Electoral Math
Reality-Based^TM Political Numbers from Nicholas Beaudrot

Vote, Then Drink Liberally | Home |

Crime and the Electoral Map

Mark Kleiman wonders if the assault weapons ban is ready for a political comeback. This is ironic, considering that in the past he's suggested that "even a highly popular anti-gun law such as the ban on 'assault weapons' is probably a net loser on election day. I think Kleiman's earlier sentiments, which are more in line with "blogospheric conventional wisdom", are more on the mark.

The conventional wisdom here is that there are few pro-gun control voters for whom this is a voting issue; that is, while 60% of the public supports gun control laws, very few voters consider this their most important or second most important issue. It's probably not even the most important crime control issue ... promises to add more police or increase prison sentences are probably more effective. But lots of voters will use a gun-control position as a reason to vote against a candidate. The main reason for supporting the ban was to help get the Police Officers' union on the side of the Ds and increase support in the suburbs, which at the time voted a bit more Republican than they to today. This also had a stronger effect when many states with large, high crime cities were swing states, at a time when the overall crime level was much higher. Today, overall crime levels are lower, and most of the increase in crime has occured in medium size towns, primarily in California and the Rust Belt. The only big cities in purple states that have seen a rise in crime are Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Denver. I suspect that gun control is still a net loser, since these states have substantial pro-gun rural & small town populations.

In addition, the political instutions that supported gun control have withered away. Ceasefire and the Brady Campaign once had large membership rolls and could produce lots of campaign volunteers. Today that's no longer true. The NRA, however, remains a political force.

In short, there are four factors that make the AWB a political non-starter:

• A changing political map, putting fewer big-city high-crime states in play and more pro-gun states in play (the shift is even more dramatic at the House level).
• The decline of pro-gun control institutions.
• A slight blue trend in many suburbs, meaning Dems don't need to cater as much to suburban fears.
• Crime increases isolated in uncompetitive states.

So, leave the AWB alone for now. Jon Tester's not going to want to see it come to the floor any time soon.

| | technorati

Home | Mail  | RSS

Last updated by Nicholas Beaudrot on 10:02 13 November 2007