David Boaz parses recent survey data that finds about 13% of the electorate consists of independent “deliberators” who are highly likely to vote but as of yet remain undecided. Among this small group who will determine the election:
64% support “smaller government with fewer services,” and 63% favor gay marriage. The former position, of course, puts them closer to Republicans, and the latter closer to Democrats. These are the true swing voters, and they might well be described as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Boaz has more to say about (small “l”) libertarian-minded voters—and why they are a leading indicator of how the much larger number of self-identified “independents” are likely to vote—in this video interview with reason.tv.
You might expect that given the importance of these voters both Democrats and Republicans would try to woo them. Yet the Democrats remain captive to the big government left as the Republicans remain captive to the socially conservative right. That may please the ideologues and party operatives of the left and right, but it leaves the broad swath of the country in despair.
10 Comments for “‘Real Swing Voters’ Are Unloved”
posted by B. Daniel Blatt on
Actually, this is very good news for the GOP. Now, to be sure, a near-identical may support “gay marriage” as support “smaller government with fewer services” suggests they folks face a real dilemma. But, it appears that for these guys, gay marriage is not the defining issue. Were that the case, they would long since have sided with Mr. Obama who made quite a production of his “evolution” on gay marriage. (Those campaign coffers did not filling and there are many affluent gays in “blue” enclaves.)
But, Romney has not yet made clear his plans to cut spending–though he appears to be heading in that direction. And given the record of the last Republican president, those voters may be wary of backing another Republican presidential spending who has not spelled out his plans to cut spending.
Republicans have clearly been soft-pedaling the social issues this year. They just need make clear this time ’round that they’re rejecting George W. Bush Republicanism and will instead hold true to Reagan-Ryan rhetoric and cut spending and reduce regulation.
It’s too bad that Ryan voted for ENDA instead of standing for civil unions. Opposing ENDA and supporting civil unions would be far more consistent with the governing philosophy he has developed over the years.
posted by Doug on
Exactly what would Ryan’s governing philosophy be.? He claims to be a deficit hawk and want smaller government. Yet he voted for 2 funded wars, every single debt extension Bush wanted and the biggest expansion of Medicare since Johnson and did’t even pay for it.
posted by Doug on
Exactly what would Ryan’s governing philosophy be.? He claims to be a deficit hawk and want smaller government. Yet he voted for 2 funded wars, every single debt extension Bush wanted and the biggest expansion of Medicare since Johnson and did’t even pay for it.
He’s been anti-abortion with no exception for rape or incest until today when he changed his mind.
posted by B. Daniel Blatt on
oops, funny typo above. In the second sentence of the second ¶ above, for “spending”, I had meant “candidate.”
(Wonder what Dr. Jung would make of that slip-up.)
posted by Houndentenor on
No, gay marriage is not that important to most of those voters. What would be more important to them is Ryan’s radically conservative views on abortion and contraception. Republicans do a good job of trying to make the social issue solely about gay marriage when there are many other gay rights issues and other social issue that are a big turn off to anyone not on the far right on those issues.
In addition, Ryan’s budget doesn’t cut that much spending and doesn’t balance the budget. It cuts funding from programs Democrats like to give more money to the mega-rich. Since many of those voters are middle class, once they realize that Ryan would have them pay MORE in taxes and get less in services (including education for their children) I think that argument is over.
I don’t know why anyone would vote for a Republican to reduce the size of the government. No Republican in my lifetime (and I’m almost 50) has reduced the size of government. They shift the spending around somewhat but they certainly don’t make it smaller. And when you look at the details of what they actually propose, that fact is abundantly clear. So spare me the small government talk. it’s a lie and we all know it.
posted by Don on
Voters have always supported smaller government on both sides of the aisle. The question is akin to “do you like ice cream?” Trick is what flavor.
Liberals love smaller government and want it desperately. Slash the military. Quit starting wars. Stop meddling in other countries with the CIA.
The Tea Party wants smaller government, too. Cut my taxes and your benefits. Same answer, totally different flavor.
The GOP knows its not going to cut government yet. Not by a long shot. The budget is difficult and ugly now. Before they can abolish social security (which is a goal), they have to burn the fiscal house to the ground. We ain’t there yet.
This is why I’m a fiscally conservative and socially liberal voter who just can’t bring himself to swing to the Republicans. They really have lost their freakin’ minds. Goldwater used to be what was called the hard-right. He’d be a freakin’ commie wuss with this crowd.
posted by John D on
I remember a comment by a politician (though I’ve forgotten the name) that you can get 30% of the voters to buy into any budget cut. The problem is that you can’t cut something from the budget when 70% of the voters are for it.
Of course the problem with the line of “reduce the size of government” is that what it really means is “reduce the services of government.” And people really like it when government does stuff.
Imagine how much money we could trim if we stopped doing highway repairs. Imagine the ensuing problems. Imagine the inefficiency of local control and what a highway through a poor community in a poor state would look like.
An honest “reduce the size of government” argument would start discussing what the government should and shouldn’t be doing. It’s funny how the people on the right who actually get into the specifics pretty much end up on the fringes of the Republican party. But at least they’re honest. (Liberals, of course, don’t see the size of government as an issue, so they have to take the “we shouldn’t do this” argument.)
posted by Don on
Well said.
posted by Mark F. on
My dad is pretty conservative and leans Republican but there is no way he would vote for Obama despite the fact he is pro- gay marriage and he even supports the dicriminalization of pot. He did vote for Carter and Clinton though.
posted by Don on
Considering Obama’s actual policies and governing has been to the right of both Clinton and Carter, is it the lies that are spread about him that has convinced your dad or is it skin color?
Unfortunately, I have to admit that in my family it’s mostly skin color. He’d be their dream president if he were white, protestant and republican. Same policies, just different labels. Sad, but true.