You are on page 1of 11

Subscribe: Digital / Home Delivery Welcome, mrredemption Log Out Help Home Page Today's Paper Video Most

Popular Times Topics

Search All

Thursday, July 7, 2011

World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos





July 7, 2011, 10:17 am

Why the G.O.P. Cannot Compromise

By NATE SILVER The chart that Im going to show you is one of the more important ones that weve presented at FiveThirtyEight in some time. It helps explain a lot of whats going on in American politics today, from the negotiations over the federal debt ceiling to the Republican presidential primaries. And its pretty simple, really, although it took me some time to track down the data. Heres what the chart will show: The Republican Party is dependent, to an extent unprecedented in recent political history, on a single ideological group. That group, of course, is conservatives. It isnt a bad thing to be in favor with conservatives: by some definitions they make up about 40 percent of voters. But the terms Republican and conservative are growing closer and closer to being synonyms; fewer and fewer nonconservatives vote Republican, and fewer and fewer Republican voters are not conservative. The chart, culled from exit poll data, shows the ideological disposition of those people who voted Republican for the House of Representatives in the elections of 1984 through 2010. Until fairly recently, about half of the people who voted Republican for Congress (not all of whom are registered Republicans) identified themselves as conservative, and the other half as moderate or, less commonly, liberal. But lately the ratio has been skewing: in last years elections, 67 percent of those who voted Republican said they were conservative, up from 58 percent two years earlier and 48 percent ten years ago.

This might seem counterintuitive. Didnt the Republicans win a sweeping victory last year? They did, but it had mostly to do with changes in turnout. Whereas in 2008, conservatives made up 34 percent of those who cast ballots, that number shot up to 42 percent last year. Moderates, on the other hand, made up just 38 percent of those who voted in 2010, down from 44 percent in 2008 (the percentage of liberals was barely changed). The 2010 election was the first since exit polls began in 1976 in which a plurality of the voters said they were conservatives rather than moderates. This was fortunate for Republicans, because they lost moderate voters to Democrats by 13 percentage points (and liberals by 82 percentage points). Had the ideological composition of the electorate been the same in 2010 as in 2008 or 2006, the Republicans and Democrats would have split the popular vote for the House about evenly but as it was, Republicans won the popular vote for the House by about 7 percentage points and gained 63 seats. Many of the G.O.P. victories last year were extremely close. I calculate that, had the national popular vote been divided evenly, Democrats would have lost just 27 seats instead of 63. Put differently, the majority of Republican gains last year were probably due to changes in relative turnout rather than people changing their minds about which partys approach they preferred. Some care is called for here: Political ideology is not an immutable characteristic, and some people who called themselves conservative in 2010 might have called themselves moderate in 2008. Most polls have found a modest increase in the number of people in the broader electorate (not just those who voted) who say they are conservative. But this only explains a small part of the difference in 2010. For the rest, we need to look toward the so-called enthusiasm gap. That gap is commonly understood as the average Republican having been more likely to cast a vote in 2010 than the average Democrat. Thats true as far as it goes. But on top of the gap between Democrats and Republicans, there was a another enthusiasm gap within the Republican party, cleaving conservatives, who were very likely to turn out, from moderate Republicans, who were no more likely to vote than Democrats were. The data for this assertion comes from a Pew Research poll conducted just a few days before the election. The poll was quite accurate it predicted a 6-point Republican margin in the popular vote for the House, almost exactly in line with what actually happened. Pew is among the most transparent polling organizations, and their entire data set for this particular poll is available for public consumption. I looked at the percentage of people from various groups who were given at least 6 points on Pews 7-point scale of voting propensity who I defined as likely voters. Among conservatives who are either registered as Republicans or who lean toward the Republican party, about 3 out of 4 were likely to have voted in 2010, the Pew data indicated. The fraction of likely voters was even higher among those who called themselves very conservative: 79 percent.

By contrast, only about half of moderate or liberal Republicans were likely voters, according to Pews model. That is about the same as the figure for Democrats generally: about half of them were likely voters, with little difference among conservative, moderate and liberal Democrats. So the enthusiasm gap did not so much divide Republicans from Democrats; rather, it divided conservative Republicans from everyone else. According to the Pew data, while 64 percent of all Republicans and Republicanleaning independents identify as conservative, the figure rises to 73 percent for those who actually voted in 2010. This is why Republican politicians find it difficult to compromise on something like the debt ceiling, even when it might seem they have substantial incentive to do so. Republicans are still fairly unpopular only about 40 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the party, which is barely better than their standing in 2006 or 2008 (although Democrats have become significantly less popular since then). As long as conservative Republicans are much more likely to vote than anyone else, the party can fare well despite that unpopularity, as it obviously did in 2010. But it means that Republican members of Congress have a mandate to remain steadfast to the conservatives who are responsible for electing them. Presidential elections are different: they tend to have a more equivocal turnout. The G.O.P. can turn out its base but it has not converted many other voters to its cause, and President Obamas approval ratings remain are passable although not good. The Republicans will need all their voters to turn out including their moderates to be an even-money bet to defeat him. If a relatively moderate candidate like Mitt Romney is nominated, that probably wont be a major problem. But there is a significant chance that the party will nominate a someone like Michele Bachmann instead. Imagine that Ms. Bachmann has won the Iowa caucuses while Mr. Romney has taken the New Hampshire primary, and the nomination is essentially up for grabs between them. As the contest shifts to a key state like Ohio or Pennsylvania, suppose that conservative Republicans split 60-30 in Ms. Bachmanns favor (with a few voters opting for a hanger-on like Ron Paul), while moderate Republicans go 80-15 for Mr. Romney. Who is going to win? Turnout would be decisive. If two conservative Republicans cast ballots for every moderate Republican roughly the ratio in 2008 Mr. Romney would prevail by a couple of points. But if the turnout looks more like 2010, and there are three conservative Republicans at the polls for every moderate Republican, Ms. Bachmann would win by about six percentage points:

So the presidential race gives Republicans some incentive to engage their moderate voters sooner rather than later but at the same time, moderate voters are not who elected them to Congress. The poor economy has bought the party some slack, but there is still potential for disaster: Either the nomination goes to someone like Ms. Bachmann, who would have a difficult time winning over moderates and independents, or someone like Mr. Romney wins the nominnation but alienates the conservatives along the way. Is the same kind of phenomenon occurring on the Democratic side? To some extent, yes: Back in 1984, just 26 percent of the people voting Democratic for Congress said they were liberals, but that fraction has now risen to 41 percent.

