Fiorina's sorting theory is certainly an interesting one, but in the end, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in the modern day it's not exactly provable.
The example of the Reconstruction-era conservative democrats is certainly a vivid one, but that same trend doesn't necessarily even mean 'misindentification' it means that when a party supported some, but not all, of the positions a voter favored they had to pick some over the other.
In 2008 the republican party lost significant holdings, especially in states that Bush had cleaned out in 2004 and 2000. But does that mean voters 'misidentified' to switch to the democratic side? Or does it mean that the positions of the Republican party changed? Does it mean voter disillusionment with the policies of the party or with Bush as a person making them discard their actual preferences?
Truth is it may be some of all of these, Bush/Kerry was close to a 50/50 split, Bush/Gore was even closer, Obama had a 7.2% lead over McCain. This clearly shows some people switched camps, but the final effect of this on the sorting theory is inconclusive because McCain didn't toe the party line strictly, Obama did moreso, so it's impossible to say if McCain's deviation cost him. In addition the democratic party overall gained tremendously, a near-bulletproof majority in both houses, meaning it's clear the nation swung, the WHY of that swing, however, is not conclusive and has as many reasons as there are swich voters. The change in the Republican party under Bush's tenure easily could account for the loss of support, if they've lost voters it can be argued changes in policy and practice made them no longer a good ideological match.
1 comment:
Although i said, his argument was provable, you do bring up valid points that can prove my thoughts wrong. I do think that voters switched to the Democratic side because of their actual preferences.
Post a Comment