THE VITAL CENTER NOVEMBER 30, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
To what extent is demography destiny in politics? That’s the question that Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin’s much-discussed analysis of the 2012 presidential race puts front and center.
Teixeira and Halpin posit that the balance of two forces, “the shifting demographic balance of the American electorate, and the objective reality and voter perception of the economy in key battleground states,” will likely determine the outcome of Obama’s reelection. At that level of generality, it’s hard to disagree. But I would argue that while demography matters, it is not as significant as Teixeira and Halpin believe. Yes, it makes a difference that Obama’s winning 2008 coalition relied on growing segments of the electorate while the traditional, mostly white Republican base is fated to shrink, election after election. But other things matter at least as much—especially the impact of the past three years on the orientation and enthusiasm of the Obama coalition, for reasons not all of which are rooted in the economy. Put simply: If Obama’s margins shrink among young people, Hispanics, and other key parts of his base while disappointment depresses their turnout, the falloff in Obama’s support will swamp the modest post-2008 demographic shifts in his favor.
While Teixeira and Halpin don’t disagree with my thesis (it’s a matter of simple arithmetic, after all), they systematically underplay the evidence suggesting that it may well come to pass. To redress the imbalance, let’s look at the most recent Gallup numbers from the week of November 21 to 27. Obama’s overall approval rating stood at 43 percent, as it has for more than a month—a level inconsistent with a successful reelection campaign unless there’s a significant third party candidate on the right.
For present purposes, it’s the details below the top line that matter. Specifically:
· Support for Obama among young voters ages 18 to 29 has plunged to only 48 percent.
· His approval among Hispanics stands at only 51 percent.
· With the exception of voters with post-graduate degrees, Obama is under water with every educational cohort: 42 percent among those with a high school diploma or less, 41 percent among those with some college, and 41 percent for voters with BAs.
· While his approval among Democrats and liberals remains robust (79 and 71 percent, respectively), he stands at only 39 percent among Independents and 51 percent among moderates—about 10 points below what Democrats need from these two categories to win national popular vote majorities.
· While the gulf between married voters and unmarried ones persists, Obama’s approval among unmarried voters stands at only 51 percent.
Compare these numbers with the shares of the vote Obama received from these groups in November 2008:
It’s clear that Obama’s margins are down—way down—not just among swing voters, but in the core of his coalition as well. Compounding the problem, the base’s enthusiasm and intensity have declined as well. As Gerald Seib has noted, while Democrats won the intensity race hands-down in 2008, the reverse is the case today. In the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, 56 percent of Republicans said that they were more enthusiastic than usual, versus only 43 percent of Democrats, and 59 percent of conservatives profess to be more enthusiastic than usual, versus only 38 percent of liberals. Over the past year, every survey has found these same disparities.
The bottom line is that unless things turn around considerably in the next eleven months, key parts of Obama’s winning 2008 coalition are poised to deliver both lower margins and smaller shares of the electorate than they did in 2008. (In general elections, actual votes closely mirror pre-election approval ratings.) If the election were held tomorrow against the most credible Republican challenger, the president would probably lose.
Demography shapes political orientations, of course. But so do events. And this is especially true for voters who don’t enter the political arena with well-established views and habits. While there’s good reason to believe that today’s young adults will remain more comfortable with diversity—of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation—than are their parents and grandparents, there’s no guarantee that this will translate into a liberal or pro-government orientation across the board. A thought-experiment: Suppose a Republican were to win the presidency in 2012, implemented a broadly conservative economic agenda, and that after four years the job market for young adults had improved substantially. Is it plausible that this scenario would have no impact on their long-term political orientation?
Similarly, while Obama received fully two-thirds of the votes from the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S. population, the impact of his failure to enact—or even to push hard for—immigration reform is likely to be substantial. To be sure, few Republicans even espouse such an agenda. Still, it would not be unfair for Latinos to conclude that as things stand, neither party gives them much ground for hope.
