Every couple of years, we hear about a new demographic that will be critical in the next election. Soccer moms and office-park dads were all-the-rage, but lately, NASCAR dads have been enjoying plenty of attention.
The whole point of labeling these groups is to isolate constituencies that are willing to back either party’s candidates. You’ll never hear about the drive to woo the all-important “secularists with post-graduate degrees” vote because everyone already knows their inclinations. The key is to find an easily identifiable group that a party can reach out to and whose votes are up for grabs.
NASCAR dads, if you believe the hype, are married, working class white guys, between the ages of 30 and 50, with limited education who live outside of big cities. They identify with the GOP on social issues (abortion, gay rights, government-sponsored religion, guns), but may be open to Dems on economic concerns (job security, health care, education, union rights).
The estimable Ruy Teixeira at Emerging Democratic Majority wrote a great explanation yesterday as to why NASCAR dads may be getting lots of ink, but they remain one group that candidates, particularly Dems, would be wise not to consider “swing voters.”
For example, Gary Langer, ABC News’ polling director, has concluded that NASCAR dads are a very small percentage of the larger voting population, which, more importantly, rarely change their party preference.
When we run data from our recent polls we find that married, middle- and lower-income white men account for a single-digit share of the national population, and support President Bush in precisely the same proportion as all white men. (Make it rural white men, and it goes down to low single digits.) And white men, particularly Southern white men, are a solidly Republican group, highly unlikely to swing anywhere, anyhow.
For good measure, we checked rural, suburban or small city married white men with children and incomes under $50,000 in the 2000 exit poll. They accounted for 2 percent of all voters, and supported Bush over Gore by 70 percent to 27 percent. You really want to call this a swing voter group?
Actually, no, I don’t.
Likewise, Teixeira noted that National Journal’s Charlie Cook doesn’t understand the publicity NASCAR dads get, either.
[T]his business about the “NASCAR dad” being the swing voter group of the 2004 election, or any other national election, is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve heard in my 32 years in and around politics. In NASCAR fans, we are talking about an overwhelmingly white, disproportionately male and Southern electorate. It’s also disproportionately working- and middle-class, and in the 30-39 year age bracket, the age group where Bush is strongest.
Don’t get me wrong — these are terrific, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth type people. But any group that is disproportionately white, male, Southern, working- and middle-class 30-somethings is not made up of swing voters.
That second point is important. I’m not disparaging people who may be characterized as NASCAR dads; I’m merely pointing out that they shouldn’t be considered a swing voting group. I’d like nothing more than to see voters in this group put aside their worries that Dems are going to take their guns away and join the Dems. They’ve been voting GOP for decades, but Republicans have done little to improve their communities, their schools, their wages, and their access to quality health care.
The point is, however, that right now, these voters are putting social concerns over economic interests. I wish that weren’t the case, but as long as it is, I’m rejecting the NASCAR dad hype.