Nevertheless, moderate Democrats are still the plurality of the party. And there are even a fair number of conservative Democrats certainly more than there are liberal Republicans despite the geographical realignment of the parties in the early 1990s, in which many conservative southerners switched allegiance. The Democratic Party is intrinsically more pluralistic than the G.O.P. a characteristic that may be disadvantageous when it comes to governing, but can give the party an edge in elections. E-mail This Print Share

Twitter Recommend

Previous Post N.B.A. Disputes Forbes Analysis Suggesting League is Profitable0 Readers' Comments Post a Comment Oldest Newest

There are no comments yet

Post a Comment Suggest a Correction to This Blog Post

You are currently logged in as . Display Name (What's this?) Location (example: New York, NY) Send me a link to my published comment at (Change e-mail) Characters Remaining: 2000 Comment (Required)

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ. Search This Blog

Previous Post N.B.A. Disputes Forbes Analysis Suggesting League is ProfitableFollow This Blog Twitter RSS
Ads by Google Great Deals Every Day
Explore Your City on Google Offers Be Among the First to Sign Up!

what's this?

New Waterfront Condos

New Luxury Condominium Arverne, Queens

Summit Chase Apartments

Luxury Townhomes, Binghamton, NY Call today at 607-754-6769

Reputation Ruined Online?

Get Your Reputation Back Fast! Free Personalized Analysis & Report

Cabot Vermont Yogurt

Enjoy our protein rich Greek-Style Yogurt as a dessert or in recipes. Advertise on

Featured Posts Handicapping the Republican Field: Part II, the Wild Cards 31 Handicapping the Republican Field: Part I, the Top Tier 54 Lets Talk About Redistricting 20 Qatar a Questionable World Cup Host 96 The 800-Pound Mama Grizzly Problem 109 The Hidden Costs of Extra Airport Security 133 About the Blog FiveThirtyEights mission is to help New York Times readers cut through the clutter of this data-rich world. The blog is devoted to rigorous analysis of politics, polling, public affairs, sports, science and culture, largely through statistical means. In addition, FiveThirtyEight provides forecasts of upcoming presidential, Congressional, and gubernatorial elections through the use of its proprietary prediction models. Read more Contributors Glossary Methodology FiveThirtyEight Archive @FiveThirtyEight on Twitter E-mail Nate Silver Recent Posts July 07
Why the G.O.P. Cannot Compromise

The voter-enthusiasm gap that really matters in Washington now wasn't the one between the two parties - it was the one between conservative Republicans and everyone else, including moderate Republicans. July 05 19
N.B.A. Disputes Forbes Analysis Suggesting League is Profitable

A response from the N.B.A. to an earlier 538 post citing Forbes figures that show the league is not in financial distress.

July 05 43
Calling Foul on N.B.A.s Claims of Financial Distress

Independent estimates of the N.B.A. financial condition reflect a league that has grown at a somewhat tepid rate compared to other sports, and which has an uneven distribution of revenues between teams -- but which is fundamentally a healthy and profitable business. July 02 38
How Tim Pawlenty Is Like RC Cola

Because Tim Pawlenty sits in the middle of the Republican presidential field, he has more competition to worry about. The types of voters who find him acceptable will also like a lot of other candidates. July 01 16
Reads and Reactions

In this edition: one pundit's serious candidate is another pundit's long-shot flake. More News The Caucus Politics
White House Paints Doomsday Default Scenario

The Obama administration is aggressively pushing the message that failure to raise the nation's debt ceiling would have disastrous consequences for average Americans.
The Early Word: Intensity

Political news from today's Times and around the Web, plus a look at what's happening in Washington.
Pawlenty Aide Apologizes for Citing Bachmann's 'Sex Appeal'

Vin Weber, a co-chairman of Tim Pawlenty's Republican presidential campaign, had said in an interview that Michele Bachmann's candidacy was catching on, in part, because "she's got a little sex appeal."
Obama to Push for Wider Deal With G.O.P. on Deficit Cuts

President Obama, who will meet with the bipartisan leadership of Congress on Thursday, wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought earlier.
The Caucus: For Obama, Brevity Is Not the Soul of Twitter

The questions are brief, but not the answers, in President Obama's social-media town hall.

At War: New Policy on Condolence Letters

The White House will begin sending letters of condolence to families of military personnel who commit suicide in combat zones.
More Video | Multimedia



The Caucus | Debt Ceiling Deadline Nears

The Political Landscape; Ross Douthat on the G.O.P.





Sign up for a roundup of the day's top stories, sent every morning.
Change E-mail Address | Privacy Policy

Tyne Daly's inner diva


Rapping about evolution Broadway stars and their dressers

Follow The New York Times Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS

Ads by Google what's this?

High Interest Bank CDs

The Safest Way to Invest. Open a High Interest, FDIC Insured CD Now

Home World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science

Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Site Map 2011 The New York Times Company Privacy Your Ad Choices Terms of Service Terms of Sale Corrections RSS Help Contact Us Work for Us Advertise undefined