Political Demographics
The election is just over six months away. Political managers are pouring over the figures from the 2000 election. I thought my readers might enjoy the same exercise.

Voters Supporting:
Gore
Bush
Nader
Black
89
8
3
White
42
54
3
Hispanic
67
31
2
Asian
55
41
3
Unmarried Women
63
32
4
All Married
44
53
2
All Not Married
57
38
4
Union Member
59
37
3
Gay
70
25
4
Gun Owner
36
61
2
Protestant
34
63
2
Jewish
79
19
2
Catholic
52
45
2
White Protestants
32
62
3
Black Protestants
95
4
1
Mormons
12
88
0
Republicans
7
91
1
Democrats
85
10
3
Men
42
51
4
Women
49
43
3
18-29
48
46
5
30-44
48
49
2
45-59
48
49
2
60 +
51
47
2
High School Grad
49
48
1
College Grad
45
51
3
Post-Graduate Degree
52
44
3

These demographics may help you understand some of the political games candidates play as they try to influence those voters where they think they have a realistic chance of swaying opinion.

Source: Someone emailed me a list of voter patterns from the 2000 election, but did not give their source. I have looked at previous information from the US government before, and these look fairly accurate (different polling methods will give you slightly different results, but if you see any that are more than 2% different from other polls, let me know). I suspect these figures originally came from the US government, but it is possible someone did their own survey.

 
 
Comments

The most telling point I think is this. My "Rich Uncle" - everyone's got one someplace, I have no fears that I will ever be burdened with his wealth (nor does this bother me), but it's nice to know that someone in the family made it - who has been a solid Republican in National Politics since FDR and the depression - he is a survivor of that and many other things - announced over the Easter family gathering that he felt that our current president had made the worst mess of things that he has seen in many years (going back to the depression), that he feels that we might be on the edge of another such global event unless things change, and that he was NOT voting for President Bush for re-election.

So, in other words, the current republican Leadership has succeeded in alienating people who have been voting solidly Republican for the past 65 years I'd say that they can play all the games that they like, they are in trouble.

His feeling is that the party took power and has simply gone for the $$ without regard for where the chips fall. In short, they made a mess of it, a real mess, and now they are going to pay the price (politically)

These are some of the most comforting words that I have heard of late - I generally consider myself Indipendant and try to vote for the best man/party at the time - I will admit that usually my vote goes to the Democratic side....but i always return to neutral to reserve judgeemnt for the next batch.

I'm defenitley not happy with the current non-Democratic options. (that doesn't mean that I particualraly like the Democratic option, I think that Clark would have been a much better choice, but then I look at issues, not politics) so, there you have it.

"...and so, in the end, we are all fruit"

Posted by: Adm. Tronthor | 04/28/2004 - 02:42 PM

It will indeed be interesting. But your uncle's comments remind me of the polls where Bush loses to an "unnamed Democrat." But this November, Bush will be running against another flawed person.

If the Democrats had picked a more centrist candidate, I think they would have a much better chance than they do with Kerry. Heck, if the Democrats had run Zell Miller, I would have campaigned for him. But instead of running a centrist against Bush, the Democrats picked a very liberal, arrogant, and boring man. Of course, Bush is not that great at speeches either, but its pretty bad when political reporters were joking about Kerry's speeches during the Democratic primaries. As they half-seriously said, "Those who voted for Edwards were the ones who had heard Kerry speak in person."

Posted by: Don Quixote | 04/28/2004 - 02:52 PM

Yes, the parties are looking at their "customers" and targeting their "product" (candidate's message and political adds) more and more precisely.

It would be nice if someone could add data on what fraction each of those categories comprised. How many of the electorate are "Gun Owner" and "Not Gun Owner", what percent are Protestant. Obviously many of them are not independent variables. I am sure the national parties have all that data.

Posted by: Drew | 04/28/2004 - 03:32 PM

Remember in the US we do not have "an election" for President. We have 50 elections, one in each state. What counts is winning enough states.

