It’s been a while.. my apologies. I’ve been wanting to write about this for some time, so I thought why not blog it!
As some of you may know, I am a Political Science major, and was in college during the time that President George W. Bush was running for re-election. During this interesting political time, our classroom discussions mainly centered upon “What makes a voter?” We often spoke about the “Median Voter Theorem.” The Median Voter Theorem is a theory, or theorem in the political science world that the average candidate caters his opinion to the “median,” which would be your average American. Your average American is not usually a polarized liberal or a staunch conservative, rather it is a person who works, comes home, and cares about his/her family. They usually do not organize the rallys, watch CNN and write in and blog, however this idea is changing.
During former President Bush’s successful re-election bid, the theory of the Median Voter was thrown completely out the window by his political advisor, Karl Rove. Call him what you want—a political genius, horrible theorist, a gambler… but he changed the Median Voter Theorem forever. His campaign focused on the far right conservative vote—the evangelicals that most candidates did not even think to. He theorized if they could be reached, and they could be pulled to President Bush’s favor—they would win. And as history tells us—it worked. The theory completely was changed, and the idea of polarization happened.
Flash forward—8 years later—we have a Democratic President in office. Running for re-election with an undecided Republican candidate. It begs the question I dare to explore…. Is this the return of the Median Voter Theorem?
Why do you ask? Lately, I have been tuning into the debates. I’ve been watching the votes turn up. I see discord in the Republican party. We do have very staunch conservative candidates such as Rick Santorum—Newt Gingrich. However, we also have a more moderate candidate—a candidate who the Median Voter Theorem would say no brainer to put as a candidate, and that would be Mitt Romney. Romney is a Northern New England moderate Republican. His main challenges right now are conservative republicans. Romney has been dubbed the “electable” candidate for his ability to take on Obama. Why is this—I question. I wonder if the conservative based has been unnerved. If we were looking at the same conservative base that elected George W. Bush—they should easily run towards Santorum or Gingrich—yet we have a divide. Ron Paul even came out strong pushing him as a possible third party candidate. But where, oh where, is that conservative vote? It seems as though the vote is confused for a conservative candidate.
Romney by far is not a clear cut victory—however—he seems to have the most pull for the job. It seems as though the GOP is in the push for a median moderate Republican to take on Obama. Obama during his earlier days would to me be considered a left wing liberal, however, when in office to be bipartisan—I think he has become more moderate. And that’s fine. However, I am seeing now the development of Romney as a candidate, and to me—that is a return to the median voter theorem.
Take for instance, the campaign of 2008. McCain was a more moderate candidate than George W. Bush was, however, now—Romney is a lot more towards moderate—even a liberal Republican (dare I say it) than McCain. Romney right now faces an uphill battle because when he was a senator from Massachusetts his state had state wide healthcare. He also came out relatively moderate on most social issues. However, now, in the race for the White House although he has flopped a bit on his issues leading me to question would we elect a Candidate Romney versus a Senator Romney (huge difference), I still say the Median Voter Theorem has returned. If it had not, we would be seeing Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich on the GOP ticket. But hey, the race isn’t over yet.
Ms. Bartosiewicz,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. While I respect your opinion, I must disagree in a few key respects. I still believe that general election candidates must run under the “Median Voter” theory. During the General Election Bush ran towards the middle. He ran on commonsense issues like safety and security. Likewise, Obama ran as a conservative democrat in 2008. I believe the new pattern we see evolving has more to do with representatives of the far right and far left getting the nod but then running towards the middle.
For instance, Mr. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Yet when he ran for office, he was against gay marriage. He no longer discussed his view that abortion survivors should be left to die. Obama’s view on both wars was decently moderate. He has even spent a great deal of time giving lip service to debt reduction.
Republicans find themselves wanting someone similarly in line with the ideologues. The issue isn’t that we are headed toward a more moderate campaign model. The problem is that this year is an anomaly. The Republican party doesn’t really have either a conservative or a candidate that can defeat Barack Obama. Mitt Romney is winning for two reasons. First, the conservative vote has been split in every single contest and second, he is the only one that has any semblance of a candidate that could appeal to the middle. The problem however, is that while Romney may appear more moderate to the middle, at the end of the day, women and latinos are going to vote Obama. If Romney doesn’t start running as a conservative and goes for the median voter he may lose by a greater margin than John McCain.
Great piece!
My apologies in writing back.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I also respect your opinion--and also agree we may disagree on this point. However, yes, most DO have to run under the Median Voter Theory--but an interesting part is President George W. Bush did not. His campaign especially in 2004 under the direction of Karl Rove sought to seek out the conservative side that was often left out of the political debate due to candidates catering to the "median" where it's easiest to "hook the voters" especially the undecideds. Bush ran a relatively conservative campaign that year on many issues. Although, it is impossible to know exactly someone's faith or belief system in its entirety--President Bush proclaimed himself to be fiscally conservative, religiously conservative, pro-life, anti-stem cell, and for foreign policy seemed to be more of a Poli Sci term "hawk president."
However, if we look at our current President, one could argue he came to the middle for the election. Yes, I agree with that. He had a liberal voting record, but I think Senator Obama differed from President Obama in regard to policy. I think a President does have to come to the center to be elected in a way--I agree with you on that point.
That is why in regard to the anomaly of the '04 election with the regard to reaching out to the conservative side that felt not included for election, it was a key demographic to push him over that slight edge he needed to.
And as for your argument concerning Mitt Romney's winning the nomination--I agree. The party is divided, and you know as well, that is not a good place to be. The longer there is in fighting--the less campaigning on true issues (and more bickering between in-party candidates).
I actually had a similar debate with a friend as to whether we are voting candidate Romney v. Gov. Romney. It's an interesting comparison. I think it's the risk you take with any politician.
As always, Mr. Griffin, debate is good--even if we may never agree. Discussion is good. It's what both parties always seem to need!
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.