ELECTIONATE AUGUST 17, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This week's poll of unlikely voters made a splash, but its main finding—that Obama leads among people who say they probably won't vote in November—is hardly surprising. After all, Republicans have demonstrated a consistent advantage among likely voters; it follows, then, that Democrats should do well among the unlikely ones. But while leading among nonvoters is never the greatest news, the poll also indicated something more troubling for Democrats: Many of these unlikely voters actually voted for Obama in 2008, but plan to stay at home in 2012.
The key question isn't whether unlikely voters lean Obama—which we know—but whether there are unlikely voters who have voted for Democrats in recent elections. While it's impossible to say just how many might stay home, the poll shows that 44 percent of unlikely, registered voters actually turned out and cast ballots for Obama in 2008, compared to 20 percent for McCain and 32 percent who didn't vote at all. Put differently, the poll suggests that Obama '08 voters are more than twice as likely to have departed the electorate compared to their counterparts who supported McCain.
Perhaps tellingly, 23 percent of the unlikely voters who turned out in 2008 are African Americans—more than twice as many as their share of the 2008 electorate. From a certain perspective, this isn't surprising, since African American turnout was historically high in 2008. But Obama's chances depend in no small measure on his ability to again generate massive African American turnout. If African American voting patterns remained at 2004 levels, half of Obama’s 7-point victory would have vanished.
Does Obama have any chance to rekindle the enthusiasm of these voters? While they seem less likely to turn out for Obama than they did four years ago, their support for Obama appears undiminished—particularly among African Americans. Eighty-three percent of unlikely African American voters approve of Obama’s performance, and they preferred Obama over Romney by a 77-6 margin.
And even though many of these voters do not currently intend to vote, there’s reason to think that the right arguments or circumstances could convince many to turn out on Election Day. Compared to other demographic groups, unlikely black voters were far more persuaded by arguments for voting. By a 50 point margin, unlikely African American voters said they were more bothered by letting others vote than the belief that their vote doesn’t matter. Whites selected discomfort with others voting over the view that their votes don’t matter by just a 6 point margin. Perhaps most significantly, 97 percent of unlikely, black Obama supporters said they would “definitely turn out” if they thought their vote “could swing a close national election to Obama.” But perhaps that’s the heart of Obama’s problem: Unlikely black voters expect Obama to win reelection by a 72-15 margin.
Obama's 2008 coalition was bolstered by strong turnout from demographic groups that don't traditionally participate at high rates in national politics. The recent poll of "unlikely voters" suggests that many of these voters have returned to the sidelines. But it also suggests that many are receptive to arguments for voting, perhaps especially in a close race. It's not hard to imagine how the combination of a strong ground operation and a tight race in battleground states could help Obama compensate some of these losses, at least where it counts most.
13 comments
How does Obama communicate to the unlikely voters that without their vote Obama is unlikely to win without making it self-fulfilling (by voters not voting because they've been told Obama is unlikely to win). Houdini never had such a difficult trick to pull off.
- rayward
August 17, 2012 at 2:33pm
Why don't people just go and friggin' vote? If once every couple of years is a burden . . .
- ironyroad
August 17, 2012 at 2:36pm
And I fear that the increased scrutiny of voter qualifications (IDs, etc.) may discourage many who are qualified from voting. For many poor and disaffected, the polling place is intimidating enough without the additional fear of being accused of doing something wrong. I expect Republicans to continue their assault on voter fraud right up to election day as a form of intimidation of the poor and disaffected. And reminding those voters of the new requirements (IDs, etc.) will only serve to discourage them from voting even if they can satisfy all the requirements.
- rayward
August 17, 2012 at 2:53pm
Yes the voter suppression situation is likely to really hurt. Which of course is the idea. Beyond that, young people and those who see no difference between Obama and the Republicans (oy) - some may stay home, and others might vote Green or other parties, apparently having forgotten Bush v Gore. The catastrophe that has ensued because Bush "won," you'd think would have impressed people and also the stampede of the Tea Party in 2010, so oy.
- Sophia
August 17, 2012 at 5:46pm
PS dear ex-boyfriend, if you're reading this (you know who you are) who never votes - this time please give us all a break, even though you are a "Marxist," and Obama is not a Marxist, and anyway we don't have a viable Socialist party anymore despite my mom's best efforts, she should rest in peace, and get your tuchas to the polls. PPS: not voting is shameful. Seriously. A friend of mine lives in Joe Walsh's district, in a HUD building yet, it's the polling place for the neighborhood, and only 19 people in the entire massive building bothered going downstairs to the lobby to vote. So now we got Joe Walsh. Thanks guys.
- Sophia
August 17, 2012 at 5:56pm
Or it's just a real liberal's wet dream, rising up to sit down and withhold their vote until they get what they want.
- GSpinks
August 17, 2012 at 10:19pm
someone should poll the 7.5 million Americans who used to have a job, but have withdrawn from the official stats, which makes the still-high unemployment rate artifically low. Protest voting in 2012 is certainly a dicey decision. I finally stopped caring when I got redistricted into Rangel's new NY13. I always considered it a privilege to vote, but, could not find the motivation to vote in that primary, which had turnout of less than 15%.