Since the financial collapse began four years ago, events at home and abroad have disrupted Americans’ settled expectations. It would be prudent to assume that this will have a measurable impact on their political orientation as well. While it’s harder to predict the overall direction of these attitudinal changes, they may well tug against the influence of demography and reconfigure the political playing field.
Demography isn’t destiny. But neither is anything else. Americans’ political outlook will be shaped by the choices their leaders make, and even more by the consequences of those choices.
William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing editor for The New Republic.
28 comments
Obama has governed more as a moderate Republican than a Progressive Democrat... and has not been able to provide an effective opposition to intransigent right-wing Republicamn tactics and policies. There is no reason to believe that will change. If re-elected, he will have zero coat tails to elect Progressive Democrats and most likely have a Republican House and Senate dominate by right-wing politicians -- and a tanked or tanking economy. All told, a very cogent argument can be made that the Democratic Party needs new Leadership, especially in the Senate and White House--- and that will happen at the earliest in 2016 only if BHO is NOT re-elected. If he is, there is a good chance he and Keynesian economics (which he doesn't understand or follow) get blamed for the economic disaster-- and right wing Repubs run against a Democratic Hoover for a generation.
- drofnats1
November 30, 2011 at 6:40am
Wait -- you're comparing his 2011 approval ratings, with his *2008* vote share? I'll note in 2010 the Republicans took back quite a few seats -- why aren't you looking at his approval then? Seems to me you're asking apples-and-oranges questions here. I expect, once the wing-nut fest called the "Republican Primary" finally quits playing Chinese Fire Drills and we get a Republican candidate, that Obama's approval rating will rise. Sure, Obama compared to some ideal version of Obama is disappointing. But Obama compared to ANY Republican candidate is still a shining example of Hope and Change.
- AllanL5
November 30, 2011 at 8:38am
If "progressivism" means, "kick the can down the road until we can get 100% of what we want," I don't think I can support it. That's a fantasy. That's like saying, "Hmm, maybe if I didn't go to work today, I'd buy a winning lottery ticket, and everything would work out just fine." It mystifies me that some people believe that special interests will become less entrenched, and the political process will grow more favorable as the years progress. Even if President Obama lost in 2012, and Democrats managed to regain the House and Senate and Presidency in 2016, what makes you think that progressive goals will be on surer footing? It took, what, almost a hundred years for any kind of comprehensive health care reform (other than Medicare) to pass? What about the enfranchisement of African-Americans? Most good things in this country have taken ages to develop--years of incremental changes. I'm not saying that things ought to work that way. But this notion that 1) President Obama has been this weak, faux-liberal failure of a president, and 2) that his losing reelection would usher in a golden age of progressivism is simply ridiculous. Such a future is impossible to predict. At best, it's a maybe--and the probabilities are likely lower than that.
- maxhencke
November 30, 2011 at 9:03am
Max. It's a straw man to say do nothing unless one gets 100% of what Progressives want. Should I presume you want 0%-- and are 100% satisfied with the status quo? I am assessing the probabilities for 2016 and beyond--- and saying NOT re-electing BHO is the better bet for the reasons stated--- which you never address.
- drofnats1
November 30, 2011 at 9:31am
In 2010, voter enthusiasm for Andrew Cuomo was near zero, although that was slightly higher than the unfortunate Carl Paladino. New York turnout pivoted on congressional contests in the downstate suburbs, and the Senate contest of Kirsten Gillenbrand. No one even knew that Schumer was also on the ballot. My theory for 2012 is that the Senate contests will drive voter enthusiasm and statewide turnout, no matter who the GOP presidential candidate is. A reverse coattails election - has there ever been one that determined the Presidency? As soon as New York gets around to making a new congressional map, and there is some idea of who will be again contesting Gillenbrand statewide, I will let TNR.com know if I think New York will be a bigger swing state than Florida.
