Pew Political Typologies

The Pew Research Center has analyzed the political views of Americans for more than a decade, most notably in their Political Typology reports. The typologies categorize Americans into one of 7-8 groups, based on their ideology, party identification, and values & beliefs.

For example, the Enterprisers group, representing about 10% of the country, is an extremely partisan Republican grouping, driven by a core belief in free enterprise and conservative social values. This group tends to be very patriotic, pro-business, anti-regulation, and assertive with foreign policy. Demographically, Enterprisers are predominately male, white, married, higher educated, and financially well-off. They are not much more religious than the country as a whole. This is the group that follows political news more closely than any other of the Typology groups. In the 2004 election, they voted for Bush 92-1 over John Kerry. (Incidentally, this is the group I end up in, when I take the typology test.)

The other groups, with their portion of the US registered voter population in (paren):

• Social Conservatives (13%)
  
• Pro Government Conservatives (10%)
  
• Upbeats (13%)
  
• Disaffecteds (10%)
  
• Liberals (19%)
  
• Conservative Democrats (15%)
  
• Disadvantaged Democrats (10%)
  
• Bystanders (0% of voters, but 10% of the adult population)
  

I have analyzed the 2004/2005 report in-depth, looking at the viewpoints of each group on key current issues and their voting patterns. I have also reviewed the prior reports, from 1999, 1994, and 1987, paying particular attention to the presidential voting patterns, from Reagan forward. In a future post, I'll outline what I've found there, and how it specifically relates to the 2008 election and Mike Huckabee. I have predicted voting outcomes for each of the groups for each of the top GOP candidates. Based on the last 2 decades, the key swing group is the Disaffected. Other important swing groups are Pro-Government Conservatives, Upbeats, and Conservative Democrats. Let's take a closer look at these 4 groups.

Disaffecteds

This is a politically cynical group that is mostly independent, party-wise. They tend to be dissatisfied with both their personal situation and with the state of the country. This group faces significant personal financial pressures, and is highly concerned with the impact of immigration or anything that impacts the availability of good jobs. They voted for Bush 2-1 over Kerry in the 2004 election, but about 25% of them didn't bother to vote at all. A large majority (70%) have no college education. They skew male (57%), and rural/suburban. This is a group that contains a large number of what used to be called Reagan Democrats.

Pro-Government Conservatives

Formerly termed "Populist Republicans", this group is typified by its strong religious faith and moral conservatism. Unlike other GOP groups, however, they express skepticism about the free market and are favorable toward government programs providing an economic safety net. They went for Bush by a 5-1 margin in 2004, but a fifth of them didn't vote. Demographically, much like a female (62%) version of the Disaffecteds. Nearly half are parents of in-the-household children, and nearly half live in the South.

Upbeats

Optimistic and independent, Upbeats feel good about the country and their own situation. They are more moderate on moral issues. In 2004, they voted for Bush by more than a 4-1 margin. Skew young, white, married, wealthy, educated, and suburban. A large portion of Catholics and mainline Protestants.

Conservative Democrats

Pretty solidly Democratic in recent elections, but distinguished from other Democrats by their religious orientation and conservative views on moral issues. This group contains an over-sample of older women and blacks. They voted for John Kerry as solidly as did the Upbeats for Bush.

More later…

From Pastorate to Presidency

A very nice article from the Concord (NH) Monitor about Huckabee's time in the pastorate in Arkansas. Highlighting some quotes from the article. Unless noted otherwise, the quotes are from the article's author...

• He could deliver a heavy moral message in such a light, folksy way that you didn't even notice the proselytizing. He remembered everyone's name. And he had a way of winning support for his good ideas by making the deacons think the ideas were their own.
• Huckabee says he started each elementary school year with two pairs of blue jeans; by the summer, they'd be cut into shorts. (I included this one because it reminded me of my roots. It's be nice to have a leader with a humble upbringing.)
• He was very serious about his faith, but he was also a fun guy to be around. He was never a religious stick in the mud. -- from Mike's college freshman roommate
• We used to sit in the dorm room and talk about what we wanted to do, around our popcorn popper. [Mike] said, 'What I'd like to do is help Christian people get involved in making our nation better.' - ibid
• If you could have a perfect pastor, he comes as close as anybody. He rejuvenated the church. He blew the back doors, really, off the church. -- from the church historian of Mike's church in Texarkana
• He had the vision, but you've got to sell the vision. And he was able to do that. People caught on and said, 'This is a great idea! This is my idea!' If you use a stick, the horse is going to kick you with its hooves. (Huckabee) was very good with the carrot approach in selling (his ideas). -- from a Texarkana congregant
• Too many people seemed unconcerned about how many marriages were salvaged, how many kids got off drugs, or how many teen pregnancies were prevented. Rather, the chief concerns seemed to be whether the menus for Wednesday night dinners were appetizing, what color the softball jerseys would be, how loud some guest musicians might sing, whether the coffeepot was ready in the Sunday school building, and whether there were paper towels in the women's rest room. -- from Mike himself, and a good summation of my own frustrations with many Baptist churches

