Steve Waldman: September 2008 Archives

The Democrats are running this new ad based on a New York Times article describing McCain's close relationship with the gambling industry. The Democrats are using this as a metaphor -- as in don't gamble with the country's economy -- and a way of highlighting his ties to lobbyists.

But color me cynical for having another thought: did Obama mention this in order to spread the idea that McCain likes to literally gamble. In many states, grassroots Christian groups have worked against slots and lotteries. The religious conservatives, never enthralled with McCain, can't be thrilled about this:

"Senator John McCain was on a roll. In a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, he tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table. When the marathon session ended around 2:30 a.m., the Arizona senator and his entourage emerged with thousands of dollars in winnings....

"For much of his adult life, Mr. McCain has gambled as often as once a month, friends and associates said, traveling to Las Vegas for weekend betting marathons. Former senior campaign officials said they worried about Mr. McCain's patronage of casinos, given the power he wields over the industry. The officials, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity....

"The former official said he would tell Mr. McCain: 'Do we really have to go to a casino? I don't think it's a good idea. The base doesn't like it. It doesn't look good. And good things don't happen in casinos at midnight.'

"'You worry too much,' Mr. McCain would respond, the official said."

For now, he'll try to get the story circulating without denouncing gambling per se.

Remember the headlines after the 2004 election about how millions of voters pulled the lever based on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage? This year, thanks to the economic problems, even those "values voters" care less about values.

This came through clearly the new Twelve Tribes study by Beliefnet and Prof. John Green of the University of Akron. (Click here for the full Twelve Tribes lowdown).

Overall, the Twelve Tribes survey indicated that just 13% of voters now listed moral issues as their primary concern, half the percentage who did in 2004.

Among members of the Religious Right, the percentage emphasizing social issues plummeted from 50.7% to 37.2%, while the portion emphasizing the economy rose from 18% to 40%. Among the Heartland Culture Warriors - a Tribe consisting of conservative Catholics, conservative mainline Protestants and Mormons -- 57% now list the economy first, compared to 28% in 2004.

And, significantly, among Latinos - almost half of whom worship weekly - the emphasis on the economy has skyrocketed from 48% up to 61%. The pattern was repeated among crucial swing Tribes such as Convertible Catholics and Moderate Evangelicals.

Notably, the survey that formed the basis for the Twelve Tribes was conducted this summer, before the most recent financial crisis. If anything the primacy of economic issues has grown since then.

This creates huge opportunity for Barack Obama to win over voters who might otherwise find him too liberal on social issues.

But Democrats can easily misread this data. Many of the swing voters care more about the economy but have not moved to the left in terms of what they want done. For instance, 26% of Convertible Catholics wanted fewer government services; now 38% do. The economic message needs therefore to be one about more jobs and lower taxes, not about more government social programs. There's still a lot of residual suspicion about big government liberalism, possibly even more now than four years ago.

Democrats would also be wise, then, to also counter the notion that they're old style liberals. Obama has done this so far primarily by proposing a tax cut and, to some degree, by talking about his religion. What he's lacked is a cultural conservative issue. Bill Clinton in 1992 helped win over these voters by talking about fighting crime and ending welfare "as we know it." Obama occasionally talks about the importance of fathers being more involved in their families, but has had no easy-to-recall issue that convinces "swing tribes" that he's not a cultural liberal. That's a problem for any Democrat but may bei articularly risky for a liberal, African American from Chicago.

Adapted from Steven Waldman's column at WSJ.com. For more on the Twelve Tribes click here.

In the past I've written that the basic dilemma for Moderate Evangelicals and centrist Catholics has been that they're liberal on the war and other issues but conservative on the social issues. They're reluctant to pull the lever for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate like Obama

Well, I'd like to revise my view. The new Twelve Tribes study shows that a sizable chunk of these evangelicals and Catholics are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and have moved in that direction.

For instance, while only 14% of Moderate Evangelicals call themselves "liberal," a stunning 46% of them now say they are pro-choice, compared to 41% in 2004. They are coming very close to the national average which is at 52%.  This same trend is occuring for positions on gay marriage.

And what of Convertible Catholics? 51% called themselves pro-choice in 2004; now 55% do. The coverage of the Bishops' views on abortion can lead us to forget that this pivotal swing bloc of Catholics is now more pro choice than the population as a whole.

In other words, being pro-choice should not preclude a Democrat making sizable headway among Moderate Evangelicals or Convertible Catholics.

However, Obama was actually underperforming among both in the summer of 2008, according to this poll. If he were winning all of the pro-choice evangelicals, he'd be getting 46% of the Moderate Evangelicals, instead of the 37% he actually was getting. If he was getting all of the pro-choice Catholics, he'd be getting 55% instead of the 40%.

That may mean they're pro-choice but view Obama as a pro-choice "extremist" or simply that they have the reasons they don't like him.

More on the Twelve Tribes study here.

Based on the new Twelve Tribes study, there are three groups that hover in the middle: Whitebread Protestant, Moderate Evangelicals and Convertible Catholics. In some ways, they're ripe targets for the Democrats in 2008: All of them have turned against the Iraq war, all of them care more about the economy than they used to, and two of them (Moderate Evangelicals and Convertible Catholics) have become more pro choice and more pro gay marriage.

However, all three have actually moved to the right on the critical issue of whether to have more government services. That would indicate that economic anxiety has led them to be more suspicious that bigger government would hurt rather than help them. Obama's emphasis on tax cuts and McCain's emphasis on cutting spending both would appeal to these groups.

In the survey, conducted by Prof. John Green of the University of Akron, respondents were asked whether they wanted to have fewer government services "and reduce spending accordingly" or the more services. The percentages saying they wanted fewer services and less spending:

• Convertible Catholics: 2004: 26%, 2008: 38%
• Whitebread Protestants: 2004: 31%, 2008: 37%
• Moderate Evangelicals: 2004: 23%, 2008: 39%

These voters may harbor lingering doubts that a liberal Democrat from up north - an African American no less - will end up raising taxes to promote social programs.

We tend to think of the campaign battles as being the quest for those on the middle of the political spectrum. But there's another place candidates forage. The very Republican and very Democratic groups nonetheless have dissenters in their midst.

For instance, in 2004, 20% of the Religious Right were Democrats, and 31% of the Religious Left were Republican, according to the Twelve Tribes study. These dissenters sometimes found themselves in an awkward situation: they were voting one way while their peers and spiritual kindred spirits were voting a different way. This makes them a ripe target because the power of peer-pressure can help solidify key party constituencies.

We saw this happen in the Republican party from 2000 to 2004. Republicans saw a steady movement of dissenters switching to the majority view of their group. For instance, in 2000 the Republicans won 62% of the Heartland Conservatives. In 2004, they won 72%. In 2000, 84% of Religious Right voters went Republican. In 2004, 88% did. That's a lot of votes

According to the new Twelve Tribe study, we've seen a similar consolidation on the Democratic side.

Percent identifying as Democrats in the summer of 2008:

• Religious Left: 2004: 51%, 2008: 63%
• Spiritual Not Religious: 2004: 51%, 2008: 63%
• Latinos: 2004: 54%, 2008: 62%
• Muslims and others: 55%, 2008: 69%
• African Americans: 2004: 71%, 2008: 83%

Meanwhile, the most conservative groups have remained just as Republican but don't have much room to go a whole lot higher.

In all, this means the Tribes have become more polarized by party, with seven clearly leaning Democratic, two massively favoring Republicans, and three straddling the middle (moderate evangelicals, whitebread protestants, convertible Catholics)

(More on the Twelve Tribes here)