- K2K
November 30, 2011 at 10:15am
This is getting tiresome. Obama is not running against himself. Look at this sentence: If the election were held tomorrow against the most credible Republican challenger, the president would probably lose. And who the hell would that challenger be? Gingrich would lose in a landslide. Romney, running against the weakest field imaginable, can't even break out. Let us say it is Romney, what are the demographics favoring him? The 1% and Mormons? That will get him 2% Romney has no rock solid core of support like Bush did or even McCain (who at least was personally admired by most Americans). Romney's only chance is if things really fall apart next year people will hold their noses and vote for him but if things really fall apart he has no real chance of fixing them. Against Ronald Reagan, yeah Obama would probably lose, but Reagan is dead. Stop pretending Obama is going to run against him. My best guess is the election will be an Obama yes, but...with Republicans winning the Senate and Obama not getting much downticket since many evangelicals and fundies just won't be able to vote for the Mormon but will vote Republican downticket.
- blackton
November 30, 2011 at 10:39am
Obama has governed more as a moderate Republican than a Progressive Democrat... Oh nonsense, I am so tired of this fantasy. Obama has done more to advance liberal causes than any President since Johnson. The largest and most expansive health care insurance reform, the ending of official discrimination against gays in the military, Banking reform, student loan reform..etc. None of these things would have been done by a GWHB, who was the last moderate Republican. You can be a nihilist and vote for Newt and hope he blows up the country so that some unnamed Jesus type Democrat will usher in some socialist paradise, I am not, too many people will suffer needlessly. We tried that idiocy with the Nader voters (Goddamn them all to hell everyone).
- blackton
November 30, 2011 at 10:47am
Blackton in both posts says it well. Mr. Galston says nothing about the "approval" ratings of the leading Repubs. Let's see how it looks after the GOP primarys when people have a clear choice. Obama certainly has disappointed his more idealistic supporters, but the accomplishments Blackton lists are significant and he doesn't even touch on elimination of Bin Laden and Gaddafi and the orderly winding down of the Iraq fiasco.
- appleton
November 30, 2011 at 11:53am
I don't think any polling counts until the Republican candidate is picked and the choice is clear. If Obama has a 43% approval rating and his opponent has a 39% approval rating, what result?
- Nusholtz
November 30, 2011 at 11:59am
Excellent posts, Blackton.
- Tristan
November 30, 2011 at 12:06pm
I agree with blackton. The Naderites have done as much damage to America as the idiot Rapturists who voted for their idiot Earthly Leader, G.W. Bush. Without either or even one of these groups, Incurious George would have never been given the opportunity to trash our nation.
- magboy47.
November 30, 2011 at 12:39pm
How many weeks in a row can you write the same exact column? We get it - with 9% unemployment an incumbent President is in danger of not being re-elected.
- john_ellis
November 30, 2011 at 12:40pm
How about 11+% unemployment... I bet that gets Mittens or Gingrich or ABO (Anybody But Obama) elected-- that's what you Pollyanna's are going to be facing by denying realitry for over two years. And as for wanting too much, what most Progessive's I know want is what Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower-- Hell, even Dewey-- would have supported. BHO has moved the political spectrum so far to the right that tnr bloggers like Blackton, Tristan, magboy think anyoneone to the left of Franco (or Dole??) is a wiid-eyed liberal. Health care reform equal to Medicare-- I knew LBJ and Obamacare ain't health care reform-- it's some insurance reform that may or may not stand up. That very few understand. Medicare Part E (for everyone) would have been easy to understand.
- drofnats1
November 30, 2011 at 1:09pm
Mr. Galston, please please please do us a favor. Stop opining on the 2012 election as a contest between Obama and some better version of himself or against a fantasy Republican candidate who has no flaws that are apparent to persuadable voters. That might have worked before September when the Republican field was still in flux, but it no longer works a month before the Iowa caucuses. In 2012, Obama will almost certainly face one of two people as his Republican opponent -- Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich (or MAYBE Rick Perry, if Newt completely flames out sometime before the Florida primary). You need to start comparing Obama against those two men and their known flaws, not against some Republican Superman candidate who will replicate the Republicans' midterm showing without repelling any persuadable voters.
