THE VITAL CENTER NOVEMBER 8, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The latest Gallup report, based on a massive sample of more than 39,000 adults, contains troubling news for Democrats. Individuals identifying with the Democratic Party are a smaller share of the American people than they were early in 2008, and their views are less representative of the people as a whole. This means that the Obama team, which faces the crucial choice of either doubling down on its 2008 winning mix of professionals, young people, and minorities or rebuilding support among Independents in the heartland, should emphasize the latter option. Any general election strategy that relies solely on mobilizing the party’s diminished base will have a hard time forging a majority of the popular vote.
Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents now total 43 percent of the people, down from 50 percent in the first quarter of 2008. During the period, Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents rose from 37 to 40 percent. (Pure Independents who don’t lean toward either party rose from 12 to 15 percent of the total.) As a result, the earlier 13-point gap in party identification shrank to only 3 points, which, as Gallup notes, is “more in line with the pattern … in place between 2001 and 2004.”
While the ideological center of gravity of the Democratic Party has moved left, the country as a whole has moved in the opposite direction. In early 2008, 35 percent of Democrats and leaners called themselves liberals, versus 23 percent conservatives. (The rest identified as moderates.) By 2011, the liberal share of the part had risen 2 percentage points to 37 percent, while the conservative share shrank by 3 points, to only 20 percent. At the same time, conservatives increased their share of the total electorate from 40 to 42 percent, while liberals dropped a point to only 21 percent.
These may not appear to be notable changes, but they are. The sample is so large that the margin of error is only plus or minus one percentage point, so nearly all the shifts are statistically significant. And these results are politically significant as well, because they portend a much closer election than 2008 turned out to be. If the electorate of 2011-2012 is closer to the one that prevailed during the first Bush administration, then the Obama campaign would have to do an even better job of mobilizing the base than it did in 2008.
This casts in high relief the fundamental choice facing the Obama team: The first option is to run a campaign that amounts to 2008 on steroids, mobilizing huge numbers of upscale professionals, unmarried women, young adults, and minorities—the coalition that reelected Colorado Senator Michael Bennet in 2010. This approach implies a focus on “new majority” states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina, or even Arizona and Georgia, which the Obama team reportedly regards as being within reach. Option two would focus on rebuilding support among Independents, which include large numbers of white working-class and middle-class families—an approach compatible with an all-out effort to win the heartland states stretching from Pennsylvania to Iowa that gave Obama one-third of the 365 electoral votes he ended up winning.
For reasons that I’ve laid out at length in “One Year to Go: Barack Obama’s Uphill Battle for Reelection in 2012,” the latter is the course more likely to succeed in the end. Briefly: It won’t be possible to recreate the political context that permitted the extraordinary mobilization of young adults and Hispanics in 2008. And it’s no accident that no Democrat since JFK has won the presidency without carrying Ohio, which is a demographic, economic, and political microcosm of the country as a whole. Most Democrats remember that Obama’s share of the popular vote topped John Kerry’s by 5 percentage points. They are likely to forget, however that liberals contributed less than one point to that increase, while moderates contributed about two and a half points and conservatives, about one and a half. Reenergizing the party’s liberal base is a necessary but not sufficient condition for victory next year.
This latter strategy—rebuilding support among Independents—implies that Obama’s task is one of persuasion as well as mobilization. He will have to convince some of the voters he has lost since his inauguration to give him a second look and another chance. This may seem to be mission impossible. If it turns out to be, his chances of winning reelection are remote.
William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing editor for The New Republic.
14 comments
I agree with Galston that Obama cannot rely on the same voters that elected him in 2008, especially younger and Hispanic voters, who are highly unlikely to turn out in the same numbers in 2012. But Independents, those notorously low information voters, who vote this way or that depending on which way the wind is blowing? Galston concedes as much in his final paragraph, when he says that "rebuilding support among Independents . . . may seem to be mission impossible. . . [and] his chances of winning reelection are remote". What's the point of giving advice if the person giving it acknowledges it's not very good advice. It's not Independents that will reelect Obama, it's middle class voters, and a winning strategy is one that appeals to them. Sure, it's in part a populist strategy, but mostly one that gives the middle class hope for their future, hope that will be dashed if the country returns to the policies that brought us to this place of lost jobs, lost homes, and lost dreams for a better future.
