SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home New Evidence That 2008 Was a Major Aberration for Democrats

PLANK AUGUST 30, 2012

New Evidence That 2008 Was a Major Aberration for Democrats

By itself, the state of the economy is enough to guarantee a close election, and every national survey during the past two weeks has put Obama and Romney in a statistical tie. Now another key factor points in the same direction—the shifting balance between the political parties. This matters because party preferences and voting patterns are more closely linked today than they have been in several generations—and two recent in-depth surveys of the party system document that a clean Democratic victory, of the sort the party enjoyed in 2008, is exceedingly unlikely. The surging Democratic tide of four years ago has ebbed, exposing a partisan shoreline that more closely resembles what prevailed in 2004.

Let’s begin with the Gallup poll released on August 29. At this time four years ago, 54 percent of registered voters had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, versus 39 percent with an unfavorable view. Republicans trailed badly, with 41 percent favorable and 51 percent unfavorable.

Not that much has changed for Republicans since then. Today, their favorable rating stands at 44 percent, and unfavorable at 50. The big shift has come for Democrats, whose edge over Republicans has completely disappeared. Only 43 percent of registered voters have a favorable view of the Democratic Party (down 13 points), while 52 percent have an unfavorable view (up 13 points). The erosion has been especially severe among men (15 points), whites (17 points), voters 35 to 54 years old (17 points), and Independents (12 points). Only nonwhite voters are more favorably inclined toward the Democratic Party than they were four years ago. And while a successful convention can provide a boost, history suggests that any such improvement in public perceptions of a political party is likely to disappear by Election Day.

On August 23, the Pew Research Center released a report entitled “A Closer Look at the Parties in 2012”, backed by more than 20 pages of detailed tables. Pew’s findings are consistent with Gallup’s. In 2008, Democrats plus Independents who lean Democratic constituted fully 51 percent of registered voters, versus only 39 percent for Republicans plus Independents who lean their way. But now, the 12-point Democratic edge of four years ago has shrunk to only 5 points, 48 to 43, statistically indistinguishable from the split in 2004. Among whites, the Republican edge has expanded from 2 points to 12; among white men, from 11 points to 22. While Democrats have lost ground in every age cohort, they still maintain an edge of 19 points among Millennials, down from 32 points in 2008.

Drilling down more deeply, Pew finds finer-grained trends. Republicans have made only modest gains among college-educated men, and none at all among college-educated women. But among men with less than a BA, Republicans have turned a 6-point deficit into a 3-point edge; among less educated women, the Democratic advantage has been pared from 20 points to 8. Relative to 2008, Republicans have made no gains among registered voters with household incomes of $75,000 or more, but they are doing much better among those making less than that. And all of these changes are more pronounced among white voters.

These demographic trends map onto geographical shifts. Republicans have gained no ground in urban areas, but they’re doing much better in the suburbs and in rural communities than they did four years ago. They have made larger gains in the South, Midwest, and West than in the Northeast, which remains a Democratic Party bastion.

The breakdown by religion tells an intriguing story. It’s no surprise that Republicans are doing even better among white evangelicals than they were four years ago. But they have turned an even split among white mainline Protestants into a 12-point advantage, and they have transformed an 8-point deficit among white Catholics into a 9-point edge. (This last statistic may help explain why the Romney-Ryan ticket is doing better than expected in the upper Midwest.)

The Pew survey portrays 2012 party system that is not only more evenly balanced than in 2008 but also more deeply divided. 71 percent of conservatives (81 percent of white conservatives) now identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, while 84 percent of liberals identify with or lean toward Democrats. The gap in attitudes toward fiscal policy and the role of government in the economy is astounding. 82 percent of Republicans, but only 29 percent of Democrats, favor a smaller government providing fewer services. 66 percent of Republicans, but only 33 percent of Democrats, choose reducing the deficit over spending to boost the economy. (Only 10 percent of Republicans support the 2009 stimulus package, compared to 68 percent of Democrats.) Support for the president’s health reform law tops 80 percent among Democrats but doesn’t reach double digits among Republicans.

A careful reader might object, reasonably, that a 5-point edge in preferences among registered voters, tough down from 2008, is still good news for Democrats. But matters are more complicated than that. In 2004, according to Pew, the Democrats enjoyed a 3-point edge but ending up losing the popular vote by more than 2 points. Over the past four elections, in fact, the eventual popular vote margin has been, on average, 5 points more favorable to Republican candidates than the balance among registered voters would have suggested. If that pattern is repeated in 2012, the 5-point pro-Democratic edge in voter preference turns into a popular vote tie—which is what every national survey is now showing.

