily agree with each other on much or vote similarly.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Honestly, I don't think FCBSL people really exist. I think that FCBSL are a conflation of people around the center of the ideological spectrum who have weak party loyalty and share certain themes.

For those on the left, I think these people are best represented by suburban Democrats. These kinds of people are staunch liberals on cultural and social issues, but mellow on economics. Think of people who are successful in business and academia. They probably favor a progressive tax system, and are okay with rich people paying higher taxes, but don't believe the rates should be very high or that taxes need to be raised on the middle and upper-middle classes. They probably support a solid increase in the minimum wage but laugh at a $15 wage floor. They take a Clintonian view on the role of government and business, in that Big Business is not necessarily a bad thing and government should cooperate with business while regulating them well. They are probably pro-free trade and globalization but think that government should actively correct the worst excesses and abuses. They are repulsed by what they perceive as more strident anti-business rhetoric coming from people more left than them, and are puzzled as to why "corporate" has become a dirty word. They are against wholesale populism despite supporting progressive measures. They probably don't care much for unions; in fact some might actually be anti-union outright. They vote Democratic 75% of the time but will cross over if they feel the Democratic candidate is corrupt or doing a poor job. Think of people who live in the suburbs of places like Chicago or in suburban Ohio and voted for Obama both times but didn't have problems voting for Kirk and Rauner and Kasich and Portman.

For those on the right, these people tow the party line on economics and foreign policy. Social issues are a mixed bag, could probably even be conservative on these. However, it's not appropriate to call them "sociallly liberal", but rather "culturally permissive/liberal". These people don't hate immigrants, they don't hate other religions, they don't hate gays, they don't give a sh*t about issues like pornography, school prayer, flag burning, violence in TV/video games, etc. that rile up actual social conservatives. They probably care about the environment as far as clean air & water and maintaining national parks (especially if they can go hunting or shooting) and emissions regulations but are against carbon taxes or cap & trade. They probably are pro-life but it doesn't animate them the way it does with more hardcore SoCons. They are turned off by the Religious Right but still vote Republican out of default.

There are a lot of similarities on certain issues between these two groups, but they are for different reasons and their support is measured in different shades. Both these groups are probably educated and middle or upper middle class (even rich) and cosmopolitan, but they fall on different sides of the spectrum. Atlas has a lot of these kinds of liberals and conservatives. I'd say maybe these two groups form about 15 - 20% of the population.

But they're not one group, which is the mistake being made.

[muon2]

Excellent analysis by Clarko95. That vast majority of the Chicago suburbs fall in to either of those two categories. The only exceptions tend to be the inner suburbs next to the city, areas with high minority populations, and some of the exurbs. There are even pockets falling into these categories around major cities in downstate IL. Between 12-15% of the legislature falls into each of these categories, so that's about 25-30% overall.

[indietraveler]

I'm a part of that constituency, certainly. Social issues (and, generally, the overall behavior of many Republicans since the Bush years) are why I'm a Democrat in the first place. I'm not a very liberal man.

I think there's a large number of people, especially professionals, like somebody else said, who fit into this category but are by and large at this point Democrats who, like me, vote more against the GOP than for the Democratic Party.

This sums up me as well. Even though I consider myself independent, I'm essentially a democrat at the ballot box. I'm far left on social issues, I'd describe myself as fiscally moderate rather than conservative. I don't view myself as especially liberal, but the Bush years pushed me away from voting Republican and that's something that hasn't changed 8+ years later. During Bush's first term I was at the age where you begin to form your own beliefs and his first years had a huge impact on where I stand today on so many issues.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

If this election is proving anything, the fiscally liberal, socially conservative group is bigger.

[Santander]

If this election is proving anything, the fiscally liberal, socially conservative group is bigger.

I sort of fall into this camp, and I agree that it's a much bigger constituency than the reverse, although I prefer to consider myself fiscally populist and socially cautious. A lot of Southern Democrats and Reagan Democrats fall into this category.

[Figueira]

Big enough to propel the Gary Johnson/Michael Bloomberg ticket to victory in 2016.

[muon2]

If this election is proving anything, the fiscally liberal, socially conservative group is bigger.