- wildboy
November 30, 2011 at 1:39pm
Health care reform equal to Medicare-- I knew LBJ and Obamacare ain't health care reform-- it's some insurance reform that may or may not stand up. That very few understand. Medicare Part E (for everyone) would have been easy to understand. Drofnats, I realize that arguing with you is like arguing with my dining room table (H/T Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA), but you still need to explain to us TNR bloggers who single-payer health care was going to be enacted in the 111th Congress when you never had 60 Senators in favor of it. I know that Magic LBJ would have backed Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln et al. into a corner and browbeaten them all night long, but that's not an argument for how you could have actually gotten them to vote in favor of something like that.
- wildboy
November 30, 2011 at 1:42pm
Wildboy. I recognize that you probably talk a lot to your dining room table, rather than listen to Progessives. Barney would understand as he understands and advocated Medicare Part E. As has been said for years now--Dems need a new breed of hard-nosed liberals in power. That won't happen with BHO as Prez or Reid as Senate Dem leader-- much to the chagrin of the many Presbyterian** blue dogs/DINOs that now highly poplulate the bloggers and editors of tnr (Lipmann has been spinning in his grave for over a decade!!). It doesn't take political genius to know that breaking of the filibuster was and is the key to Senate reform-- and that BHO had the political capital to do so in February 2009. And all it took was an understanding of Keynesian economics to know the proposed stimulus was too small-- and without some outside stimulus (wider Mideast-war, anyone??)-- would produce exactly what it produced. And Health care reform comes after filibuster reform. Now you are looking at 50 votes + Biden-- not 60 votes. That was NO pipedream.. that was a missed opportunity that LBJ would never have flubbed. **Subscribers to the ideology that all is pre-ordained. Napoleon B, Abraham L, Adolph H, Benito M were all pre-ordained--- and folks like James Buchanan or Neville Chamberlain are inappropriately denigrated for what they didn't do to try harder to prevent historical tragedies.
- drofnats1
November 30, 2011 at 1:58pm
Drofnats, do you ever talk to people who are not obsessed with politics but are instead busy leading their lives and view periodic political engagement (such as voting and the occasional campaign donation) as civic duty? You know, like the vast majority of voters left, right and center in this country? If you did, you would know that the vast majority of them have only a very passing familiarity with the filibuster and how it works, if they even know what it is at all. These are the same people who blame Obama for not getting things done even though Democrats ostensibly have a Senate majority -- because they don't know about these kinds of details and don't have the time to be educated in them. Now think back to February 2009 and what most people were concerned with -- it wasn't filibusters or universal health care, but stopping the second coming of the Great Depression. And you think that Obama's first priority should have been to fight to chance a Senate parliamentary rule?? He didn't have 60 Democratic votes in the Senate until Arlen Specter switched parties in Summer 2009, and many Democratic Senators have been resistent to eliminating the filibuster because they fear Republicans abusing it once they are back in charge -- you know, how Republicans wanted to kill it in 2005 so they could freely appoint right-wing judges. Making filibuster reform Obama's first priority to spend his political capital -- instead of stimulus that required Republican votes, instead of emergency steps to stop the alarming slide of the banking sector, instead of the auto industry rescue -- would have been insane. It would have been doubly insane because it would have failed resoundingly -- at least 51 (if not more) Senators would have voted against it, and any change to the filibuster would itself require a filibuster-proof majority vote! Just like Clinton, Obama would have started off his administration with a major policy defeat. That's what you want as a Progressive Democrat? You are the perfect example of what Chait criticized about liberals and Democratic Presidents. You puff up and idealize them before they are elected, then constantly criticize them when they are in office for failing to meet your impossibly high standards and then eventually come around to appreciate them as being model liberals and progressives after they have left office and hold up future Democratic politicians to their impossibly high standards. It's like falling impossibly in love with a girl (or boy), then treating them like dirt once he or she moves in with you and, after he or she moves out, measuring your next date by the re-discovered magnificence of your ex.
