Teixeria used
the University of Michigan's American National Election Study (ANES) Quadrenial Candidate Thermometer to make an unlikely point about the polarization of the electorate. In case you don't know what the thermometer is,
it works like this.
The feeling thermometer is a measuring instrument that asks respondents to assign a rating of between 0 degrees and 100 degrees to political objects (candidates, other political figures, groups, and institutions). A mean thermometer score of 50 would suggest a neutral evaluation, above 50 favorable, and below 50 unfavorable. Since 1968, the University of Michigan's American National Election Study (ANES) has included feeling thermometers for major party presidential candidates.
The highest overall mean thermometer recorded for a major party presidential candidate, among those who voted for president was for Nixon (mean scores of 67 in both 1968 and 1972). The highest mean Democratic thermometer recorded was for Humphrey in 1968 and Carter in 1976 (62).
The lowest overall mean thermometer score recorded for a major party presidential candidate was 48, for McGovern in 1972. The least-liked Republican nominee was George H.W. Bush in 1992, with a mean score of 52.
The grand mean for all Republican candidates between 1968 through 2000 was 60. The grand mean for all Democratic candidates between 1968 through 2000 was 56. To place what follows in context, both Gore and Bush in 2000 received mean scores of 57.
Ok, first of all, Nixon? Is there a presidential historian on hand to explain that one?
Anyway, in a normal political environment, it would end up being a fairly accurate appraisal of the likability of a candidate. These, of course, are not normal times.
In the 2004 election, the mean thermometer for Bush was 56. For Kerry it was 52. The absolute difference between Bush's score and Kerry's score is not remarkable. In six of the prior nine elections, the gap between the two contenders has been 4 points or greater.
What does make Kerry's score noteworthy is that his was the lowest mean thermometer recorded for a Democratic nominee since McGovern. His score represents a drop of 5 percentage points from Gore's mean score four years earlier. The simple interpretation here is straightforward and probably coincides with many preconceptions - John Kerry was the least liked Democratic candidate of the past 30 years.
So the quick explanation is that Kerry just simply wasn't very liked. That's plausible, but it fails to account for several things, the most important of which, is the breakdown of the poll respondents.
From that simple interpretation, we may move toward a more careful and truthful assessment. A very unusual pattern characterizes the thermometer scores of both Kerry and Bush in 2004. That pattern reflects intensified partisanship. From 1968 through 2000, party identifiers (including Independents who lean toward one party) generally registered lukewarm feelings toward the candidate of the rival party and substantially warmer feelings toward their own party's nominees. Democrats, between 1968 through 2000, on average, gave their own nominees a score of 73 and the Republican nominee a score of 46. Republicans in that same time frame gave average scores of 70 for their own nominees and 46 for the Democratic candidates.
Three of those four general trends were ruptured in 2004. Only Kerry's rating from Democrats followed expectations. Kerry's mean rating from Democratic identifiers was 72 - close to the grand mean for the prior nine elections. Kerry did about as well as Clinton in 1992 among Democrats and approximated the typical score a Democratic candidate gets from his own followers. Nothing else about the 2004 candidate thermometers followed precedent.
For starters, Republicans gave Kerry a mean score of 32 - six points worse than the score of 38 McGovern received from GOP identifiers in 1972 - and 14 points worse than the score Gore received from Republicans four years earlier. This is the first example of intensified partisanship, and it provides a more nuanced understanding of Kerry's overall thermometer score - Kerry was the least liked Democrat ever, in the brief history of presidential thermometers, among Republican identifiers. There are some future precincts in New Hampshire and Iowa where that might qualify as a badge of honor.
So Kerry was about average for his party, but what about Bush?
But if Kerry was the least liked Democrat among rival party followers, George W Bush did him one better in 2004. Bush emerged as the least liked opposition-party presidential candidate, ever, of either major party. Democratic identifiers bestowed upon Bush a mean score of 29 - - a full 12 points lower than the score Democrats gave him four years earlier.
The larger story here is that in 2004, Democratic and Republican identifiers appeared more dramatically polarized than at any time in the past 36 years. The normal respect reserved for American leaders of the opposition party seems to have eroded nearly completely among followers of both major parties. What distinguishes this particular circumstance is its partisan symmetry. Hostility toward the leader of the opposition party is mutually shared by Democrats and Republicans alike. The implications are also magnified by the nearly identical sizes of these blocs of partisan voters (48% Democratic, 47% Republican).
In essence, Karl Rove read the political climate of America all too perfectly. The Democrats hated Bush and basically decided to settle on Kerry. The Republicans, however, for whatever reason, despised Kerry--a hatred I to this day am still trying to figure out--and all but worshipped Bush. As a result, Bush received a higher, if still marginal, thermometer score. This year, if any year, was the year to push base-oriented campaigning, and the Republicans, as we all know, are wildly competent at it.
Here are the questions we need to cover:
- Is it conceivable that the Democrats will ever field a candidate that they can derive the sort of enthusiasm the Republicans did from Bush?
- If they were to, is it conceivable this would result in electoral victory?
- Who is a likely candidate to do this for the Democrats?
- Is there a potential of overcoming and even ending the electorate's polarization?
Your thoughts?