Did 'Bush Democrats' cost Kerry the 2004 Election?

[Democratic Hawk]

Party identification and ideological orientation (2004): Did 'Bush Democrats' cost Kerry the election?

2004

According to the CNN exit poll, voters comprised the following (with changes from 2000 in paranthesis):

Party ID: Democrat 37% (down 2%); Republican 37% (down 2%) and Independent 26% (down 1%)
Ideology: Liberal 21% (up 1%); Moderate 45% (down 5%); Conservative 34% (up 5%)

The Bush vote comprised:

Democrat 11% (no change); Republican 93% (up 2%); Independent 48% (up 1%) [Numerically, this comprised 4.07 (down 0.22); 34.41 (up 2.56); 12.48 (down 0.21) – giving a total of 50.96%]
Liberal 13% (no change); Moderate 45% (up 1%); Conservative 84% (up 3) [Numerically, this comprised 2.73 (up 0.13); 20.25 (down 1.75); 28.56 (up 5.07) – giving a total vote of 51.54%]

The Kerry vote comprised as follows:

Democrat 89% (up 3%); Republican 6% (down 2%); Independent 49% (plus 4%) [Numerically, this comprised 32.93 (down 0.61); 2.22 (down 0.58); 12.74 (up 0.59) – giving a total vote of 47.89%]
Liberal 85% (up 5%); Moderate 54% (up 2%); Conservative 15% (down 2%) [Numerically, this comprised 17.85 (up 1.85); 24.3 (down 1.7); 5.1 (up 0.17) – giving a total vote of 47.25%]

Comment

Clearly, Bush’s victory was very much the result of a high-turnout of ideological conservatives (who comprised 55.41% of his total vote up from 48.85% in 2000), which Kerry was never going to offset with a marginally higher turnout among ideological liberals. In 2004, the number of Republicans levelled the number of Democrats (the latter having a 4% advantage in 2000); while the Independents remained fairly constant.

Party Identification

In terms of party identification, 11% of Democrats voted for Bush, as opposed to 6% of Republicans voting for Kerry. It could be assumed that ‘Bush Democrats’ were primarily concerned with moral/social issues and national security; while ‘Kerry Republicans’ were primarily concerned with the economy and had misgivings, or even opposed, the war in Iraq. It was this fact that led me to ask the question: “Had Democrats been as loyal to Kerry, as Republicans had been to Bush, would Kerry have won the election?”

The results of the 2004 election was: Bush (R) 286 / Kerry (D) 252

In all but 9 states a higher percentage of Democrats voted for Bush than Republicans voted for Kerry; while in Arizona, ‘Bush Democrats’ and ‘Kerry Republicans’ were tied at 11%. In only 6 states did ‘Kerry Republicans’ exceed 10%; while, in stark contrast, only in 5 states did ‘Bush Democrats’ not exceed 10%

In order, to answer the question, for each state I calculated the number of ‘Bush Democrats’, from which I subtracted the number of ‘Kerry Republicans’

Democrat: Brown (SK); Red (LK) and Pink (BK) / Republican: Dark Blue (SB); Blue (LB) and Light Blue (BB)



Bush (R) 284 Kerry (D) 254

As you can see, Kerry would have picked-up Arkansas, New Mexico and West Virginia – a total of 16 electoral votes; however, Bush would have picked up New Hampshire and Wisconsin – a total of 14 electoral votes – giving Kerry a net gain of 2 – effectively, not enough to have won the presidency

However, six states ‘won’ by Bush: Florida (0.64%); Iowa (0.54%), Kentucky (0.83%); Louisiana (0.96%); Ohio (0.89%) and Wisconsin (0.72%) had leads of less than 1%. Had all these states ‘flipped’ to Kerry, then the result would have been:



Kerry (D) 335 / Bush (R) 203

In sum, a Kerry win was possible but not probable . While, it is conceivable that Kerry could have won Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin, the chances of him winning Kentucky and Louisiana were slim to none since 28% and 21% of Democrats voted for Bush, respectively; whereas, by comparison, in Florida (14%), Iowa (8%), Ohio (9%) and Wisconsin (7%), Democrats were more loyal. In fact Kerry’s chances in these four states were probably better than in Arkansas and West Virginia, where 18% and 30% of Democrats voted for Bush, respectively. Therefore, flipping Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and West Virginia back to Bush would have produced the following result:



Kerry (D) 307 / Bush (R) 231

Of course, this is all speculative since it is near impossible, in reality, to conceive Democrats being loyal to Kerry to the same extent that Republicans rallied to Bush. A Kerry victory would have depended on greater support from Independents in the states, where it mattered most, rather than on a greater retention of Democratic support. It can, therefore, be concluded that ‘Bush Democrats’ did not necessarily cost Kerry the election

Ideological orientation

Ideological moderates fell from 50%, in 2000 to 45%, in 2004 (a fall of 5%); while, the number of ideological conservatives rose from 29%, in 2000, to 34%, in 2004. What does this mean? Is the American electorate becoming less moderate and more conservative or were ideological conservatives simply more motivated to vote in 2004 than ideological moderates?