- wildboy
November 30, 2011 at 2:53pm
drofnats, may I point out that "a new breed of hard-nosed liberals" has to be elected by the people in order to exercize that power you're talking about? So let's take a high-profile example: one of the most reliable and indeed hard-nosed liberals in elected office was Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. According to your assessment of things, in 2010 a hungry electorate panting for liberals with those hard noses (and maybe a good nose for politics is better than hard one?) would have elected Feingold. Indeed, they HAD elected Feingold previously, for three terms. So unless I'm misunderstanding you, your theory is that a majority of the voters of Wisconsin kicked out their long serving and hard-nosed Democratic senator and elected a right wing Republican in order to protest the lack of hard-nosed Democratic policies being carried out by the president and the Senate majority leader. Or is there something I'm missing?
- ironyroad
November 30, 2011 at 3:07pm
Obama was supposed to be the Great Democratic Hope, ushering in a new era of progressive politics in the wake of Bush's disastrous Presidency. Now some Democrats are rooting for Obama to lose in 2012, so that in 2016 we can elect an as-yet-unnamed Great Democratic Hope to usher in a new era of progressive politics in the wake of a presumed-to-be-disastrous Romney Presidency. In the event that this happens, I expect 2020 to see cries of disappointment and calls for the Great Democratic Hope of 2016 to be ousted, to make room for the GDH who will surely, surely arrive in 2024... Obama has delivered on most of his big campaign promises. There are plenty of things to criticize about his Presidency; he has made mistakes; but WELCOME TO THE FREAKING WORLD. If Obama loses in 2012, there is only one thing we are guaranteed in 2016, and that's four years of Republican governance from now until then. There is no reason to expect the Perfect Democrat to come along and save us. More likely, 2016 will see the second coming of John Kerry. If you want a Democratic President, we've got one. We're not going to get a better one any time soon. If you think the system is corrupt and needs to be overhauled from the ground up--I agree with you! But "from the ground up" means "from the ground up," not "from the White House down." Go occupy something, or start a union, or come up with some other way to build up liberal institutions to push back the conservative machine. Advocating Obama's defeat is just shooting yourself, and the rest of us, in the foot.
- Dausuul
November 30, 2011 at 3:24pm
drofnats1, As I said in another thread, I voted for Eldridge Cleaver in 1968, but have since learned a little about the art of the possible. I'd like to see Dennis Kucinich as president, but I wouldn't support his candidacy. If he, by some miracle, ever became the Democratic candidate for president, the Republicans could run Pluto the Dog and win the White House. Then the GOP would be Plutocratic, even in name. But, since Kucinich would lose anyway, I'd vote for him. However, if Kucinich decided to run independently and take votes away from the Democratic candidate, like Nader did, then I would vote for the Democratic candidate, even if he or she were Tweety Bird. I may have helped Nixon win in 1968. Pretty dumb.
- magboy47.
November 30, 2011 at 3:26pm
Good points, Blackton. I'm glad that there are realistic (and yes, somewhat disappointed) progressives unafraid to talk the hard truth about the progress that has been made in spite of conservative obstruction.
- Tobbar
November 30, 2011 at 9:20pm
http://nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/democrats-bet-the-senate-on-women-20111129 "Democrats Bet the Senate on Women: The party aggressively recruited female candidates for pivotal Senate races next year." The 2010 Gillenbrand strategy at work - statewide Senate contests will drive voter turnout - reverse coattails... imo, as a one-time Wisconsin voter, I think Russ Feingold would be a far better choice than Tammy Baldwin for Kohl's seat in 2012. And, Tammy Baldwin might be a stronger candidate than Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts.
