Demographic sub-group watch

I know you’ve heard plenty about those trendy demographic sub-groups that political scientists get excited about — [tag]NASCAR dads[/tag], [tag]soccer moms[/tag], office-park dads, [tag]security moms[/tag], wired workers, freelance evangelicals, etc. The groups probably get a little more attention than they deserve, but from a poli sci perspective, I nevertheless enjoy keeping an eye on them.

And right now, they’re all backing away from the GOP, some faster than others.

“Security moms,” for example, is used to describe married women with younger children. Particularly in the aftermath of 9/11, it’s a constituency Republicans have counted on to keep their congressional majorities, but in recent months, they’ve largely given up on the [tag]GOP[/tag].

This critical group of swing voters — who are an especially significant factor in many of the most competitive suburban districts on which control of Congress will hinge — is more inclined to vote [tag]Democrat[/tag]ic than at any point since Sept. 11, 2001, according to data compiled for The Washington Post by the Pew Research Center.

Married mothers said in interviews here that they remain concerned about national security and the ability of Democrats to keep them safe from terrorist strikes. But surveys indicate Republicans are not benefiting from this phenomenon as they have before.

Disaffection with President Bush, the Iraq war, and other concerns such as rising gasoline prices and economic anxiety are proving more powerful in shaping voter attitudes.

In 2002, security moms supported Republicans, 53% to 36%. In 2004, 56% of them backed Bush. As of now, they support Dems, 50% to 38%.

In my favorite anecdote from the WaPo piece, the paper quoted Marylee McCallister, a mother of three who was a [tag]Republican[/tag] for 42 years until this April. She said she voted for Bush because she believed his warnings that the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), would weaken the nation.

“I was dumb,” she said. “Now, granted, they came here and rammed bombs into us, but I am afraid we have gotten into something full scale which perhaps did not have to be.”

How bad is it? Even NASCAR dads are increasingly up for grabs.

The term “NASCAR dads” is shorthand for blue-collar, mostly white, southern men who support the U.S. military, like to hunt and enjoy watching cars race around asphalt tracks at speeds of up to 200 mph.

While politicians focused on NASCAR’s core in 2004, some polls indicate cracks may be appearing in the overall fan base of an estimated 75 million people.

Polling by Zogby International in August found that while more than half of NASCAR fans voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, 56 percent now say the country is on the wrong track.

Almost one-third of NASCAR fans now intend to vote for Democrats in congressional races this fall, similar to the number planning to vote Republican, according to the Zogby poll. According to political analysts, this has occurred despite no significant increase in Democratic campaigning aimed at this group.

If Dems have really pulled even with Republicans on a generic ballot with NASCAR dads, it’s likely to be a very good year.

“NASCAR dads” has to be the most politically correct way of describing that demographic.

  • Voters can be really stupid. If Americans were capable of casting their vote along class lines — as in most of Europe — we’d be 99 % Democrat. Somehow they think, or feel, that if the “better” people get to run things we’ll all be better off. A holdover from when the “better” people were churchmen or aristocrats or robber barons. Marx called it “false consciousness”, he was right about that.

    Voters need to ask themselves one question: “Do you work for a living?” Working for a living cuts across and under “ASCAR dads, soccer moms, office-park dads, security moms, wired workers, freelance evangelicals, etc.” Well, I don’t know about tax-evading evangelicals.

  • Not sure how many of you live in the midwest, but from my experience a NASCAR Dad = a redneck who barely graduated high school, still has a mullet, thinks those coloreds should have their own stuff, isn’t so sure that Jeff Gordon is straight, believes Larry the Cable Guy is a true artist, and would be happy as hell if we just bombed all them damned ragheads into oblivion.

    I dunno … maybe that’s just the Kansas City version …

  • I’ve always wondered about the utility of these ‘demographic sub-groups’. Unless they are a cohesive enough definition that you can target political advertising and move a portion of them to win an election, it seems like post-game analysis more than pre-game planning.

    “Voters need to ask themselves one question: ‘Do [I] work for a living?'” – Ed Stephan

    I understand completely what you are trying to say here. Lots of Americans seem to vote against their own economic interest because they vote Republican’t. And it is certainly true that over the last six years Republican’ts have proven they are the tools of the Super-Rich and the Envious-Rich (such as Dick Cheney). Even their slogan, “Ownership Society”, proves how they devalue work versus wealth. But the essence of Politics is to take two issues that have nothing to do with each other and conflate them is such a way that you draw people to assume self-destructive positions because they value one policy over another.

    For instance, the Iraqi war and the Al Qaeda attacks.

    And when you get down to it, the Democratic party as a lot of conflated issues that make us seem rather unpalatable to about thirty percent of Americans. And after all, what’s the point of being moderately well off and healthy if someone has taken your hunting rifle away and told you that you can’t watch NASCAR anymore because it’s a waste of resources and is spewing Carbon Dioxide into the air?

    Marx did not understand that people did not value their lives on the same scale he wished they would, which is why he came up with the world’s stupidist political/economic system.

  • Unholy,

    Like Pearl Jammin’ said, and I agree, it best describes that group.

    Here are my questions to “security moms” who still support the war in Iraq:

    If it’s necessary for the US to have a military draft, would you support it?
    If not, why?

    If your child decides they want to join the military, would you support their decision, or not?
    If not, why?

    This question could go to NASCAR dad, also

  • You’ve also got to take into account that the demographics of NASCAR fans has changed as well.

    As far as NASCAR fans being a euphamism for redneck, I bristle a bit. It sounds elitist. I think groups of people just want to be served and recognized, and in some ways it’s not their fault that the GOP has focused on racist/homophobic tendencies, tendencies you could just as easily find in a college campus fraternity or a major corporation in a large city. Let’s not get sucked into the culture war – it’s largely bogus anyway. The Dems have been ignoring wide swaths of people for some time now.

