Byron York: How Bush will likely beat his 537-vote ‘landslide’

The Hill ^ | 11/12/03 | Byron York

[Jean S]

There’s been a lot of talk about recent studies showing a decline in the percentage of American voters who identify themselves as Democrats.

Last summer, pollster Mark Penn found that just 32 percent of voters called themselves Democrats, which led Penn to conclude that, at least on the party-ID issue, “the Democratic party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal.”

Now a new study by the Pew Research Center pegs the Democratic number at 31 percent, versus 30 percent who call themselves Republicans.

That’s very bad news — if you’re a Democrat — but what does it actually mean?

Just who are those voters who have switched party affiliation? And perhaps more important, where are they?

As it turns out, many are right where Democrats don’t want them to be — in the swing states that could determine the winner of next year’s presidential election.

In Minnesota, for example, Democrats used to enjoy a 31-26 advantage in party identification. Now, it’s 31-28 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 58,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast.

Next time around, with more Republicans, he might do better.

In Michigan, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-26 advantage. Now it’s 31-29 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 217,000 votes out of 4.2 million cast.

In Iowa, Democrats used to enjoy a 32-27 advantage. Now, it’s 34-27 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 4,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast.

In Wisconsin, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-29 advantage. Now, it’s 30-29 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost by about 6,000 votes out of 2.6 million cast.

Those are the states that have turned over. In some other states that Bush lost narrowly, Democrats maintain their edge — just less so.

For example, in New Mexico, Democrats used to enjoy a 40-30 advantage. Now, it’s 39-35. In 2000, Bush lost by just 366 votes.

And in the most important swing state of all in 2000, Florida, Democrats used to enjoy a 38-33 advantage. Now, it’s 37-36 in favor of Republicans. That means Bush might be able to build on his 537-vote landslide.

“Republican gains have come across the board, both geographically and demographically,” the Pew report says. “There have been increases in Republican party affiliation in nearly every major voting bloc, except among African-Americans.”

And even though Democrats still have a tiny 31-30 advantage nationwide, that may be of little use next year.

“Because Republicans traditionally turn out to vote in higher numbers than do Democrats, the current division in party affiliation among the public could provide the GOP with a slight electoral advantage,” the Pew report says.

Much of the discussion about the study has emphasized its conclusion that the United States remains deeply divided politically.

Some commentators have suggested that the study says the country is even more deadlocked than it was in 2000. “The red states get redder, [and] the blue states get bluer,” wrote The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne.

Yet that doesn’t seem to be the case. According to Pew, red states have indeed gotten redder, but blue states have gotten redder, too. Even the bluest of the blues, such as California, are a bit less so than a few years ago.

Why is it happening? Republican National Committee chief Ed Gillespie has an obvious partisan stake in the situation but nevertheless offered a cogent analysis in a recent memo to party leaders.

“As the Democrat party gets smaller, it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry,” Gillespie wrote, “and as it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry, it gets smaller.”

Ask Democrats and they’ll tell you the Pew numbers don’t reveal much about anything. The Democrats point out, reasonably, that party affiliation will not matter if more and more people decide not to vote for Bush.

“The number we’ll be watching is the number of people who vote for or against President Bush,” said Democratic National Committee spokesman Tony Welch.

Welch pointed to a recent Marist College poll that found that 44 percent of those surveyed said they definitely plan to vote against Bush next year, while 38 percent said they definitely plan to vote for him.

“Unless you’re a bean counter worried about registration, this is what matters,” says Welch.

Well, yes. But the Marist poll also found Bush beating any Democrat matched against him.

And the trends in party affiliation in the swing states that went to Gore in 2000 suggest that it’s going to be harder for a Democrat to win those states in 2004.

Count all those beans together and they could mean big trouble for the next Democratic nominee.

[Coop]

Maybe. But the fastest growing group are the Independents. This Republican became one in '02. The Republicans can no longer count on us to vote for them. They'll either earn our vote or do without it.

Well, I'm an independent. And not only has President Bush earned my vote, but he'll be getting my time volunteered to his re-election campaign.

[Coop]

If this is what the GOP in power means, I don't want any part of it. Time to start a Conservative Party.

And when there are liberals in charge, thanks to your protest vote, you'll be sprinting back to the GOP so fast your head will spin.

[ptlurking]

Watch out for another Perot-like third party run in 2004.
That's the Dem's only hope.

[Semper Paratus]

One word, Demographics.

The older voters who drank the Kennedy Kool-Aid are dying off and the younger voters who could care less are now starting families, 401k's and mortgages.

[Principled]

I strongly support Bush on most issues but I am sitting out the 2004 election because I don't think Bush has properly addressed the issue of pet cat registration. I oppose efforts to register cats and Bush has been silent on this issue.