Certainly among moderates there was a small increase in Kerry’s favour in terms of share of the moderate vote (54% in 2004, as opposed to 52% in 2000) but due to the fall in the number of moderates, as a whole, this was not to Kerry’s benefit. In 2000, moderates comprised 55.4% of Gore’s vote but this had fallen to 51.43% in 2004. This raises the question, did moderate Democrats, not exactly enthused by the liberal Kerry, elect to stay at home? . Ironically, the Democratic share of the vote was slightly more conservative – but an increase from 4.93 in 2000 to 5.1 in 2004 is negligible because while it slightly increased numerically, it fell percentage wise by 2% (from 17% in 2000 to 15% in 2004)

Something that can be rather puzzling is actually defining who is a liberal, a conservative and a moderate. For simplicity’s sake, a liberal can be defined as, arguably, someone who trends liberal on both personal and economic issues; while a conservative can be defined as, arguably, someone who trends conservative on both personal and economic issues. It is safe to say that most of the ‘new’ conservatives, who voted in 2004 but possibly not in 2000, were social conservatives of an evangelical or fundamentalist persuasion. But who are the ‘moderates’, exactly?

A moderate is, arguably, someone, who possibly draws from various aspects of liberalism and conservatism or maybe someone, who is simply a pragmatist (i.e. someone who is not rigidly bound by either liberal or conservative ideology). But is at all as simple as that? Perhaps, to some extent (and I stress some ), ‘moderates’ are liberals, who are simply bashful about admitting so since the term ‘liberal’ and its more ‘negative’ aspects (e.g. ‘tax and spend’) has been applied by the political right (and to significant effect) to tarnish its opponents. This is ironic since liberalism, as mainstream ideologies go, arguably, gravitates to the ideological centre (just as conservatism does to the right, and socialism is to the left, of the ideological spectrum) – and, hence, is by definition a moderate ideology; however, I must stress this is a very superficial sketch on things, especially when you consider just how ‘big government’ the Bush presidency has been. The reality is, undoubtedly, far more complicated than anything I have presupposed

2008?

What all this means for 2008 is anyone’s guess! Will the Democratic nominee unite and enthuse the party’s left, right and centre? Will the Republican nominee motivate social conservatives in turning out to vote to the extent George W Bush did in 2004? Will any strong third party candidate(s) emerge? Will the number of moderates voting continue to decline at the expense of conservatives or was that trend in 2004 simply a one-off?

These are the unanswered questions which make 2008 a very interesting race indeed

What are your thoughts? Do you think 'Bush Democrats' cost Kerry the 2004 election?

Dave

[Blue Rectangle]

Well, to be specific, Ohio cost Kerry the election.

The 'Bush Democrats' effect was most obvious in West Virgina: Bush won the state in a landslide even though actual party registration is 2-1 in favor of Dems.  How much of this effect extended to Ohio?

Democrats have a numerical advantage (though this is shrinking) in party registration, but Republicans have a loyalty advantage.  This means that turnout alone can't win elections for the Dems, as was demonstrated clearly in 2004.  The good news for Republicans is that the Democrats haven't changed their losing tactics.  Their goal still seems to be to get the base as angry as possible.

[Giant Saguaro]

Good post - Yeah, I agree with Blue Rectangle - I think in states like WV and LA and so forth (even OK, which is technically a Democrat state) people helped Bush as they helped Reagan and others.

It's interesting to me to hear Democrats like Howard Dean and probably John Corzine and others who are at that top elitist liberal left go around saying, "a Democrat can in in Missouri or Ohio" like they're educating everyone or something - sure, 'a Democrat' can win most anywhere, as 'a Republican' can, but the key is that a Howard Dean Democrat or a John Kerry Democrat or someone from that core can't. In fact, they probably scare a lot of people in the Midwest and interior west a bit, so you see a rise in people identifying themselves as conservative. When you sit and hear phrases like "liberal-hearted sons of b----es" and more colorful kinds of descriptions used, you know people don't like the ones from that core.

As to where we go in 2008 it's anyone's guess. Some Dems want to sit and play the EC Game and figure out which EC state could bring the magic 271st EC vote and others want to disguise a liberal as a moderate and others want to run a real bona fide center leftist. I do expect a more moderate field in '08 for the Dems, however. At least a more moderate talking field. For the GOP I expect a field that looks like the '88 field - far right, middle right, and mainstream right - I hope mainstream right wins out for us. Just some thoughts.

[PBrunsel]

Very good statistics, leaves much to be analyzed. Though, I still think John Kerry cost John Kerry the election.

[Gabu]

PBrunsel stole what I was going to say: really, Kerry cost Kerry the election because he failed to convince enough people to vote for him.  It's not exactly the voters' fault that they didn't vote for him.  Had any number of group been stronger for Kerry, Kerry would have won the election, but none of them were.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry Dave, but you Exit Poll data is fundamentally flawed.

First, for a better understanding of the ideological orientation of the electorate, see my thread "More longitudinal survey data" on the General Politics board.

Second, there are several reasons why the exit polls are flawed, but I'll cite one here (and provide a url to a more detailed analysis of others if you request), namely that a large portion of the vote was cast by early ballots!

Third, the thread I cited above also gives good data on party orientation.  The trend you cited was defective (not suprising, considering where you got you data from).

Fourth, for the last half century, with the exceptions of 1964, 1992, and possibly 1996, Republicans have consistently given a higher level of support to their party's nominee than Democrats did for their nominee.