Chuck Norris Approved

Mike Huckabee revealed his first campaign ad this morning during his interview on Fox. And it's a doozy. Check it out...



Not what you'd expect from the typical campaign, huh? And that's what i like about it. From a marketing (not political) perspective, it is clearly designed to build awareness, the proper approach for Huckabee at this point. Even on the Fox Sunday show, the sort of TV program made for the highly involved, they introduced the segment with (paraphrasing) "just who is this guy?". This ad will draw interest, create conversation and buzz, and drive interested folks to the website. I doubt it runs all the often as a paid TV ad, but will get plenty of free PR, and will be a viral hit on the web.

And then Mike will follow (quickly) with serious issue-oriented ads, or ads that highlight his engaging personality.

Pocketbook Politics (of a sort)

I enjoyed this article from Mr. Smartypants, about what the candidates might have in their wallets, after he actually did ask Mike Huckabee just that. Below is an excerpt of what he found. Read the article to see the humorous imaginings of what he'd find from Clinton, Edwards, et al.

He carried a handgun permit, frequent-flier club cards, five credit cards, two gift cards, a Marriott card, an AARP card, his hunting and fishing permit, expired duck stamps from last year, a slip listing the contact numbers of his band, Capitol Offense, and about $175 in cash, mostly in small bills.

He needs the frequent-flier cards because he travels on normal planes - US Airways for this trip. He needs the credit cards and cash because he pays for stuff. Some candidates have their staff handle the taxis and tips, but his national field director is his daughter, Sarah, so he's probably used to grabbing the tab.

The wallet tells me Huckabee is a fairly normal guy.

Video of the Day: Politically Uncorrect

Huckabee - politically uncorrect

p.s. Mike moves into a 2nd place tie nationally in the daily tracking poll by Rasmussen. It's time for my friends and family to get on board.

Huckabee's Embryonic Campaign Aborted by the NRLC

I was once a member of the National Right to Life Committee. Not in leadership, by any means, but just a rank & file, dues-paying pro-lifer. I received and thoroughly read the periodic newspaper. In my youth, i even contemplated joining the then-current fashion and getting myself arrested by picketing an abortion clinic while visiting Atlanta for a work conference. I have read and proudly display on my bookshelf such titles as Arresting Abortion by John Whitehead and Chuck Swindoll's Sanctity of Life.

I'm not a member any longer. It would be dramatic to announce that today's endorsement of Fred Thompson by the NRLC was the trigger. Dramatic, but false. I quit the NRLC long ago. Not because i changed my views, but because i couldn't see how my dues were making any difference. I say that not to disparage the organization, which i continued to appreciate, even if i never heard much about them for the past decade or so.

So why should i get worked up over their presidential endorsement of Thompson? It's because it strikes me as an endorsement borne not of principle, but of crass political maneuvering. Call me naive, but i still expect passion-issue groups like NRLC to remain true to principle. And when you have a clear pro-life choice like Mike Huckabee (or even Dr. Ron Paul, for goodness sake), how can you ignore that?

In their statements today, the NRLC reps repeatedly pointed to polls, claiming that Thompson was the most viable candidate behind the pro-abortion Giuliani. They even have a candidate comparison at their site that references, and even sorts by, poll numbers. That's bad enough, but the poll numbers they site there are from early October!

In other words, the NRLC has taken a snapshot of the campaign life at an early embryonic stage, and decided that Huckabee's prospects of a full & happy life as a presidential candidate were not worth it. This was a baby not worth keeping. Look at how tiny it is! How can we consider that truly alive?