  • 2Manchu’s questions are spot-on. But I’d be curious to see which sub-groups still think Saddam was involved in 9/11 and had WMDs.

    It’s good to see they’re turning against Bush, but their inability to discern reality is still very dangerous.

  • security moms are backing away from bush? sure. my mom was not a big fan of nixon – she had four little potential vietnam draftees if that war kept going. might be some of the same going on with iraq.

  • “Marx did not understand that people did not value their lives on the same scale he wished they would, which is why he came up with the world’s stupidist political/economic system. ” – Lance (#4)

    Where exactly did you get the idea that Marx valued life on a scale different from other people? To be frank, I’m not sure what that sentence means, but as far as I know he quoted all the classical economists cited by “capitalist” theoreticians. See “An American Looks at Karl Marx” (William Blake, 1939). Blake was an speculator in agricultural stocks who concluded that Marx did pretty fair job of explaining how he got rich.

    Even more important, where exactly, did Marx come up with “the world’s stupidest political/economic system”? He wrote extensive analyses of the conflicts and fate of “free market” capitalism (which really only existed in theory anyway). But, so far as I know, he never got into the nuts and bolts of the system which could conceivably replace it. His death pre-dated the modern corporation.

  • “From every man by his means. To every man by his needs.”

    Am I getting that quote right Ed?

    “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

    That one I’m a lot surer about.

    “A bayonet is a weapon with a worker on either end of it.”

    Lenin I think.

    Let’s see. Communism did not stop World War One. People do not surrender their religions that easily (and most have re-adopted them since the fall of the Soviet Empire). And people do not work to cloth their neighbor’s children.

    Ed, if you are not going to credit Marx with Marxism, then I don’t know what to say.

  • Lance (#9), you forgot “the specter of communism”; I think that’s the one that got US’ knickers in a twist more than any other of the pronouncements 🙂

    I agree with Ed that Marx’s social philosophy/economy per se wasn’t at all stupid. Just limited to what was available to him at the time. And some of it even stood the test of time, like his claim that the “base” (material side of life) trumped the “superstructure” (culture, religion, ideology) when it came to the nitty-gritty of everyday life.

    It was the *application* — by Lenin, post WWI — that threw the monkey wrench into the whole. Lenin (like Bush, to an extent), decided that ideology should rule supreme; that people should be trimmed to fit a precconceived idea instead of trying to trim ideas to the nature of the people. He began to change that POV a bit later on (1926 “New Plan”) but didn’t live long enough to implement *that* theory. Then came “the man of steel”, Stalin. Who, having got himself rid of Trotsky (who might have followedd in Lenin’s later-life footsteps), followed the “early-Lenin mantra” and made everyone’s cake dough again…

    But that has little to do with original Marxist thought (which, in itself, went through several changes, even without the future “revisions” a la Lenin, Stalin, Mao). Nor did Marxism have any bearing on WWI, one way or another (where did you pull “Communism did not stop World War One” from?); how could it have?

  • Why did these people vote for Bush on SECURITY, was he not the president when the towers were hit? Where was he? Where was Rummy, oh, completely “uninformed” that is the standby excuse- and gee, to think that Rummy was the only one able to give “shoot down orders” according to a protocol change on 6.01.01 on military shoot down orders, you can look it up, Where is the security? Old fashioned police work stopped the terrorist caught last week, not the NSA “spying on Americans” program. How long did it take for the “Nascar Dads” and “Security Moms” to figure out that we are not secure with these crooks, we are unsafe because of them. It seems to be more profitable that way. The president who says things like he is doing Gods work! Do people of faith not know that that is BLASPHEMY in it’s purest form! These guys are only available for empty “photo ops” and fast food “sound bites” and “scare tactics” to keep people from thinking. Killers are going to get you…Hate us for our freedom… NSA FREEDOM FRIES ANYONE? I guess that is what works for people with short attention spans. ..if you are still reading, you have made much improvement, or you were smart and did not vote for BUSH!! Blood on their hands for those that voted for Bush in 2004 and 2001 too. Why the sudden change in perspective? Maybe they changed their minds because of the non response to Katrina. At least Bush could have dropped water bottles at the superdome with all of his military might” Oh thats right, the President was “uninformed” of the seriousness of the situation, But everyone in the US knew days before he did. It is called TELEVISION, you can usually find one in every room, even on the ranch. Just like on 9/11 everyone seemed to know the seriousness of the situation except the chief. Why was his “whole staff” with him on 9/11 for a “reading” at an elementary school in florida? If there is no money to be made, the president and his people do not respond!! Only their actions after the fact seems to keep them benefitting “financially” from every situation. HMMM very interesting. Well now the voters are finally getting it! Many lives were lost before they figured it out, I guess that little hole in the paper ballot really does mean “life or death”. When your side is full of ignorant blind faithers, and concienceless conservativo’s, I guess the sinking ship, besides the fact that it is sinking, feels pretty hollow……. Also our leader being conveniently “uninformed” at our nations peril feels pretty SCARY too….and a little too unSECURE even for the most ignorant and simple minded… “Freedom Fries Anyone? Please Pass the Catch-up!” DUH AND Of Course:
    “No One likes war, but the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leader, all you have to do is make them think that they are being ATTACKED and call the Pacifists UNPATRIOTIC It works the same in every country.” Georing, one of HITLERS henchmen said this very thing. Nationalism is a good thing, so get your flag and carry it high, but if you carry it low, to the level that it blinds your view, you have lost it forever……

  • Comments are closed.