Swing with me, baby

This morning I ran across a fascinating article on Swing Voters by Mark Gersh which was published in the July 25, 2004 edition of the DLC/NDOL magazine, Blue Print.

One thing that really struck me in this piece is Gersh's contention that the '96 Perot vote pulled more from Clinton than from Dole. He didn't say so in so many words, but that is the gist of it.

comparing the performance in key voter categories of the last successful Democratic presidential candidacy, Bill Clinton's in 1996, with that of Al Gore's near miss in 2000. Clinton beat Bob Dole nationally by 8 percentage points, while Gore essentially tied George W. Bush. (Clinton's percentage of the total vote only marginally exceeded Gore's, but that was attributable to the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot in 1996; had Perot not run, Clinton would have won a solid majority.)

This is interesting to me because the convention wisdom has always been that the Perot vote in both '92 and '96 hurt the GOP to the point that it propelled Clinton into office and sent him back too.

Incidently, Independents are identified as one of several key Swing Voter groups by Gersh. By comparing the Clinton vote in '96 with the Gore vote in '00, Gersh reveals some very interesting swings among various groups. He then breaks it down further by state in several key battleground states, including Oregon, where Clinton did much better than Gore did. All with the goal of trying to help the Kerry campaign identify where to focus their strategy.

Here's how Gersh breaks down Oregon:



I would say that with respect to Oregon, some of the lessons must have been learned because Kerry did much better here than Gore did. It should be noted here that the "High School" block is voters with only a HS diploma, not High School aged voters.

Also interesting is the "Ventura Effect" Gersh cites in Minnesota, which seems to have dissipated because Kerry did quite well in Minnesota compared to Gore in 2000.

But it's that Perot vote that interests me because it defies what I've always heard about the Perot vote. Gersh doesn't really explain it directly. The only other thing he says which seems to address it is this:

At a time when partisan polarization has disguised a growing trend toward voter alienation from both parties, it is important to note that Clinton carried self-identified independents by 8 points, while Gore lost them by 2. That reflects Clinton's superior ability to cast himself as a candidate above his party.

As someone who was an Independent thru both Clinton administrations, and went Indie precisely because of a sense of alienation from both parties, I think what Gersh says here makes a great deal of sense.

In 1992 I initially supported Perot. And that largely on the basis of the whole "reform" message which I was keen on. But, after Perot talked about "black-suited" government agents crawling up his lawn during his daughter's wedding, I quickly abandoned Perot as a genuine nutcase! I then switched to backing Clinton, who I ended up voted for. And I must say that I felt comfortable voting for Clinton on the basis of my desire to see governmental reform. As Gersh says, I very much viewed Clinton as being a candidate above his own party. Significantly moreso than I did Gore in 2000.

In 1996 I supported Dole and ended up voting for him. But, that had more to do with my longtime fondness for Senator Dole as a moderate, sensible politician than anything else. I had like Dole long before I knew who Clinton was. And that carried thru so that I was comfortable choosing Dole over Clinton in '96. Perot was definitely a non-factor for me after the "black suited" agent quip. So, I can't personally identify with what Gersh says about the '96 Perot vote drawing more from Clinton.

I'm curious what our readers have to say on this.

*Note* I've crossposted this from an earlier post at Preemptive Karma