- rayward
November 8, 2011 at 7:22am
As a Progressive, it is now obvious that 2012 is hopeless for Dems, in part because of a feckless President and Senate. The best for the Dems-- and the country-- is a BHO defeat in 2012. A BHO win wins next to nothing economically. And with a Repub house and Senate, does little for social issues. Mittens is now by far the most likely Repub nominee. Just like BHO was hardly likely to do anything really Progressive (or socialistic, if you're a Repub), Mittens is hardly likely to turn the country over to the black- or brown-shirts. He, like BHO, is feckless.. And 2012-2016 is going to be an economic disaster. Let the Repubs take full credit for what they , BHO, and the Senate have wrought. The Repubs will rediscover Keynes shortly after a Repub is elected--- and we'll getr more stimulus passed with Mittens than Barry in the oval office. And economics really is THE overriding issue for the next 6-8 years.
- drofnats1
November 8, 2011 at 7:25am
Do the Democrats have to renominate Obama? The Democrats could revive their chances with a candidate who can better connect with disaffected voters without Obama's baggage.
- amidut
November 8, 2011 at 8:22am
lets wait and see who the Republican nominee is first before we discuss strategies, if it is Perry then a few debates by Obama against him will scare enough people. If it is Romney sew distrust of him amongst the Republican base, make the exact same accusation that Drofnats is doing, that he will be Obama economically on steroids (I don't believe it at all, but it is what Republicans believe), that will dampen Republican enthusiasm because they (the base) absolutely don't want to "rediscover Keynes"
- blackton
November 8, 2011 at 10:44am
blackton. Mittens will hardly be BHO on steroids (He is Mittens, after all). Just more stimulus than BHO-- who will get near zilch. And recall that the base may say they want to balance the budget---until it comes to cutting THEIR socialized medicine, or THEIR non-Commie social security (yours is the Commie-type), or THEIR farm subsidies, etc, etc. Nah, the US economy simply limps along better foir 4 years with wuss Mittens than wimp BHO. Mittens in office plus Repub House and Senates stand a chance of revamping the entire Dem leadership and electorate. BHO in office gives you mostly Repub policies for 4 years-- followd by 4-8 more years of a real Repub. I'll take Mittens, and so should Progressive Dems. You don't have to vote for him-- just don't vote-- sit back and watch the fun.
- drofnats1
November 8, 2011 at 1:23pm
drofnats, I'm beginning to agree with you. If Obama wins in 2012, but doesn't get extreme Democratic majorities in both houses, he might as well not be re-elected. Aggressive minorities can ruin it for everyone, and Republicans are nothing if not viciously aggressive. As William Faulkner once said, the world belongs to the meat eaters, and Republicans have blood dripping from their teeth. Even the fact that there would be a small minority of them in both houses would not prevent them from sabotaging everything that Obama might try to do for the middle class. We might as well let the Republicans win everything in 2012 and watch them crash our economy to the ground beyond recovery. Problem is, if the Republicans do win in 2012, that's proof that most of the American electorate is too uneducated to participate in a democracy. And while they're standing in soup lines run by churches and other non-government institutions, they'll be blaming Obama and the Democrats for The Crash of 2016, even though the Republicans would be responsible for that one and the one in 2008. I'm not sure the Democrats would benefit from a Republican win in 2012 and the subsequent wrecking of America. Romney, if elected, will be no help to anyone with a brain. He'll be signing bills, then changing his mind and whiting out his signature. And he will be totally controlled by the Tea Partiers--the meat eaters.
- magboy47.
November 8, 2011 at 3:37pm
The American people may not be sophisticated when it comes to the details of policy. They are not wonks. But they have a gut level understanding that the Left is the enemy of all that they love and cherish. Family, community, liberty, honor, freedom, decency, self respect, and country in their minds trump the false promise of socialism: bow down before the State, obey your betters, and you will have a perpetual free lunch. Like no other before it, this election is a test of the moral character of the American people.
- bulbman1066
November 9, 2011 at 1:47am
Thank you bulbman. Now I can deal with the U.S. Census Bureau fascists who are threatening me with the full weight of the law if I continue to refuse to answer The American Ciommunity Survey which is the most intrusive questionnaire I have ever encountered. They want answers to questions that require me to tell them how much I spend every month on every single thing you can imagine. And they are threatening me with prison for refusing to comply? Screw Obama's America if they waste this much money trying to dissect my life for the vague purpose of "planning for schools, hospitals, and fire stations". The cover letter also states the info is for disaster planning, yet there is NOT ONE question that remotely could relate to disaster planning. First time I have ever been frightened by the Federal government.