So, here we sit, some 5 weeks later, with an updated ultrasound of the campaign. But the NRLC apparently didn't want to see the face of the growing life, much like abortion doctors don't want to show real ultrasounds to their patients.

p.s. I apologize if my theme and post title offend some. I ask that you grant the dramatic license, for the long-run sake of our unborn brothers & sisters. I draw no real parallels between a presidential campaign and the real-life tragedy of abortion. Furthermore, i do not believe that Huckabee's campaign is in any way terminated.

Up to 21% in Iowa!

New Iowa poll just released by CBS News has Mike Huckabee at 21%, trailing Romney at 27%. This 6 point gap is the smallest lead for Romney in some time there. His personally contributed fortune in media buys isn't doing the trick. Well, it got him to this point, but it's looking more and more like it won't be enough to fool the savvy Iowans.

In the same poll, Dead-Fred is sinking like a geode (the state rock of Iowa, and appropriate in that there's no way to tell what's inside a geode until you crack it open), falling into single digits.

There's more to the poll that is quite interesting. I hope to find time later to dive into it.

The Price of Freedom

Here is a great video with a segment of a speech that Mike Huckabee made to the Midwest Republican Leadership Conference earlier this year. It tells the tale of Arkansas high school teacher Martha Cothren imparting a lesson on the price of freedom. If it seems free to some of us, that's because some paid very high prices.

Consider this on this Veterans' Day. And check out Huckabee's proposed Veterans' Bill of Rights for areas where we are falling short.

Three Keys for a President

Today, i want to think more broadly about the Presidency. What are the elements to look for when considering who to select? I employ a three-pronged test, a 3-legged stool, if you will. The best candidates will be those who are strong on all 3 legs.

The Three Keys are:

Competency
POTUS is a huge job, and it takes an intelligent, capable, broad-thinking leader to do it well. In the business world (as in most things that are most purely meritocracy based - sports being a prime example), the best predictor of future success is past success. So, look for someone who has demonstrated success in past leadership opportunities.

Integrity
Here, we are looking for someone who is centered, who has a coherent worldview, a vision for America's future based on creative ideas. Or perhaps this leg is better defined by its absence, since that is more likely observed in politics. By this, i mean the typical political pandering we see. The thumb-in-the-wind guy. The poll react-er. The type that says one thing to one set of voters, and another to a different set. At its worst, we term this "saying anything to get elected". This leg is the most important of the three for me, as i am vigilantly leery of those seeking power for power's sake.

Ideology
Most political discussion centers on this leg, although it may be the least important of the three when it comes to the Presidency. Obviously, we all prefer to have a leader who agrees with us as much as possible. For me, i absolutely want a President who understands that pre-born children deserve protection. I want a President who agrees with the foundational principles of our country. Who will provide a check on ever-expanding state power (and by "state" here i mean a nation). And a few score other issues. I won't say much on this one, as it is easily understood.

So we throw these three elements - competence, integrity, and platform - into the soup, and what do we get? The answer is not always obvious, or perhaps rarely obvious. Sometimes we don't get what we thought we were getting, as in the case of GWB and fiscal restraint.

Surveying the 2008 Candidates

Since this is a Huckebee blog, it should not be surprising that i believe Mike Huckabee comes out with the highest marks in my 3-variable calculation. We are very close in ideology. Not perfectly aligned, but closer than the rest (with the possible exception of John McCain, if you go by those candidate-chooser websites, but those tools didn't ask about my views on campaign-finance reform and its violation of the 1st amendment). I believe Mike is a man of high integrity. I see him as different from the typical politician, and believe he truly desires to lift up America and its citizens.

Finally, on competence, i am attracted by Mike's experience as a governor for over a decade, and his record in Arkansas transforming the infrastructure (the state's highways were truly abysmal, so much so that i would go out of my way to avoid driving through the middle of Arkansas, the natural route when going from North Carolina to Oklahoma - now, the highways are much, much better) and transforming the fiscal mindset to one of family-oriented tax reform (which was the first broad-based income tax cut in the history of that state) and the fiscal coffers to one of surplus (another link).

I won't discuss the other candidates in any detail. I will only say that all of them, again with the possible exception of John McCain, come up short on at least one of the three stool-legs. The Democrats all fail for me, at a minimum, on ideology, as does Rudy Giuliani. Fred Thompson fails on competence, as does Ron Paul. Mitt Romney fails on integrity. (Before anyone jumps on this paragraph, i stipulate that it is decidedly short on argument, and mostly just presents my conclusions.)

Readers, voters, should draw their own conclusions about each candidate. I merely ask you to consider all three elements before deciding.