Meet ‘Starbucks Republicans’

December 6, 2005

You’ve no doubt heard about the trendy demographic sub-groups that political scientists get excited about. We’ve seen NASCAR Dads, soccer moms, office-park dads, security moms, wired workers, freelance evangelicals, and others. For 2006, there’s a new one — meet “Starbucks Republicans.”

This time around, Florida-based Democratic pollster Dave Beattie has his eye on “Starbucks Republicans” as a bloc of swing voters who could decide next year’s midterm elections.

Even before the 2004 presidential election was decided, Beattie was affixing that label to the independent-minded voters who populate high-growth areas in the South and West. They are the individuals who agonized before ultimately backing President Bush over Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and the voters House and Senate Democrats must win over in order to make significant gains in next year’s elections.

“They’re people who have weaker partisan ties. They tend to be fiscally moderate, [like] low taxes but budget deficits really bother them. They tend to be younger. They go to church but they do not vote on religion first, particularly in exurban areas,” Beattie said, listing the defining characteristics of this latte-sipping segment of the electorate.

“Democrats have to win them back,” he added. “We have to be able to win them back to be competitive. It’s why suburban areas become a big part of a battleground.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea that Dems should work to appeal to these kinds of voters, but I’m a little skeptical about all these labels to describe a fairly small segment of the overall electorate. After, couldn’t Beattie’s description of “Starbucks Republicans” apply pretty well to office-park dads and security moms? Young, religious but not fanatical voters in GOP-leaning suburbs and fast-growing outlying areas — sounds like a sub-group that could be described by almost any of the trendy subgroup labels.

For what it’s worth, if we follow the definition, these “Starbucks Republicans” broke party ranks last month. They voted against Schwarzenegger’s ballot initiatives, and they backed Virginia’s Gov.-elect Tim Kaine (D) despite Republican targeting.

If “Starbucks Republicans” exist, they don’t seem to be thrilled with their party right now.

There is another simple name that covers all of these groups—SUCKERS.

  • Beattie’s right, this unique demo does exist – but so what, this is also a demo that rarely votes except maybe, and it’s a big maybe, when there’s a presidential election. Let’s revisit this topic in late 2007.

  • I share your scepticism about labeling these subgroups and sub-subgroups, CB. I think these labels are less an effort to woo potential voters and more a marketing effort aimed at political campaigns on behalf of political consultants.

    Perhaps Democrats should take a hard look at the win-loss election record of the consultants peddling gimmicky labels for ever elusive groups of voters. Electoral success of campaign staff and consultants should matter more than witty catchphrases.

  • what settled the election in 2004 was that 60K voters in Ohio decided on Bush instead of Kerry. i doubt that any of them was a “Starbucks Republican.”

  • howard, you sure Ohio wasn’t decided by the multitude of districts reporting Bush receiving anywhere between 100 – 1500% of the vote? hehe ; ) (and sadly, no Democrat standing up and calling bs on a situation even worse than FL 2000)

    • Comments are closed.