Posted on 05/04/2003 7:50:52 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Whichever way you look at the US presidential election of 2000, you see a nation divided right down the middle. George W. Bush and Al Gore each received 48 per cent of the popular vote. Among those who cast votes for a Senate candidate, 48 per cent voted Republican and 48 per cent voted Democrat. The same 48 per cent/48 per cent vote was tallied for the House of Representatives. And, lest we forget, the Florida Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 for Mr Gore, while the US Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 for Mr Bush.
The 2000 election was only the continuation of a trend that began in 1996. Congressional races since then have resulted in ties or near-ties. And the much-vaunted Republican gains of 2002 in the House of Representatives were the result of a mere one percentage point lift, to 49 per cent of the popular vote.
Will we ever break this tie? The Emerging Democratic Majority, a book that has attracted a lot of attention since its publication last year, suggests that over the next decade we will. The authors, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, subscribe to the "demographics is destiny" school and their argument is compelling. Some of the fastest- growing ethnic and economic groups over the next few decades, the authors argue, are those most likely to vote for (and think like) Democrats. Hispanics, Asians and a group of creative professionals that the authors dub the "idea class" are increasing in number, are socially liberal and are concentrated in the nation's commercial and metropolitan centres, where they can have the greatest impact.
Judis and Teixeira may be on to something but I have learnt from years of analysing polling data that how a person identifies himself or herself can be a more potent determinant of voting behaviour and ideological development than race or occupation. Thus I would suggest a counter-thesis: watch for America's burgeoning investor class.
Consistently over the past year, approximately two in three American voters tell us that they have a 401(k) or some other kind of stock investment. And just about half consider themselves to be "a member of the investor class". These high percentages alone suggest an obvious point: this is not our grandfathers' investor class. Its self-identified members include a substantial number of people from racial minorities, union members and individuals living in households with modest incomes.
Equally significant, my polling data since 2000 reveal that they vote and think differently from their non- investor peers. For example, in post-election polls I conducted in 2002 (in 18 states and the District of Columbia), 34 per cent of union members who identified themselves as members of the investor class chose a Republican for senator, while 27 per cent of union members not self-identified as investors did so. Among union members who voted for governor, the figures were 45 per cent and 35 per cent respectively.
Again, among those on low incomes, investors were more likely than non-investors to vote for a Republican for senator; the difference between the two groups was seven percentage points. Other examples abound. What is important here is not only the different voting behaviour and sensibilities of investors and non-investors but also the continuing growth and democratisation of the investor class. The boom market of the 1990s fuelled an explosion of 401(k) and individual retirement account investments and this expansion continues unabated. In January 1997, 45 per cent of the likely voters I polled said they had some form of stock investment. That number had grown to 52 per cent by October 2000 and now stands at 64-66 per cent.
Georges Sorel, the French sociologist, once remarked that socialism in the US stalled in the face of the prosperity and potential of America's workers. It may well be true that the Democrats today and over the next few years could find their growth stalled in the face of a new class awareness that cuts across traditional social groupings.
Too often, Democrats today cannot understand why so many voters choose the Republicans. They note that most voters agree with the Democrats, so the only reason they do not vote for them must be a lack of good candidates. In fact, my polls consistently show that most voters agree with the Democrats on some things and with the Republicans on other things.
What sways the investor class to vote Republican is the fact that it does not see itself as a disadvantaged group, and does not see government as the solution to its problems. It aspires to bigger and better things; if not now, in the future. The Democratic party, however, has traditionally appealed to minority groups such as liberals, women's rights advocates, gay people and union groups that see government as a solution to social problems. It has a tendency to think in terms of economic victims and tailors its message and its policies accordingly. But investors see themselves as an opportunistic group with a basic message to government to "get out of the way".
As both parties prepare for what should be a hotly contested presidential race in 2004, the Democrats should take little comfort from the growth of the minority and professional groups identified by Judis and Teixeira. They may be wise to pay closer attention to the investor next door.
The writer is president and chief executive of Zogby International, the public opinion polling firm
As a member of the "investing class", I do see myself as a member of a "disadvantaged group": the government is still trying to steal my money. The Democrats, however, are the primary cause of my 'disadvantage', and I have no trouble at all seeing that.
The problem is that most of the growth has occurred among people who do not understand the first thing about equity markets. As a result, there are a lot of voters out there who expect to get a healthy return on their portfolio every year and expect the government to "do something" whenever their expectations are not met.
Look at all those sob stories about those morons who worked for Enron and invested their entire stock holdings in Enron stock. If that's the definition of a "new investor class," then we'd be better off without them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.