The other thing the parties are doing is targeting _states_. The Republicans may not expend many resources in California, figuring it will go Democrat regardless, but put a huge effort into Pennsylvania, figuring that _state_ will be close.

I don't know how much all this effort and advertising really matters, though. Televised debates, maybe. But people seem too sophisticated to make their choice for president based on the last political add they saw before going into the voting booth.

Posted by: Drew | 04/28/2004 - 03:43 PM

The other thing the parties are doing is targeting _states_.

Yep, it will be very interesting to see who Kerry picks as a running mate.

If he thinks he has a chance in Florida, he'll pick a Floridian. The four most populous states, in order, are California, Texas, New York, and Florida. California and New York are his to lose. Texas firmly supports Bush. I expect Florida will too, and if Kerry agrees, he will probably pick someone from a key swing state (Ohio, Pennsylvannia, Michigan, or even Missouri).

If Bob Graham hadn't sounded like a complete buffoon during the primaries, he might have been a good pick for Kerry. However, I think he is now perceived as damaged goods.

Posted by: Don Quixote | 04/28/2004 - 04:48 PM

Targetting Florida - HA!

I watch about 1 hour of broadcast TV a day, at most (the 6-7PM News). I see, in that hour, usually 4-6 campaign ads. It is April!

As for my particular feelings at this point (registered Independent):

- Bush has given me a tax rebate and rid the world of one of the nastiest SOBs to ever foul the world with his presence

Kerry - can't seem to make up his mind what his platform is and I've never seen him actually answer a direct question

Yep - at this point it's Arte Johnson's to lose!

Posted by: khobrah | 04/29/2004 - 09:13 AM

Gephardt as a running mate? Gephardt represents a segment of the Democrat Party constituency (Labor Unions, the guy who has a beer while watching Football on TV) that Kerry has trouble connecting with. Is Missouri a swing state?

Posted by: Drew | 04/29/2004 - 10:21 AM

Targeting Florida - HA!

I agree, but I wish more of your neighbors in South Florida were as vehement as you. However, the important issue when selecting a running mate is not Kerry's actual chances of winning Florida. The most important fact is does Kerry believe he has a decent chance to win Florida?

Is Missouri a swing state?

Yes, and if Missouri were more populated, Gephardt would be the obvious choice for Kerry. Gephardt is especially popular with both unions and those in St. Louis (a large chunk of Missouri's population). However, Missouri is only fourteenth in terms of electoral votes (and tied with three other states at that) which is why someone from Ohio, Pennsylvannia, or Michigan is likely. But Gephardt's union pull would help in other states too. I think Kerry would be smart to have Gephardt on his very short list of candidates. Out of the potential VP nominees I have heard mentioned, Gephardt strikes me as adding the most to the ticket.

Posted by: Don Quixote | 04/29/2004 - 11:37 AM

Actualy, my "rich uncle" actualy said that he was going to vote for Kerry - or "who ever those democrats put up"

What I took away from it was that the Republican party had done a bad thing and really pissed off a large portion of its strongest supporters.

The concept of 50 individual elections versus 1 big one is a thing that has perhaps outlived its usefullness. The system might be in need of a change.

I have to laugh when I think back to King Bush I and the election tallies as they were reported. I nearly fell over when the major networks were reporting that "Bush Wins" when only 2% of the vote from only a hand full of precincts in New England had been reported and it was only 4 or 5 PM Eastern Time at the time, heck, that meant that probably 60% of the voters on the left coast hadn't even gone to the poles!!!

I think that if the media were forced to just shut their mouths until the last poles close in Hawaii, we would have a more representative vote tally.

My state is in the process of centralizing the voter regestry - I work for municipal gov in the IT sector, so I'm involved - concidering that there are only 39 cities and towns that they have to central ize, I will be very much surprised if they manage to do it before the November election - let's not even go anyplace near electronic voting!

Well, I've coverd left, right, center, and the back porch stoop here, sorry to be all over the map. This is a good conversation going here.

Posted by: Adm. Tronthor | 05/11/2004 - 10:03 PM
 
 
Send this Post
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):