On Wed, 3 May 2006, Doug Henwood wrote:
>> Question for Doug and Joel regarding Frank's conclusion that there are
>> immediate political gains to be had by moving leftwards economically:
>> what's his evidence?
>
> None really - a point that's reinforced by Bartels' analysis of the National
> Election Survey numbers.
I don't think this is true. In Bartel's original paper -- where he divides the electorate into third by income -- he says that the lower third -- the working class in his definition -- mainly cares about economic issues and holds economic policy preferences that are to the left of the other two classes. So by that analysis, going left on the economy should have the potential to pull in lots of votes. Especially since this lower third already gives the greatest proportion of it's votes to the Dems already, and it has highest proportion of non-voters. Seems tailor made for a GOTV drive -- if you had the issues that would excite them.
In addition, he concludes that while the middle class (defined by income thirds) has relatively conservative views on the economy, their vote is swayed by social issues more than economic ones. And they are more relatively more progressive.
So if Bartels analyses are true -- and they are kind of surprising -- it seems you wouldn't have to give anything up. If the Dems went more progressive socially and more progressive economically, they should gain in both groups.
Bartels second paper is a less useful starting point, IMHO. In that, he divides the electorate into thirds by education. He says this confuses more than it reveals. And he's right. He only did it for polemical purposes in response to Bartels' response.
Michael