Another keyboard broken today! ROTFLMAO!

[cookcounty]

It would be great fo find a little more definition here.

When this guy gives the "used to be" numbers, how far back is he going? And when he says "now" is he talking about this month, or registrations in the wake of 9-11?

[Let's Roll]

Not just register them. He will lose my vote if he doesn't also support a leash law for cats. I'm tired of all these cats running around acting like ... cats.

hope this won't merit a visit from the viking kitties

[Axeslinger]

I don't understand people who espouse the "Republican candidate X Y and Z aren't conservative enough for me, so I will not vote for them or I won't vote at all." I just don't get the mindset. Have you never heard of a primary? Find a candidate that is more to your liking and bust your butt to get them victorious in the primary. But if they don't win the primary, then you know the majority of R's weren't with you this go around. Try again next time. The general election vote is not an all or nothin'. You have the option to vote your conscience at the primary. Do you?

[SamAdams76]

but blue states have gotten redder, too.

For all the grief I take for being from Massachusetts, there is a strong base of Republicans up here. Most of my co-workers voted for Bush in 2000 and detest the liberals on Beacon Hill and our two senators (Kennedy and Kerry). We haven't had a Democratic governor since 1990 (Dukakis) and just last November, Republican Mitt Romney trounced the liberal candidate for governor (Shannon O'Brien). It wasn't even a close contest.

I think we get a bad rap up here. Yes, it is frustrating to see Democrats elected again and again at the local levels, but the GOP has no real organization here. They always write off our state and pour their resources elsewhere. Many of the Democrats run completely unopposed. It really bothers me.

Meanwhile, I go down to Alabama frequently (where most of my family lives) and they are mostly all Democrats. Go figure.

[ohioWfan]

Don't throw logic into the mix........it confuses them. ;o)

[af_vet_1981]

Maybe. But the fastest growing group are the Independents. This Republican became one in '02. The Republicans can no longer count on us to vote for them. They'll either earn our vote or do without it.

I see. President Bush has to "earn" your vote. The Democrats and terrorists get it for free. At least you didn't publish your comment on Veterans Day. Thanks for that ...

[Kenny Bunk]

Why are you the only guy mentioning the possibility of ....GASP ...vote fraud? Fraud counted heavily in those states Bush lost. Massive fraud in CA, PA, MI, MO, NM, IL,AZ,WI.

[LonePalm]

Ping! I thought you might find this interesting.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[KC_for_Freedom]

Meanwhile, I go down to Alabama frequently (where most of my family lives) and they are mostly all Democrats. Go figure.

Most democrats in Alabama that I know have voted for Bush and Riley, (although they are not so sure about Riley now.) Bush will have Alabama and the rest of the South in 2004.

[auboy]

Team Gore-Daley miscalculated in Florida. They were about 538 dead voters short. Rats probably consider being dead as being disenfranchised.

I knew when Gore brought Daley into his campaign, fraud would play a major role in the election. Thank goodness Bush fought and finally won out.

[Kenny Bunk]

.....Thank goodness Bush fought and finally won out.

Respectfully disagree. Republicans are very diffident in approach to the fraud issue. The mantra: "Turnout defeats fraud," is as far as I've heard any of the biggies over to the RNC go. Have never heard GWB mention it at all!

Huge problem, huge Democrat weapon. Donna Brazile says,

Just get me close, I'll do the rest."

[auboy]

I thought George W. Bush and his lawyers fought Gore and his lawyers over the "recount" fiasco. That is what I was referring to when I said Bush fought and finally won out.

I know my memory is slipping fast, but not that fast.:-) I remember 36 days of hell thanks to Al Gore and the Rats.

I do agree that Republicans are too "nice" when it comes to voter fraud - John Thune comes to mind as the most recent example.

[AmericaUnited]

I oppose efforts to register cats and Bush has been silent on this issue.

Aha! You inadvertently outed yourself as a liberal. Conservatives own dogs, touchy,feely liberals own cats.

[PJ-Comix]

Aha! You inadvertently outed yourself as a liberal. Conservatives own dogs, touchy,feely liberals own cats.

Maybe but dogs are liberals and cats are conservatives. Think about it. Dogs are completely dependent on their owners in a classic welfare state situation while cats are virtually independent and do their own thing. Thus the cats are CONSERVATIVES.

[speekinout]

The older voters who drank the Kennedy Kool-Aid

Which Kennedy? If you listen to political speeches, it's hard to tell the difference between JFK, RR and W. They're all tax cutters and strong on defense.
If you mean Teddy, well, I don't know anyone except Mary Jo who would drink anything for him.