WHERE HAVE ALL the swing voters gone? The conventional answer is that the nation has become politically polarized and swing voters have taken sides. There’s some truth in this, but there’s a better explanation. In disproportionate numbers, swing voters have become Republicans over the past three decades. And though the trend accelerated after the 2000 election and 9/11 terrorist attacks, it’s scarcely been mentioned in the 2004 presidential race. But it’s playing an enormously important role this year. It gives President Bush political options John Kerry doesn’t have. And it makes Bush’s reelection more likely.
The new Republican strength means Bush can rely heavily on his base, especially since Republicans are lopsidedly in favor of his reelection. Kerry can’t depend as much on his base because Democratic voters are less solidly behind him. Bush can appeal to his base without alienating what’s left of swing voters. He manages this by stressing a positive message. But the Democratic base is far more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, so Kerry must nurture it with vehement attacks on the president. The problem is that swing voters tend to be attracted by positive appeals, not negative assaults.
The shift in swing voters to the Republican party appears in poll after poll. Postelection surveys in 1988 showed 42 percent of voters identified themselves as Republicans or Republican leaners. By 2002, Republican ID had risen to 48.5 percent, as independents dropped from 16 percent to 7 percent. Democratic ID, by the way, also rose, but by a smaller amount–from 42 percent to 45.5 percent. ABC News poll numbers show Republicans plus leaners increasing from 37 percent in 1981 to 43 percent in 2003, as Democrats fell from 50 percent to 46 percent. However, independents decreased only from 9 percent to 8 percent. Why didn’t independents decline more? Republican strategists argue–credibly, I think–there’s often a two-step transition in party-switching. Democrats become independents, as independents (including many former Democrats) become Republicans.
Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, says he doesn’t know if swing voters are drifting to the Republican party. But Gallup numbers certainly suggest it. Among registered voters, the percentage saying they’d consider voting for someone besides their preferred candidate plummeted from 62 percent in June 1992 all the way to 18 percent in June 2004. During this period, Gallup found Republican ID had risen in 41 states, from a jump of 13 percentage points in Missouri to one percentage point in Iowa. Democratic ID rose in only 6 states.
Both Gallup and the Pew Center have found the number of solid Republican states growing, a phenomenon that wouldn’t occur unless swing voters were moving. Gallup listed 7 Republican states in 1993, 20 in 2003. “Swing states tilted nearly as Democratic as the Blue (Gore) states in the late 1990s,” Pew said in a report last November. “Even after the 2000 election, Democrats maintained a 36 percent to 31 percent advantage over Republicans in these states. But after 9/11, this gap closed. Swing states now divide evenly: 33 percent Democratic, 33 percent Republican.” I think it’s safe to say that if swing states are trending Republican, swing voters are too.
Given the trend, it’s clear why Bush and Vice President Cheney have spent so much time campaigning in overwhelmingly Republican areas. The aim is to maximize Republican turnout now that it constitutes a bigger and more important share of the electorate. Over the summer, Bush visited the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, a region he won in 2000 and wants to win by a larger margin in 2004. It was the first presidential trip to the Upper Peninsula since William Howard Taft visited in 1911. Bush and Cheney often campaign in rural areas, many of which are newly Republican. Strategists like Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman believe Republican majorities in numerous states–Missouri, for instance–have been achieved by adding rural swing voters to suburban and exurban voters who were already Republicans.
Some doubt whether swing voters are the primary source of Republican gains. But there’s no dispute over why the party has advanced: Democratic presidents, liberal Democratic candidates, President Reagan, and 9/11. The Republican base grew after 1968, shrunk as a result of Watergate, then surged during Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Democrats led in party identification by 51 percent to 21 percent in 1977. “But with Ronald Reagan in office, the parties drew nearly even by the end of the 1980s,” the Pew report said.
In 1994, a troubled Bill Clinton presidency led to a Republican landslide in which the party captured both houses of Congress and a majority of governorships. Republican ID slipped in the late 1990s to 28 percent (Democrats got 33 percent). “The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and Bush’s response to the attacks, marked a major turning point in party identification,” according to Pew. The shift to Republicans had been broadly spread among demographic groups and includes millions of voters whose first experience in politics was a positive one in the Reagan years.
The lesson for Republicans–and Democrats, for that matter–in this new era is never, ever ignore your base. To run a smart national campaign, a Republican adviser says, “you must at all times be trying to appeal to your base.” As you might expect, Bush operatives are obsessed with this lesson, so much so they’re now concentrating on “convenience voters.” Never heard of them? They’re Republicans or leaners who might skip voting on November 2 because of their jobs or other distractions. There’s no way of knowing exactly who they are, but my guess is many of these folks were once identified as swing voters.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
