Front Page > World > Article Title/Fixture Title

Front Page > Editorial > Gary J. Andres

Email | Print | Subscribe

Click-2-Listen

advertisement

Where have all the Republicans gone?

By Gary J. Andres
April 10, 2008

Marketers might call the Republicans' experience over the past couple of years "brand distress." And after losing the majority in Congress in the 2006 election, it looks like the party's fortunes continue to slip. Is the party of Lincoln ready for the Endangered Species list?

Consider these headlines from recent polling reports. About a year ago (May, 2007), Rasmussen Reports found that "[T]he number of people identifying themselves as Republican has fallen to a new low." Around the same time, the Pew Research Center issued a study headlined, "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007 — Political Landscape More Favorable to Democrats." Gallup concurred in November 2007 with the banner "Democratic Party's Image More Positive Than GOP's." Last week Rasmussen weighed in again with more bad news: "Partisan Trends: Democrats Retain Huge Advantage in Party ID," the latest piece of news fit for a "Debbie Downer" riff on "Saturday Night Live."

Is George Soros secretly manufacturing Democrats at an offshore tax haven? I'm not talking about what accounts for the Republicans' slide. The Iraq war and the sputtering economy, combined with the fact that most Americans equate the GOP with "running the government," together explain most of the party's reputation tribulations. Instead, are independents becoming Democrats? Are Republicans switching parties? Or is the country producing more Democrats through some immaculate partisan conception?

Solid Republicans just jumping ship is an unlikely scenario. Social-science research suggests strong partisans are the most likely to vote, give money, participate in politics generally and least likely to change party. But overall partisan drift can occur. The strength of attachments to a party varies a great deal among citizens.

So, a shift in the strength and direction of partisan identification is a more likely explanation. Typically pollsters ask if the respondent is a Republican, Democrat or Independent. Those who initially respond "Republican" or "Democrat" next get asked if their party attachment is "strong" or "weak." Independents are asked if they "lean" toward one party or the other. This allows a pollster to classify everyone in the survey along a seven-point continuum: 1. Strong Democrat, 2. Weak Democrat, 3. Independent/Lean Democrat, 4. Independent (no other preference), 5. Independent/Lean Republican, 6. Weak Republican and 7. Strong Republican.

Looking at these party identification numbers in a little more detail sheds some light on the vanishing Republicans. It's impossible to determine shifts in people's party preferences unless the pollster interviews the same people at different points in time (something called a panel study). So we're left to speculate. But looking at the data, here's a possible explanation.

Comparing the September 2004 and January 2008 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the seven-point party identification scales look like this.

In Sept. 2004, 21 percent were "Strong Dem"; 7 percent "Weak Dem"; 12 percent "Ind/Lean Dem"; 14 percent "Ind"; 10 percent "Ind/Lean Repub"; 7 percent "Weak Repub"; and 22 percent "Strong Repub." By Jan. 2008, the figures were 24 percent "Strong Dem"; 7 percent "Weak Dem"; 12 percent "Ind/Lean Dem"; 17 percent "Ind"; 12 percent "Ind/Lean Repub"; 7 percent "Weak Repub"; and "15 percent Strong Repub."

Click-2-Listen

Front Page > Editorial > Gary J. Andres