In the three plus months since the roll out of the Obamacare website, there has been a political shift in America. Poll after poll has shown a decided movement towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats. President Obama's job approval has sunk to new lows. Senate races around the country have shifted so that Republicans in unlikely place (like Land in Michigan) are now in the lead. Sure, it is very early to announce that 2014 will be a "wave election" with major Republican gains. It is not too early, however, to notice this trend and to discuss its potential impact. Right now, none of the election pundits give the Democrats any real chance to retake the House (which was their stated goal as recently as last October). The current predictions give the GOP about a 50-50 chance of retaking control of the Senate. Even in presidential matchups, the big lead that Hillary Clinton used to display over the GOP is gone. The most recent national polls show Clinton behind Christie by about two points. Of course, these polls are of little importance three years ahead of the election and since they were taken before the recent stories about Christie and the bridge and Clinton and her enemies list. Taken as a group, all these polls really show is that things are moving towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats.
The trend towards the GOP has now lasted long enough that many in the liberal DC bubble are starting to get nervous. Indeed, they have made it to the second spot on the trail to panic. First, they noticed what was happening in the polls and they waited for the numbers and the trend to reverse. It has not. Right now, they have gotten to the second point; they are busy assuring each other that the electoral dominance of the Democrats cannot be challenged. For that, they are trotting out the old demographic argument. You know the one: the percentage of Hispanics and Asians is rising in the population, and those groups will always vote Democrat.
I was struck this morning by the thought that this second phase is now in full swing when I read a column by Dan Balz in the Washington Post. Balz goes on at great length to point out that the Democrats have nearly a lock on the White House. He comes to that conclusion by looking at the last six elections and then discussing which states are moving towards which party. It is a rather silly exercise, but it is designed to comfort worried liberals that they will remain in control no matter what happens.
The idea that one can predict now which way a state electorate will move over the next decade is a lot like those predictions that the weather services issue in the Spring telling us how severe the upcoming hurricane season will be. They are fun to read. They might be right, but they just as often are wrong. Most important, they tell us nothing about individual storms. In the same way, columns about long term demographic movements are interesting. They might be correct and they might be wrong -- no one knows. Most important, they tell us nothing about individual elections.
Look, there clearly are states that are locked into one party or the other for now. The most important part of that sentence is "for now". States change, and sometimes the shifts are sudden. Look at West Virginia. From 1932 to 1996 it voted for the Democrat every four years except in the three biggest Republican landslides during that period (1956, 1972 and 1984). Then in 2000, the state reversed and started voting for the Republican. In 2012, Romney carried the state by a margin of over 26%. Consider Colorado; from 1940 to 2004 it voted for the Republican each time except for three. Then in the last two elections, it was won by the Democrats by a narrow margin. Recent polling in Colorado, however, shows an upsurge in support for the Republicans again. My point is not whether or not Colorado or West Virginia will vote Republican or Democrat in 2016; my point is that even in states that seem locked into one party or the other, things can change rapidly.
That leaves the so called battleground states. Does it really make sense to analyze these states based upon demographic trends? Not really! To do that analysis, one has to believe that Hispanics will move more towards the Democrats in the next two decades. There is no basis for this assumption. The analysis also requires one to believe that African Americans will continue to support the Democrats at the same levels in the future when president Obama will no longer be on the top of the ticket. That seems completely unrealistic. And what of Asian Americans. They are the largest immigrant group at the moment, a trend which seems likely to continue in the short term. There is no reason at all to assume that this group will be rigidly Democrat.
The real truth is no prediction of long term election trends based upon demographics makes sense. The allegiances of the various groups in the electorate is not static. Issues matter. Look at the Jewish vote for example. In the five presidential elections between 1992 and 2008, the highest of Jews voting Republican was on average just under 20%. Then, after Obama's first term during which he had a very confrontational approach to Israel, the percentage of Jews voting Republican soared to 30%. That trend may continue next time, or the Jewish vote may move back solidly towards the Democrat -- we don't know.
The funny thing is that Dan Balz must know just how silly the demographic predictions of voting are. But he is not really discussing those trends. His point is to reassure the Democrats in DC who are hyperventilating looking at the recent polls that they are still inevitably in control. Let them comfort each other. It will not help. Reality triumphs over demographic projections every time.
The trend towards the GOP has now lasted long enough that many in the liberal DC bubble are starting to get nervous. Indeed, they have made it to the second spot on the trail to panic. First, they noticed what was happening in the polls and they waited for the numbers and the trend to reverse. It has not. Right now, they have gotten to the second point; they are busy assuring each other that the electoral dominance of the Democrats cannot be challenged. For that, they are trotting out the old demographic argument. You know the one: the percentage of Hispanics and Asians is rising in the population, and those groups will always vote Democrat.
I was struck this morning by the thought that this second phase is now in full swing when I read a column by Dan Balz in the Washington Post. Balz goes on at great length to point out that the Democrats have nearly a lock on the White House. He comes to that conclusion by looking at the last six elections and then discussing which states are moving towards which party. It is a rather silly exercise, but it is designed to comfort worried liberals that they will remain in control no matter what happens.
The idea that one can predict now which way a state electorate will move over the next decade is a lot like those predictions that the weather services issue in the Spring telling us how severe the upcoming hurricane season will be. They are fun to read. They might be right, but they just as often are wrong. Most important, they tell us nothing about individual storms. In the same way, columns about long term demographic movements are interesting. They might be correct and they might be wrong -- no one knows. Most important, they tell us nothing about individual elections.
Look, there clearly are states that are locked into one party or the other for now. The most important part of that sentence is "for now". States change, and sometimes the shifts are sudden. Look at West Virginia. From 1932 to 1996 it voted for the Democrat every four years except in the three biggest Republican landslides during that period (1956, 1972 and 1984). Then in 2000, the state reversed and started voting for the Republican. In 2012, Romney carried the state by a margin of over 26%. Consider Colorado; from 1940 to 2004 it voted for the Republican each time except for three. Then in the last two elections, it was won by the Democrats by a narrow margin. Recent polling in Colorado, however, shows an upsurge in support for the Republicans again. My point is not whether or not Colorado or West Virginia will vote Republican or Democrat in 2016; my point is that even in states that seem locked into one party or the other, things can change rapidly.
That leaves the so called battleground states. Does it really make sense to analyze these states based upon demographic trends? Not really! To do that analysis, one has to believe that Hispanics will move more towards the Democrats in the next two decades. There is no basis for this assumption. The analysis also requires one to believe that African Americans will continue to support the Democrats at the same levels in the future when president Obama will no longer be on the top of the ticket. That seems completely unrealistic. And what of Asian Americans. They are the largest immigrant group at the moment, a trend which seems likely to continue in the short term. There is no reason at all to assume that this group will be rigidly Democrat.
The real truth is no prediction of long term election trends based upon demographics makes sense. The allegiances of the various groups in the electorate is not static. Issues matter. Look at the Jewish vote for example. In the five presidential elections between 1992 and 2008, the highest of Jews voting Republican was on average just under 20%. Then, after Obama's first term during which he had a very confrontational approach to Israel, the percentage of Jews voting Republican soared to 30%. That trend may continue next time, or the Jewish vote may move back solidly towards the Democrat -- we don't know.
The funny thing is that Dan Balz must know just how silly the demographic predictions of voting are. But he is not really discussing those trends. His point is to reassure the Democrats in DC who are hyperventilating looking at the recent polls that they are still inevitably in control. Let them comfort each other. It will not help. Reality triumphs over demographic projections every time.
No comments:
Post a Comment