From my standpoint, at least the way I think, I find it reaffirming when different ways of looking at things back each other up. There is only one reality; one truth, but there are many ways of interpreting it. When your interpretations are inconsistent, it isn't because there are multiple realities. So I enjoy the exercise of taking apart different observations to see if they validate -- or invalidate -- conclusions I've reached in the past.
I caught pollster Scott Rasmussen on Rush Limbaugh's show, Friday, with guest host Mark Davis.
Now, I've always thought of America as a partisan spectrum of Democrats, independents and Republicans, and I'm sure many of you see it that way, too. This implies a political struggle over the independent vote.
I don't self-identify as Republican; like many people, I consider myself a conservative. And while you can substitute liberals/moderates/conservatives to describe the same political struggle, I thought Rasmussen said something quite profound -- something that changes the very nature of the struggle.
First, Rasmussen pointed out a couple of statistics you probably already know: More people self-identify as conservative than liberal, and more people self identify as conservative than as Republican. And then he said something else I'd heard before, but which I'd never combined with the first two statistics: There are more Democrats than liberals.
Now, in itself, that doesn't invalidate the whole three-layered-spectrum struggle, but then Rasmussen said something that really does redefine the battle: Democrats win elections by reaching out to moderates, while Republicans win elections by reaching out to conservatives.
There are several implications in this. First, both parties should not be struggling over the same voters. Each is trying to rally a different group. Democrats want voters with no committed ideology, while Republicans want conservatives from all demographics.
Consider John McCain, and Republican candidates before him who've run -- and lost -- from the middle. It doesn't do you any good to pick up half the moderates if you disaffect a big chunk of the conservative majority, does it?
The second implication of this is that Republicans can pick up conservative votes not only from independents, but even from among registered Democrats. Remember, among Democrats there must be plenty who lean conservative, since there are more Democrats than liberals.
The third implication is something I've looked at before: Democrats cannot implement a liberal agenda without disaffecting moderates, while Republicans get stronger as they govern more and more conservatively.
Of course, there's really nothing practical in this that we didn't already know. But it's always good to have one more way of presenting the truth when you find someone who's never seen it before.
Comments