- K2K
August 17, 2012 at 10:28pm
Sophia writes: "The catastrophe that has ensued because Bush "won," you'd think would have impressed people and also the stampede of the Tea Party in 2010, so oy." Alas, if someone detested Bush based on his middle East actions, it's hard to like Obama. Last I checked, we're still detaining folks in gitmo and still shooting bullets in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And body count ticker in both countries continues to whirl. If someone detested Bush based on his economic policies, then they are realizing the foolishness of their ways at this point. Obama has utterly failed to get the economy going in 3+ years of trying. The longest recovery EVER in the history of the US. Tell me: Why was Clinton's bubble, which was capped off by 9/11 so easy to get going again? Even Reagan, who inherited even worse numbers than Obama did from Carter, was able to get things humming after 2 years. And thus, I think most are tired of waiting for things to improve. Obama has articulated nothing about what will be different in the next 4 years. The message to the middle class is: Things will continue to suck if I'm elected again. And make no mistake, these 3 years have been the most brutal 3 years for single moms, blacks and the middle class. They have lost massively in every key metric. Bush might not have been a genius, but he knew how to keep people employed for 7 of his 8 years. And right about now, that's probably sounding pretty good to a lot of folks. Oddly, those on TNR that get a tingle from the idea of screwing the rich (even if it means hurting the middle class) probably think things are pretty sweet right now.
- seattleeng
August 19, 2012 at 11:53am
If you can't even be bothered to put forward some ideas about why today's recovery is different from the rather mild downturn at the start of the century, other than "Obama sucks", you're probably better off not even asking the question. Just makes you look silly. May as well be asking why we're not trying what we did in 1918. Otherwise your observation about what is Obama promising is a reasonable observation.
- Nari224
August 19, 2012 at 1:20pm
Here's how the growth happens in a few simple steps: 1) Business and investors feels optimistic about the future 2) Money is spent by business and investors to take capitalize on that optimism. That means people are hired and products are made. 3) Unemployment shrinks as businesses hire 4) Wages rise as businesses compete for workers 5) Go back to step 1 and repeat. It really is that simple. If your #1 enemy is business, then why on earth would anyone invest? Think back to FDR, who was even more hostile to business. Forcing prices on a whim, buying industries and trying to run those. And the entire time, painting business as the monster. These are not conducive to growth. Never have been, and never will be. As a result, the funk dragged on forever. Now, tell me what Obama has done to make businesses optimistic? Because the various indices sure are indicating they are very pessimistic about the future. The fact that businesses are holding onto trillions in cash says they are pessimistic too. Bush telling everyone to "go out and shop" after 9/11 got a lot of laughs from dems. But it was part of a larger effort to get optimism back to normal as quickly as possible. That dems laugh at that line shows how little they understand about the role of optimism in all this. if Obama were in charge post 9/11, it would have been another anemic recovery, and we'd have heard about how big the bubble was, and how we must all pay for the sins of the previous administration, and to buck up and accept it because this was the new normal. Instead, we got 7 of 8 years that were pretty damn good for everyone. Now, you tell me what Obama will do in the next 4 years to help the economy that he hasn't done before? Why will the next 4 be different than the first 4? Remember, Obama already told us that his plan in 2008 would make things rosy in 2010. That never materialized did it. He doesn't know how to fix this.
- seattleeng
August 19, 2012 at 4:52pm
Can you ever stay on topic? How is Obama like FDR? What businesses has he bought and prices has he fixed? I'm sorry but I'm really struggling to see what arguments you are putting forward? How do you know what Obama would have done after 9/11? Would he have had the same obstructionist senate that he does today? This is all wild speculation. Not to mention that your 7-8 years of "pretty damn good for everyone" came to a screeching halt, from which Obama has been trying to dig us out. If you want to start the clock at Nov 2008, its hard to take you seriously. If Obama wins and the GOP no longer or cannot block his legislation, I can list a number of things that he'll likely do. Right now he actually can't do anything. And please, do not repeat the bollocks that he had a Senate majority for x years, that's absolutely false.
- Nari224
August 19, 2012 at 8:47pm
Nari224, seattle's primary argument is that we are better off than Somalia (no thanks to President Obama you understand), so we should shut up and vote Republican. I guess. Anyway, speaking of turnout, this is rather shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/doug-priesse-ohio-early-voting-_n_1807434.html But then I'm starting to get used to shocking and "GOP" in the same sentence. Candidate for the Senate doesn't think rape victims can get pregnant, so forth. We deserve this why?
- Sophia
August 19, 2012 at 11:47pm
what is missing is Confidence, which aligns with Optimism. The Bush43 years were NOT so good - employment barely kept up with population growth, and most of those jobs were from a housing bubble, the bursting of which continues to drag everyone down. Nannystatism is not the answer, neither is Vulture Capitalism. #1 lesson from the 20th century? The bond market will reward fiscal discipline. No matter what, abortion will continue to distract ALL these silly politicians who really do not care about anyone but themselves.
- K2K
August 20, 2012 at 9:19pm