Heretics' almanac

Is cultural liberalism for the birds?

The Wall Street Journal's editorial today accuses the Democratic party's attitude of "nostalgia for tradition is too often considered racism, opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, misgiving about abortion is misogyny, Christian fundamentalism is like Islamic fundamentalism, discussion about gender roles is sexism. And confidence in America's global purpose is cultural imperialism.  "To put it mildly," the newspaper says, "this is not the values system to which most Americans adhere."

This raises a philosophical as well as a strategic question: should a political party adapt itself to conform to the most widespread public opinion in order to win elections, or should they hold on to their convictions and ideals?

The truth is that Kerry had to say one thing to win the Democratic nomination and something different to win the election.  His efforts to do so got him accused of flip-flopping on the one hand and lost him the election on the other.  What infuriated the Republicans about Clinton was that he was so in tune with public opinion and advocated solutions that Repubicans claimed intellectual property rights over. 

The Republicans would be fools to believe that every vote for Bush was a vote for all his opinions.  Considering the context of a national emergency, this was an exceptionally close vote.  We have nothing like the conservative mandate the Journal seems to imply.

On the other hand, the Democratic party clearly has lost relevance in the south, and outside urban areas.  It is hardly persuasive to dismiss attitudes prevalent in those areas as bigoted, mysogynistic, sexist, etc.  Even if they are.

Bill Clinton recently said to Jon Stewart, "when people think, Democrats always win."  What Karl Rove seems to have realized is that when people feel, they're likely to vote Republican.  Images of late-term abortions, men kissing each other in front of a minister, etc., spark a visceral reaction that play right into the conservative agenda.  Democrats have thoughtful responses to all these reactions but not emotional ones.  Emotional appeal is reserved for accusations along the lines the Journal outlines.

Cultural liberalism isn't the handicap the editorial proposes.  Most Americans are open-minded about the issues and have proven again and again that their attitudes will change.  The problem is rather that the Democratic party doesn't know how to be anything but slef-righteous about its platform.  And if you want people to think, you can't start by making them defensive.

Sent from my Blackberry

What to think about W2 - right now

Those on the losing side of the election appear to be struggling with two different responses. Some are pessimists, fearing that W2 will be more of W1. As the New Republic put it:

In their first term, without a popular mandate, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney governed in a radically sectarian manner, in conformity with only the wishes of their hallowed base; and there is no reason to think that the popular mandate that they have now secured for a second term will provoke them to reconsider their virulence and their smallness and their indifference to the evidence of experience beyond their own.

Others are more hopeful. Andrew Sullivan writes:

I've been more than a little frustrated by the president's handling of this war in the past year; but we have to draw a line under that now. The past is the past. And George W. Bush is our president. He deserves a fresh start, a chance to prove himself again, and the constructive criticism of those of us who decided to back his opponent. He needs our prayers and our support for the enormous tasks still ahead of him. He has mine. Unequivocally.

I'll have much more to say on this, but it appears to me that the Democrats - or any other political opposition - have little to lose at the moment by giving Bush the benefit of the doubt.

More about who voted for whom, and why

The Wall Street Journal,.whose coverage of the election today should get some kind of prize (seriously), shows the results of exit polls by Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool.

Their findings fall into two groups: various groupings and how important certain issues are.

The non-urban presidential mandate

Looking at the red and blue map last night, I noticed that nearly all the places I was likely to live went with Kerry. The entire Northeast, the entire Pacific Coast, and places like Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Since I figured the division between states is more or less arbitrary, I decided to take a closer look.

The National Association of Counties lists members of the Large Urban County Caucus, about 100 counties, representing (they say) 130 million Americans, or about half the total.

With some minor adjustments, I analyzed the election returns of 102 large, urban counties. All told, they cast nearly 42 million votes out of 107 million nationwide votes (I did this analysis while other returns were still coming in, so the numbers aren't final) that went to either Bush or Kerry.

By popular vote, these counties preferred Kerry over Bush 57% to 43%. 66 of the 102 counties had a majority for Kerry. The lowest percentage Kerry got was 33% (in Kern County, California), and the highest was 91% (Washington, DC). It follows that Bush's highest percentage was 67% and lowest was 9%. Kerry's median in these counties was 54%; Kerry's was 46%.

In 73 of the 102 urban areas, Kerry got a higher percentage than he got in that state's returns.

It follows that the remaining thousands of non-large-urban counties voted overwhelmingly for Bush and made the difference for the election.

Implications?

EN: 6:35 am reflections

My models made two mistakes:

- I assumed that the pre-election pollsters failed to build in the effects of the large turnout. It remains to be seen whether they did built it in, or whether Bush supporters and Kerry supporters were equally represented in each.

- I assumed that the exit polls referenced by Slate were good predictions. Exit polls usually are, but we were warned that those - and all other polls - have become less reliable this election.

Bush has - with good reason - claimed that he's won. The networks still hold out on Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin. This may take quite some time, because now absentee ballots, law suits, etc., are coming into the mix. Let's hope state election boards have their SOPs in order.

I think Bush may be right, but I can't blame Kerry for advising patience. This election will reinforce what happened in 2000, that every vote counts. That in itself is good for American democracy.

I believe these two elections show a trend.

EN: 10:36 pm

The networks are making projections for everything but the battleground states. CBS puts Bush ahead 196 to Kerry's 112, but nothing so far is different from what was expected. My model has 239 electoral votes to Kerry to Bush's 197. This is because I'm going with the exit polls published in Slate, and they're getting old.

I'm pretty confident Bush will win Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Utah. Kerry is likely to win California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. If this and the Slate exit polls hold, Kerry will get 316 electoral votes.

I suspect the networks are holding back on publishing exit polls for a couple of reasons: one is that in the battleground states polling is still going on, because there were long lines. The less charitable explanation is that they want viewers glued to the sets, 'cause I got to say there are lots of commercials.

EN: 8:56 pm

There's an alumni network for my former employer, the now-defunct consulting firm Viant. I put up four polls about the election. Here are the results:

1. Who will be the next president?
- Bush, unfortunately: 35%
- Bush, fortunately: 8%
- John Kerry, unfortunately: 11%
- John Kerry, fortunately: 46%
Giving Kerry, the edge with 57%

2. Who will win the popular vote?
- Bush: 27%
- Kerry: 70%
- Nader: 3%

3. Who will win the electoral vote?
- Bush: 40%
- Kerry: 60%

4. How will the election, in the end, be decided?
- Electoral college, without any problem: 45%
- Electoral college, after court ruling(s): 45%
- Another American revolution: 10%

P.S. Pataki is now acting upbeat, saying that "democracy is always a great thing." Not an optimistic omen for his party. Apparently, the Republicans are losing representatives.

EN: 8:32 pm

Based on exit polls published in Slate, I have 172 electoral votes going to Kerry, 46 to Bush. So far, I've been wrong on three states: Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. I thought they'd go to Bush, but now it looks like they'll go to Kerry.