- K2K
November 9, 2011 at 2:15am
I add that The American Community Survey was mailed to a second small home in a rural village with 1600 residents spread over an area the size of The Bronx (40 square miles). We have a fire station, and a school, and two major hospitals within 30 minutes. My neighbors did not get this - just me. And they have called me once to threaten my with legal penalties if I do not comply, and just returned from my primary residence to find a new voicemail insisting I call them. The questions are all about my economic status and spending - which says to me Obama is abusing the Census Bureau to data mine for his eternal election campaign. Why are the Democrats letting him destroy the party I grew up with?
- K2K
November 9, 2011 at 2:22am
Magboy, Drofnats etc. -- you are nuts if you think it's better for Obama to lose-- at least from a progressive standpoint. Yes, a reelected Obama will not an another stimulus, jobs bill etc. from any likely makeup of the house or Senate. The benefits of an Obama reelection are: 1. Judicial appointees not in the mold of Alito/Roberts 2. Leverage on repealing some part of the Bush tax cuts. 3. Control of the regulatory arm of the govt. that protects the environment, enforces safety requirements etc. Romney may have moderate instincts but he'll be forced to take Tea Partyesque positions to get nominated, and yet will be portrayed as a moderate because he isn't Bachmann, Cain or Perry.
- PeteM
November 9, 2011 at 9:22am
further to PeteM - divided government works best because it used to force compromise. As I consider "Obama's second term", that is one point in his favor. However, I do not see how Obama can ever get anyone confirmed to anything more important than undersecretary. He is holding Geithner hostage as SecTreas until the end of 2012 because Obama knows he can not get anyone to agree to be lame duck OR get confirmed. Jon Corzine's final exploits might just make an Obama win impossible - we need to factor in the damage Corzine has done to the Democratic Party. Also, it is the regulatory over-reach that the GOP REALLY WANTS TO STOP. So, here we go again, one-party rule that causes a third episode of incurable American schizophrenia. btw, Census called again today, but this time the caller was sane and asked the 8 questions that really needed to be answered (Yes, there is hot and cold running water in this cottage!), minus the next 100 questions that were so intrusive.
- K2K
November 9, 2011 at 12:07pm
k2k...we have divided Government now. How's that working for you? We've alway had divided government. Any progressive that believes (not thinks) that things will be better if you don't vote and let the GOP win everything and that they'll suddenly discover Keynes, progressive economic plans, etc. need to extricate their head from their behind. (Drof I'm talking to you) You want a little insight into how the GOP operates? Look at what they are doing at the state level and national levels. They pass policies that essentially only benefit their corporate cronies and donators. Do you honestly believe that the GOP has any interests in restoring policies that help and benefit the shrinking middle class, address the growing income disparities, and foster any sort of American economic renaissance? Puhleaze.....we've seen how well that works the last 40 years since Reagan brought the Sun back to our shores. We saw how great the 'compassionate conservatism' policies of Shrub performed in helping rebuild the middle class of America. Yeah Obama has tried to toe the "centrist line" and learned the hard way that the GOP don't play that way, never have, never will. Any liberal and independent with half a brain can understand the GOP never had ANY intention of compromising or working with the Obama administration. What BHO has accomplished has been through administration action, gamesmanship and working with Dems in office to move through particular policy achievements. Has every one gone right? No. But as we can see, even with a jobs bill that a majority of America wants and needs the GOP can't even stop from tripping over their dicks to pull the "no" lever just so they can stick it to the guy in the WH. If you want to see some change then get to work. Simply sitting on your hands and performing wishful thinking and prayers for unicorns and fairy dust won't stop the minority GOP from screwing the country even more.
- singlspeed
November 9, 2011 at 2:13pm
"Family, community, liberty, honor, freedom, decency, self respect, and country" A succinct list of everything the Republican Party in its current shape is trying to destroy.
- ironyroad
November 9, 2011 at 3:25pm
K2K, drofnats, bulbman, Galston. What a group of wankers.
- rover27
November 9, 2011 at 3:42pm