Stardate 20031229.1422

(On Screen): In the American winner-take-all system, a candidate for office doesn't have to gain the votes of every citizen. And because of the Electoral College, a candidate for president doesn't even have to gain the votes of the majority of voters who participate. What he has to do is to gain a majority in enough states so that he has the majority of the Electoral votes. (Which is why more than one man has been elected president even though his opponent got more total votes.)

Thus much strategy in Presidential elections revolves around determining which states each party can pretty much assume they'll win (e.g. Massachusetts for the Democrats, Texas for the Republicans) and which ones are less certain and which might be won if contested closely.

But the parties also tend to divide the overall electorate in other ways, such as along lines of education and employment. Historically the Democrats tended to do much better among industrial workers than they did among professionals, although there were certain sub-categories in each case that were exceptional. It also turns out that there are voting patterns which tend to correlate with age.

And there are voting patterns associated with race and gender. The Democrats have long tried particularly hard to appeal to "minority groups", and in most elections will tend to get the majority of votes cast by Blacks and Hispanics.

But there's one minority where they never do well: white men. Making up just shy of 40% of the voters, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that more white men overall will vote Republican than Democratic. Generally speaking, it's not really so much of question of whether the Democrats can get a majority of White Male votes as of how big the Republican margin will be. If the margin is sufficiently small, the Democrats have a chance of compensating for it with majorities in other demographics. If the margin among White Males is too large, however, then the Democrats will lose.

That's because as a group, White Males are more Jacksonian than any other race/gender demographic.

In the LA Times, Ronald Brownstein writes:

In the modern political era, Democrats never expect to carry white men, who reliably tilt Republican. But the emerging threat to Democrats in 2004 is that Bush will win white men so decisively that the party can't overcome his advantage with other voter groups that lean in their direction, such as minorities and college-educated white women.

Analysts in both parties agree that Bush is benefiting among white men from his aggressive use of force against terrorism and his alternately folksy and blunt "bring 'em on" personal style. Some senior strategists on both sides believe the risk to Democrats with white men could increase if the party nominates Howard Dean, whose opposition to the war, liberal positions on social issues and buttoned-down persona create clear contrasts for Bush.

To a great extent, this is because white men as a group prefer cowboys to metrosexuals.

Bush's strength among white men derives as much from his personal style as his policy choices, most analysts agree. Blunt in his words, comfortable on his ranch, dismissive of ceremony, impatient with diplomacy, Bush fits "an old-fashioned male ideal, deeply embedded in our cultural mythology," said Bill Galston, a former Clinton advisor now at the University of Maryland.

The ideal "is that a real man is a man of few words and determined, resolute action: like in [the movie] 'High Noon.' And Bush captures this almost perfectly and effortlessly."

The president's black-and-white pronouncements on terrorism and war — from his promise to capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" to his "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi resisters — which generate unease among many women and even some more affluent men, help cement Bush's attachment to blue-collar men, who, recent polls show, support him at higher levels than men with college degrees.

But there are also specific issues which are important here, because as a group white men are far more concerned about national security issues than other race/gender demographic group, with the health of the economy being their second concern.

Bush is benefiting, too, from a political environment focused on terrorism and national security issues that highlight the aspects of his personality that many men like best. Men have traditionally been more inclined than women to support military action, and recent polls show white men significantly more enthusiastic about the decision to invade Iraq than other Americans.

"He kind of runs a testosterone-driven White House, in terms of both the rhetoric and the dominant issue, which is war," said John Anzalone, an Alabama-based Democratic pollster. "It's a natural resonance with men, particularly white men. Usually the only thing that knocks that down for a Democrat is the economy."

So if the nation's economic recovery continues, and if the war continues to go reasonably well, then Bush is likely to get a huge percentage of white male votes next year.