The bottom line: if the 2012 election is more about mobilizing the persuaded than persuading the perplexed, then the current standing of the two parties suggests that the election will be very divisive—and very close.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 9 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

9 comments

Ah, Mr. Galston. When will you realize that you work for a PROGRESSIVE magazine, that hand-wringing confirming Republican Propaganda really doesn't serve you or your readership very well. Leave that for Fox-News, okay? I'd submit that 2010 was an abberation for the Republican Party. Based on creation of the Tea-Party propaganda outlet by the Koch Brothers and sponsored by Fox-News, they used flat-out lies to mis-characterize Obama's Health-Care initiative and scare the country about it. Not to mention the sheer number of Tea-Party ding-bats that rode in to the House, and immediately refused to compromise on anything, trying to get their ding-bat policies through no matter who said "no". And threatening the economic life-line of America on three separate occasions. So given America's experience with this propaganda machine for the last two years, and the Bush-II propaganda machine from 2000 through 2008, I'm much more hopeful that it was 2010 that was the abberation, not 2008. But I guess we'll just have to see about that.

- AllanL5

August 30, 2012 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, nothing like a nice smack across the chops to bring one to one's senses. Thanks, Bill - I needed that.

- Haole45

August 30, 2012 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"By itself, the state of the economy is enough to guarantee a close election..." Yes. So when Obama wins that close election, how will you interpret that? This post is an exercise in stating the obvious. Of course, Bush fatigue inflated Obama's and the Democratic Party's numbers in 2008. Of course, in the setting of a shithouse economy there is going to be movement away from the party in the White House. So what? Are you trying to imply that Democrats can triangulate their way out of this? If so, that is distinctly horrible advice. Contra Galston, current polling does not indicate a "statistical tie." The margin in any given poll may be narrow enough so as to fall outside the zone of statistical significance, but pooled data indicate a small but statistically significant lead for Obama both nationally and in the key battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida as well as a statistically insignificant half-point lead for Romney in North Carolina. What does Galston expect? A 5% margin in Obama's favor? Ridiculous...

- AaronW

August 30, 2012 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The polls suffer from a problem of proof. After 6 years of pure Republican control and 8 years of a Republican presidency, Democrats did better. Democratic policies of higher top rates and stimulus spending have not been implemented and it is hard to prove the effect of policies not put in place. But the effect of policies put in place from 2000 to 2008 is clear. I also wonder if the reason Republican governors are said to have done well is because when parties work together, problems can get solved.

- Nusholtz

August 30, 2012 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All things considered, there is no underdog in this race that may attract empathy. Despite the powers of the incumbency, the President does not enjoy a comfortable lead and notwithstanding efforts to discover outcomes through previously unexplored statistical data and analysis, things are going to get mean and stay mean.

- Doug12

August 30, 2012 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An unpopular war and a collapsing economy, of course 2008 was an aberration. What's the new normal? Everything has a flip side: advantage among women, deficit among men; solid with minorities, weak with whites; strong with youth, weak with seniors; we've got gays, they've got evangelicals. The overriding, seemingly phantom, issue is whether the plutocrats will continue to steal the wealth of the nation. And to address this BHO needs to speak to the nation as a whole. He might be surprised at the support he would get from some quarters.

- Vogelfam

August 30, 2012 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is with the Galston hate here? We don't want an objective analysis of the race because we're progressive and it will bum us out? The "bad economy" factor is neutral across every election (and every recession/quasi-recession?) and thus no more analysis is needed? Something to consider: what if the voters want something other than the recession, deficit, or health care to be addressed? What if - and I'm borrowing a bit from David Brooks here - a feeling that there's a seismic shift happening where jobs are disappearing for good and intrinsicly reject "the usual" responses (GOP: unchain business and it will save us! Dems: send everyone to college and move to green energy!) You never know.

- Lymon1

August 30, 2012 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can't we agree that Bush fatigue, Sarah Palin, the Lehman bankruptcy, and a stock market crash played a major role in electing BHO? Moreover, in my opinion, BHO ran against a much better candidate, John McCain, in 2008 than he is running against in 2012, Mitt Romney. If John McCain, four years younger, were running in 2012, I do not believe that BHO would have a chance. Therefore, isn't Mr. Galston correct?

- john336

August 30, 2012 at 9:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's always good to push against overconfidence, but at this point I have to say O looks solid. Polls in key states are better than overall, power of the incumbency, and the Republicans have decided to base their entire campaign on a tissue of lies. Sometimes bullshit wins, but like the man said, this looks more like 2004 than 2008.

- Robert Powell

August 31, 2012 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close