You Say Tomato
Lesley and I are having disagreement about the most salient issue in last year's Presidential election. In a post yesterday, I bemoan the fact that the Repbulican administration, including Congress, is putting big business ahead of average people, making budget and legislative decisions that help corporations at the expense of people who really need help. Mom questions how these same people who are "being shafted" voted for Bush. My response was that moral values swayed the election more than any other issue, to which Lesley responds that her quickie election analysis showed security and the economy to be the hinge issues.
In reality, I'm not sure that Lesley and I are truly in disagreement here. Her point is that more people cared about security and the economy than cared about moral values. Without doing a weighted average analysis, I will cede that point. Still, my point is not which issues people cared more about, but which issue or issues swung the election.
Going back to Ohio as a proxy, since it was truly the swing state, an an analysis of the exit polls shows that moral values swung the election. I have a handy crosstab that demonstrates this if anyone is interested or if Lesley is willing to post it.
In short, though, here are the key results:
1. Of the people who voted for Bush, 15% voted for him because they felt he would do better on taxes and the economy than Kerry. However, because people much more heavily trusted Kerry on the economy, 45% of the people who voted for him did so based on taxes and the economy.
2. Of the people who voted for Bush, 32% 37% voted for him based on security issues (Iraq and terroism), compared to 28% 23% of the people who voted for Kerry because they trusted him more on this issues. Bush scores a victory here, but not enough to swing the election in his favor when you combine security with economic issues. Kerry would have won the election if you stopped here, with 626,000 347,000 more votes in Ohio than Bush. (Updated percentages and vote tally reflect an error I had made in the crosstab.)
3. Of the people who voted for Bush, 38% voted for him based on moral values, accounting for 1.1 million votes. Only 7% of the people who voted for Kerry did so based on moral values. There is a 919,000 vote gap between the two candidates on these issues, swinging the election back in Bush's favor and putting him over the top more than any other issue.
Thus, to Lesley, I repeat, "Rabbit season!"
Comments
In reality, I'm not sure that Lesley and I are truly in disagreement here.
You could have just asked me. We are truly in disagreement here.
Posted by: Lesley | March 12, 2005 02:47 PM
Not that it really matters, but I am curious as to what you're seeing in the exit polls. While more people may have cared about security and the economy, the exit polls from CNN clearly show that they are not what won the election for Bush. At least not in Ohio or on a nationwide basis.
Of the people who cited the economy (including taxes) as their number one issue, they heavily voted for Kerry, not Bush. Of the people who cited security, either Iraq or terrorism, support for Bush and Kerry basically cancelled each other out. People who were most concerned about Iraq (15% of nationwide voters) voted heavily for Kerry, while people who were most concerned about terrorism (19%) voted heavily for Bush. Despite the importance of these issues, they cannot have been what swayed the election in Bush's favor.
Perhaps we should leave it at Elmer Season. "Shh, be very, very quiet, we're hunting Elmers."
p.s. To Mom, I say that people of low to moderate income voted mainly for Kerry. The people who are being disenfranchised by Bush's "steal from the poor to pay the rich" policies didn't vote for Bush.
Posted by: Jon | March 12, 2005 03:31 PM
The issue I have with your analysis is that it assumes that the 80% of the 22% of voters who voted on "moral values" would not have voted for Bush anyway. Since 11% of Democrats voted for Bush, but only 5% of Republicans voted for Kerry, what really is important is why more Democrats went for Bush than Republicans went for Kerry. Are these Democrats the "moral values" voters? I don't think they are. What really swung the election is the issues on which voters who would otherwise have voted Democrat but wound up voting Republican voted. Had the numbers been consistent across parties, Kerry would have won. You haven't posted anything that supports that the "moral values" voters wouldn't have voted for Bush regardless. Had more Democrats trusted Kerry on matters of national security, he would have received enough votes to outweigh the "moral values" voters.
I could also remind you that Oregon, which went for Kerry, also wound up voting in a ballot initiative that made gay marriage illegal in that state. However, in Oregon, only 8% of Democrats went for Bush, while 7% of Republicans went for Kerry. Not that this, in itself, proves my point, but it lends support to it.
Posted by: Lesley | March 12, 2005 06:32 PM
It's the character, stupid?
Posted by: Sissy Willis | March 13, 2005 05:33 AM
Are you talking about Bush, Kerry, or both? What do you think decided people on voting for or against?
Posted by: Mom | March 13, 2005 05:44 AM
You keep out of this. She doesn't have to shoot you now.
Posted by: CGHill | March 13, 2005 10:49 AM
Pronoun trouble!
Posted by: Lesley | March 13, 2005 11:31 AM
BTW, I didn't get CGHill's reference at first, but after he explained it to me via e-mail, I remembered it. It's actually a response to Jon's cry of "Rabbit season!"
Posted by: Lesley | March 13, 2005 11:33 AM
The swing voters in this context was athiests. They upped their percentage voting for Bush (From 2000) by 3-4. (ignoring for the moment that athiest > a-moral, common usage seems to be defining moral values by church attendance these days)
Remember the change in votes (popular) was about a 3-4% swing nationwide.
Those that attend church weekly? 42% in 2000 and 2004. Thos that attend occaisionally? 42% both years. Never attend (but presumably not athiest)? 15% both times.
Posted by: Justin | March 14, 2005 12:51 PM