The Reemerging Reagan Majority

There’s a recognizable pattern to Bush’s current lead over Gore. It’s the center-right coalition that President Reagan put together in the 1980s. President Clinton shattered it in 1992 and 1996. But GOP pollster Whit Ayres says “the old Reagan coalition is the underlying dynamic” of the 2000 presidential race. “It is being reconstructed. The kind of people who were attracted to Reagan’s hopeful and optimistic style are being attracted to George Bush.” Vin Weber, the former Republican congressman, says what is emerging is either “a natural Republican majority” or the next best thing, “a natural Republican plurality.”

Republicans shouldn’t get too excited yet. Polls today are only a snapshot of a potential majority for Bush. And even that doesn’t appear in every poll. Newsweek’s survey in late June put Bush a percentage point behind Gore. Whatever advantage Bush has could fade if the Gore campaign picks up. Gore, says Weber, might be able to “end run that Republican majority” by attacking Bush as too inexperienced to be president. Bush’s support among seniors, Hispanics, women, and other groups may erode as traditional Democrats return to the fold. And there’s a fact to remember: In three of the last five presidential races, the candidate who won in November was trailing at this stage (Reagan in 1980, Bush Sr. in 1988, Clinton in 1992).

Yet the pattern of the electorate that’s gradually emerged since Bush and Gore cinched their parties’ nominations in March is both intriguing and familiar. For one thing, a presidential candidate is pulling his less popular party up. Reagan did this in 1980 and 1984. Now Bush runs well ahead of a generic Republican presidential candidate or congressional candidate in polls. “Bush is carrying the Republicans right now,” says pollster John Zogby, who’s dubious a GOP majority is emerging. “If Bush flags or fails in any way, it threatens the Republican vote.” Republican candidates for the House must be ready for that, says Jim Wilkinson of the National Republican Congressional Committee. For now, Wilkinson says, “Bush without a doubt is creating a climate for us to do well. We believe he will have coattails.”

Bush’s strength among men is truly Reaganesque. He led Gore by 23 percentage points among men in the bipartisan Battleground Poll in mid-June and 16 points in the Los Angeles Times survey in May. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the gender gap — the disparity between how men and women vote — that first cropped up with Reagan in 1980 was not caused by women drifting away from the GOP. “It’s mostly about men, and how guys disproportionately have dumped the Democrats and turned their affections to the Republican party,” according to Richard Morin, director of polling for the Washington Post. Fred Steeper, Bush’s pollster, insists the bigger the gender gap, the better for Republicans. “It means the men are there in full force.” At the moment, Steeper says, Bush “is close to maxing out on men.” He’s also running even with Gore among women, well above average for a Republican candidate.

Zogby, whose national poll gives Bush a 47 percent to 39 percent lead, has pinpointed a particular male voter who’s surprisingly pro-Bush. This is the baby boom father, age 35 to 54. Zogby says such men are “the first group of men who’ve nurtured their kids.” They’re the sensitive types who are political independents, and they comprise 6 or 7 percent of the electorate. “It’s a group that should be with Gore,” the pollster says. Instead, he trails Bush by 17 points. Why is Bush doing so well? “He’s bridged the gap on the softer issues like education,” Zogby says.

Another feature of the Reagan coalition was the “family gap,” the tendency of married voters to be more conservative and to vote Republican. In the Battleground Poll, Bush led Gore 53 percent to 38 percent among marrieds. The Los Angeles Times puts his lead at 26 points among married men and 14 points among married females. Mary Leonard of the Boston Globe wrote recently that Gore “has fallen into a yawning ‘marriage gap’ that is mostly about morality, somewhat about his masculinity, minimally about issues, and, if not reversed, could doom him on Election Day.” The flip side is that Gore is ahead of Bush 53 percent to 38 percent among singles. But single voters make up only 20 percent of the electorate.

Morality is aiding Bush among senior citizens. He topped Gore 57 percent to 36 percent among voters age 65 and over in the Battleground Poll and 47 percent to 41 percent in the latest CNN poll. This is shocking since the elderly used to tilt Democratic. (The Los Angeles Times poll has Gore narrowly leading among seniors.) However, when Democrats made a massive effort to capture the House in 1996 and 1998, they were thwarted by seniors, a majority of whom voted for GOP congressional candidates. Gore may win back some elderly by stressing Social Security and Medicare. But Democratic pollster Alan Secrest says seniors have become less susceptible to shrill attacks on Republicans on these issues. “They’re more discerning,” he says. They’ve also been disproportionately turned off by Clinton’s moral lapses and scandals. This “makes it difficult for some groups [such as the elderly] to default their way back to Gore,” Secrest says.

By definition, Bush needs Reagan Democrats if he’s going to revive the Reagan coalition. Many of them are white Catholics in the industrial belt from New Jersey to Illinois — precisely the group that Bush’s compassionate conservatism is supposed to attract. So far, so good for Bush. In the Battleground Poll, he’s ahead 54 percent to 36 percent among Reagan Democrats and 53 percent to 42 percent among Catholics.

The question now is whether Bush can hold his coalition together as Reagan did. He has a couple of things working against him. Reagan started out with California, the state with the most electoral votes, and Bush isn’t likely to win there. And Reagan had Jimmy Carter’s poor economic record and inability to stop Soviet expansionism as fruitful issues. Now, Gore can brag about the Clinton administration’s economic performance, and the Cold War is over. Still, Bush has Reagan’s geniality and optimism and a softer version of Reagan’s conservatism. That may be enough.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.