I sort of fall into this camp, and I agree that it's a much bigger constituency than the reverse, although I prefer to consider myself fiscally populist and socially cautious. A lot of Southern Democrats and Reagan Democrats fall into this category.

In IL this Southern Democrat group is about half the size of the reverse, or about the same as each of the Dem and Pub factions of SocLib/FiscCon as described by Clarko95. When I look at the legislature it's about 10-15%. It is dominated by areas in southern IL with a few pockets of white Catholic working class areas in Chicagoland.

[RR1997]

Big enough to propel the Gary Johnson/Michael Bloomberg ticket to victory in 2016.

Michael Bloomberg isn't fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He's fiscally centrist/center-left and socially liberal.

[Goldwater]

Big enough to propel the Gary Johnson/Michael Bloomberg ticket to victory in 2016.

Michael Bloomberg isn't fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He's fiscally centrist/center-left and socially liberal.

How are defining you "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal"? How is your definition of those terms more valid than one includes Bloomberg? That second question is of course impossible to answer, which is what makes this whole discussion pointless.

[Figueira]

Anyway, I think it's important to note that many of these people (especially the Republican ones) aren't really "socially liberal." Saying "sure, gay people can do whatever they want, I guess" doesn't really make you a social liberal. Of course, there are fiscally conservative people who legitimately care about and support LGBT rights (and some of these people are Republicans).

[smoltchanov]

If this election is proving anything, the fiscally liberal, socially conservative group is bigger.

Probably yes. A big part of the South (even many Republicans) falls into that category.  And not only it. Too much people for "enlightened successfull people from the suburbs" (main part of opposite category) to catch up.

[Figueira]

One thing I've noticed about this group is that they're almost never as socially liberal as people who are just liberal or left-wing all around. Or at least the Republican ones aren't; the Democratic ones sometimes are.

[muon2]

One thing I've noticed about this group is that they're almost never as socially liberal as people who are just liberal or left-wing all around. Or at least the Republican ones aren't; the Democratic ones sometimes are.

True, and they are rarely as fiscally conservative as someone on the hard right, even the Pub ones.

[All Along The Watchtower]

One thing I've noticed about this group is that they're almost never as socially liberal as people who are just liberal or left-wing all around. Or at least the Republican ones aren't; the Democratic ones sometimes are.

True, and they are rarely as fiscally conservative as someone on the hard right, even the Pub ones.

Don't confuse fiscal conservatism with the Starve the Beast mentality. Also, a lot of hard-right Republicans love spending tons of money on the military/defense in general, "law and order" policies like the prison-industrial complex, and providing huge tax cuts that are  skewed toward the wealthy and aren't offset by reductions in government spending, for the most part.

[Young Conservative]

If this election is proving anything, the fiscally liberal, socially conservative group is bigger.

I sort of fall into this camp, and I agree that it's a much bigger constituency than the reverse, although I prefer to consider myself fiscally populist and socially cautious. A lot of Southern Democrats and Reagan Democrats fall into this category.

Its much larger than experts thought for sure. My life long democrat grandparents, who've never cast a ballot for a republican, are hinting that they, former devout Union members and southern gems, might support Trump and decided not to vote in the democratic primary at all. Trump may be bad, but he's bringing people to the party which is good. I hope he can bring my grandparents... and simultaneously i hope he loses

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I don't think this constituency exists outside of the minds of some deluded fools. Even among affluent professionals, there's little appetite for "shrinking the size of the government" or whatever; there's merely a heightened aversion to taxation and unions. The vast majority of so-called "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" professionals who vote for the Democratic Party support "correcting market failures", investing in infrastructure, reducing tuition etc. The issue is that most people who are reasonably affluent and who are secular are in the orbit of respectable liberal media outlets that make an attempt to detail social problems, mainstream economic theory etc. None of this aligns with American "fiscal conservatism", which is essentially a mass delusion that believes in an alternative reality.

I suppose that there are plenty of secular Republicans but I would not describe these types as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". They're people who simply do not care about social issues. If they cared about these issues, they would vote for Democrats, who offer little threat to their pocketbook and not the troglodytes.

Basically, I think there are plenty of liberals but approximately zero libertarians who live in the US. I'd note that, according to my definition of liberalism, one must be committed to some aspects of feminism, racial equality and immigrant rights in order to be liberal.