Last Friday, I wrote about that Democracy Corps study showing that the conservative base lives in a dreamworld, and the problems this poses for Republicans in the 2010 midterms. They are not the only party with difficulties facing them next year, however. History and demographic trends actually provide problems for Democrats seeking to hold their majorities. And their relative success on major agenda items could determine their fate.
A study put out recently by the progressive group Womens Voices Womens Vote detailed what they call the “rising American electorate,” or RAE voters, and the difficulty of turning this voter out to the polls in non-Presidential-year elections. WVWV defines the RAE as unmarried women, young voters (18-29), and nonwhites. This demographic, which is generally more Democratic, now represents a majority of the voting-age population for the first time, according to Page Gardner, President of WVWV. However, this group is not registered to vote in the numbers reflective of their proportion of the population, nor do they vote in those proportions. And this imbalance is highlighted in a midterm election.
“The big problem is that this group is very mobile,” said Gardner. “They are ten times more likely to move during an election period than the average voter, particularly now, because they are on the front lines of this economic crisis.”
This phenomenon of drop-off voting leads to a more conservative electorate in midterms relative to the overall population, and this trend has increased in recent elections. According to Census data, RAE voters could make up as little as 41% of the electorate in 2010, compared to 46.6% in 2008. Digging into the state-level data, you can see dramatic
shifts, where drop-off voters among RAE populations could mean a loss of 140,000 votes in Nevada, 200,000 votes in Missouri, 900,000 votes in Florida and 2 million votes in California.
Recent polling in current statewide races in New Jersey and Virginia seem to confirm this trend. While few voters are switching sides in these races, a shift in intensity, with GOP voters planning to turn out at higher rates than Democrats, has moved them closer to the Republican column, despite each state having voted for Barack Obama in 2008. While Gardner doesn’t believe that these races are metaphors for 2010, she acknowledges that some of the dynamics among drop-off voters are the same – with Democratic voters turning out at a lower rate, Republicans can take advantage.
In addition to finding mobile RAE voters and foregrounding techniques to make it easier for them to vote (same-day registration, vote by mail, etc.), Gardner does believe that the policies enacted by the Obama Administration will factor greatly on turnout. “Clearly there is an interplay between the achievements of the Administration on policy and intensity on voting. Their lives depend on health care, for example.” The continued White House wavering on issues like the public insurance option have a disproportionate effect on a group of voters who turned out in 2008 “more out of hope than of anger,” according to Gardner. Exit polls show that liberals were the largest ideological swing block in 2008, and so liberal accomplishments are likely to be a major factor in turnout. This frustration from the liberal base was exemplified in a weekend New York Times piece featuring Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).
If elected officials primarily consider themselves accountable to voters who can potentially change their voting habits, and thus change the results of elections, it would be unwise to focus solely on the middle of the electorate. Roughly one-third of the swing voters that put Democrats in office are liberals, and as such Democrats need to keep those voters happy. Further, even apart from votes, the partisan and ideological base drives resources–donations, volunteers, positive messaging to family, friends and co-workers–which can in turn be used to acquire votes from non-base groups.
Rather than the shopworn ideas that Nancy Pelosi will drag on the Democratic ticket in 2010, or that the election will turn on individual corrupt members, it seems more likely that Democratic base voters, particularly those in the rising American electorate, hold the key to Democratic chances in 2010. This means that success for the Democrats truly is tied to tangibly achieving progressive agenda goals



5 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Bingo.
And it means people need good information on candidates and other issues which will be on the ballot. A serious problem for new and old residents alike. Something virtually no local media does well in most places I lived. Though California does send out a helpful booklet before elections. Every state should do the same, while including much more information on individual candidates.
It isn’t just the numbers but the enthusiasm. Obama is turning off a lot of progressives who would be expected to provide that enthusiasm. Also turnouts in midterms are traditionally low so a committed group can have a disproportionate impact, on the right or the left.
Hugh -
You are correct but I believe we are apart of the ideological segment the post is talking about. In other words save for a small faction we’ll all generally vote Democrat….
I sure wouldn’t let the the DNC call the plays in a Football Game, they would get killed. Playing conservative and “running the football”, when they should be using the “play-action pass (run fake)” and pass the ball over the top for a touchdown (Serious Health Care Reform).
Nobody is going to understand the politically wonky speak that’s going to come from MSNBC and CNN (from its liberal/progressive talking heads). Newspapers are going to break down the reforms and if it comes up that its not as robust or progressive as believed or the President has sold before signing into law, then turnout will be low and some Dems will suffer. I don’t think enough to effect the majority though, call it a “warning shot”
This is their chance to make a progressive reform that will be politically unpopular to challenge later on, like SSI
Since it will take much longer for the “real” economy to turnaround (2011-2013), if Obama wants to assure that he’ll be Capt. of the USS United States then sooner rather than later, he’ll push for a robust reform, I will not call it “Public Option” until we know what’s at stake…
David, another great look at things that matter.
Hugh, spot on.
WAY too many amongst us progs/libs and in the WH and Congress and MSM, and even in the blogosphere, are underplaying the rage and anger that will spew forth if healthcare reform is NOT robust, does NOT start NOW, and does not provide a government run plan to directly compete with the insurance companies.
And end to denial of pre existing and recissions is NOT what the masses want in exchange for mandates.
A failure to deliver REAL reform in healthcare will put the dem’s out of business thru 2012 or longer.
There is a real rage out there, ready to let loose when change is NOT delivered. It’s fueled by a lot of things, but jobs and healthcare are (IMHO) the two things that are gonna piss the people enough to screw the dem’s royally.
That it plays to the repubs hand means nothing, things are bad and will get worse without jobs and reforms of all sorts. Under repubs, it will be worse, but the masses are so screwed now more repub rule that fails will set it up for 2014/2016 for some MORE jockeying for change!
If this admin and congress screw up hc reform, and other reforms, in the next 6 months, they are toast.
Agree, but also there won’t just be rage but a related passivity amongst the RAE voters if HC is not improved, along with Gitmo closing, more tangible moves to ending the wars, improvements in jobs, etc. BHO got out a lot of the RAE vote bc of disenchantment with Bushco, disgust and dismay with Sarah Palin, and a hope for a better future for the middle and under classes.
IF the Dems and BHO mess this up, I believe they are toast bc the younger voters with turn off and drop out (sound familiar?), plus minorities will go back to believing “it’s not worth it; nothing ever changes.” And would they be wrong? Maybe not so much.
The other side of the coin is that the rightwing base may be small – 20%? 25% 30? – but these are mainly the elderly. No offense to anyone, but having elderly parents and other rels, it’s my observation that these folks are bored, somewhat shut-in, and a big preponderance of them live on a steady diet of Beck, Rush, Hannity, Fake “News,” etc, and they vote. They really get out there and vote. The number of votes that McCain got from this crowd – who mostly did NOT like McCain at all – should be a cautionary tale to BHO and Dems, but I have concern that they seem singularly unconcerned.
Comments to the effect that this crowd is “dying off” should be met with disdain because this crowd, while trending elderly, is still relatively healthy and living much longer than prior generations. They’re going to be around for quite a bit longer, and they will vote, mark my words.
If Hopey don’t deliver the goods, Hopey will be out of a job. And the rest of us will be eff you see kayed.