- K2K
November 30, 2011 at 11:35pm
O's biggest liability is the impression that he's unable to deal effectively with Congress. When Dems were in control, he got rolled by the Reid/Pelosi team. While he talked sweet concilliation and bi-partisanship, they steamed ahead with a "my way or the highway" approach to crafting legislation that facilitated, if not instigated, the Repubs successful counter-strategy of total opposition. The sausage factory visible on the 24/7 news cycle had as much to do with the Repubs gains in 2010 as the unemployment numbers. IMHO, his best chance of securing re-election (which I still think is a better than 50% bet) would come from seizing a strong role in pushing by hook or by crook some form of Simpson-Bowles into law, taking short-term stimulative measures in concert with long-term structural reforms. Then he's got a reasonable record to run on that addresses public concerns more coherently than ACA or finiancial reform, neither of which have any demonstrated impact right now, and whose long-term results are speculative.
- Robert Powell
December 1, 2011 at 4:04am
Robert Powell: "When Dems were in control, he got rolled by the Reid/Pelosi team." What do you mean by that? What examples are there that he got "rolled"? "While he talked sweet concilliation and bi-partisanship, they steamed ahead with a 'my way or the highway' approach to crafting legislation that facilitated, if not instigated, the Repubs successful counter-strategy of total opposition." I don't see it that way at all. The health care bill started from a position of compromise: a plan that was to a large extent what Republicans proposed in response to Clinton in the 1990s, more conservative than what Nixon put forward, with single payer not even on the table. Then compromise went further as the public option was dropped and Senate negotiations with the "gang of six" went on for months. I don't see that as "my way or the highway." I see it as Republican obstructionism from the start. Heck, McConnell was pretty explicit about his objective of denying Obama a second term. As for pushing Simpson-Bowles and short-term stimulus, is there any serious prospect about getting either of them through this Congress? Any real revenue increase is anathema to House Republicans, and no way will any serious proposal get 60 votes in the Senate, so a Simpson-Bowles-type plan which includes revenues has no shot. If Obama pushes it and fails, he looks weak. He's already got the obstructionism issue for campaigning; why add another item to the list when voters may not differentiate the reasons for failure? Same goes for short-term stimulus: just won't happen with this Congress, and even if it did it's probably too late for it to have a substantial impact before the election. Just look at the difficulty at getting some smaller common sense jobs programs through right now....
- dsimon
December 1, 2011 at 1:22pm
I find it ironic that the only reason Obamanation has a chance to be re-elected is because he is black and Democrats are racist: From Gallup, Obama's approval rates the last few months" 32-35% approval for whites 45-50% approval for Hispanics ... 80-85% approval for blacks No rational, sentient, non-parasitic, US Citizen would strongly approve of Obama's job performance -- unless they are racist or a public sector parasite (non-defense related of course). Explains the high liberal approval rate. If a republican was this incompetent and inept, I sure wouldn't approve of their job performance.
- mr_rationale
December 1, 2011 at 1:35pm
And no doubt back in 1962 there was a higher approval level for JFK among voters of Irish Catholic background than others. Big surprise, Obviously a certain amount of reflected pride is in the figure for black respondents, but they are also the ones who recognize most clearly the nature of SOME of the opposition to Obama.
- ironyroad
December 1, 2011 at 1:50pm
blackton - if gays in the military is/was your #2 action item for liberals and student loans #3, that's not too impressive. As Andrew Sullivan writes, HCR was a "moderate republican" plan -- I worked hard for it and am glad it passed (presuming Reid didn't kill it by failing to include a severability clause), but zeesh, we're not that cheap of a date! That said, this demographic analysis needs a big qualifier: Romney/Gingrich - a BIG question of how much enthusiasm either instills in Republicans, and how much Gingrich could instill in opponents.
- Lymon1
December 5, 2011 at 7:59am
not yet mentioned. Obama has got one small problem, named Ayatollah Khaninei. This will haunt him. Obama will lose the 2012 election.
- sf4200
December 5, 2011 at 9:25am