Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

The GOP Faces Long-Term Challenge With Young and Independents


Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election, there was an incredible amount of discussion about the extent to which Senator Barack Obama's massive voter registration and turnout efforts would dramatically impact the election. Young voters and African-Americans in particular were believed to be the two groups that would deliver the Presidency to Barack Obama.

However, on election day, the proportion of young voters and African-Americans as a percentage of the electorate was not dramatically different from 2004. First-time voters made up 11% of all voters - the same as in 2004. Furthermore, the number of voters overall at the ballot box at the Presidential level was not significantly higher than turnout in 2004. (The ballots are still being tallied and recounted in some places, but I am seeing just a little over 3 million more votes this year.)

So what did it? I would argue that even though the numbers appear somewhat stagnant in the aggregate, Obama's ground game created some gains among Democrats (3.6 million more in 08 over 04), while 5 million fewer Republican voters came out (or, perhaps even worse for the GOP, many these voters likely identified as Independents - turnout among Independents was up by about 4.5 million voters). This party ID gap played a role, and this -paired with the economic collapse and a loss of the youth vote - enabled Senator Obama to overtake Senator John McCain by a wide margin, turning a host of formerly "red" states into "blue" states.

First, to the makeup of the electorate. Senator McCain's nomination as the Republican Party's candidate for President is said by some to have been the only chance the GOP had for victory in 2008. Others in the Republican Party claim that Senator McCain's moderate stances on many policies may have hurt him with the Republican base. One of the biggest questions that will face pollsters breaking down this year's exit polling - of the 5 million Republican voters who turned out in 2004 but did not show up as Repubicans in 2008, how many stayed home versus those who voted but did not identify as Republican?

Republicans fell as a proportion of the electorate, something unsurprising given the massive registration efforts waged by the Obama campaign. In the end, Democrats only went from being 37% of the electorate to 39%. This wound up being an extra 3.6 million Democrat voters. But consider that in 2004, nearly 3.9 million more Democrats came out to vote than in 2000 (in part a product of the overall increased turnout that year). Yet the GOP dropped by 5 million voters in 2008 compared to 2004. On face, it looks like the Republican Party did a far better job of scaring away its own voters than the Democrats did creating new ones, sending many formerly Republican voters to the polls only to tell exit pollsters that they consider themselves to be "independents". Those independents broke 52-44 for Obama.

Some will say that we lost the election because McCain was unable to energize the base, despite his selection of Sarah Palin for Vice President. I disagree that a more conservative candidate would have fared better in the election. In fact, it isn't so much that the "base" sat home - for instance, in 2004, 23% of the electorate identified as "white evangelical/born-again Christian". In 2008, that jumped to 26% - larger than the jump in those identifying as 18-29 (18%, up from 17% in '04) or the jump in African-American turnout (13%, up from 11% in '08).

The base didn't sit home. They came out. Many Republicans just weren't calling themselves Republicans anymore, and many weren't voting like Republicans either. This speaks more to moderates and independents fleeing the GOP than a lack of turnout on the part of the base. Take a look here at my firm's website for two instructive charts that show the trends over time (the last 24 years - not the totality of political history to be sure - but the time frame since 2002 is particularly instructive).

partyid002.png

McCain could have fought this election in the middle and perhaps stopped or at least stifled the exodus. Instead, the McCain campaign fought a traditional turn-out-the-base campaign - a tragic failure of strategy in a year where McCain's money and organization would barely be able to keep up with the Obama juggernaut. The way to win was to appeal to independents - something that it looked like might happen following the conventions, when some polls briefly showed a glimmer of hope that the maverick narrative would take hold. Instead, the campaign was fought on a battlefield where there was little way McCain could win short of a miracle.

The big change everyone was preparing to discuss after this election was the surge in youth and African-American turnout. This change was not at all as dramatic as many expected. Additionally, the Republican base doesn't appear to have stayed home in large numbers - in fact, they may have come out better than anticipated. The big shift in the makeup of the electorate came in the decreased percentage of the electorate identifying as Republican - something that requires a great deal of attention given the usual stability of party ID. Democrats only gained another 2% of the electorate, far less than many public polls had predicted or had shown in their own party ID breaks, but this election did show that while Party ID is still "sticky", it is also malleable as a variable in elections. The GOP needs to take action - and soon - to win those Independent voters back who have strayed if it wants to improve its electoral success any time soon.

Even more troubling for Republicans should be the youth vote this year - not in terms of higher turnout, but in terms of a very high level of support for Democratic candidates at the Presidential and House level. In 2004, young voters (18-29) broke for Kerry 54%-45% and voted for Democratic House candidates 55%-44%. In 2008, those margins swung dramatically toward the Democrats - 66% for Obama vs 32% for McCain and translating down to the House level at similarly troubling margins - 63% for Democrats vs. 34% for Republicans.

Scholars have noted that early adulthood plays a key role in the creation of political generations. In 1974, Beck described that young voters are primarily responsible for the birth of electoral realignment.(1) Billingsley and Tucker (1987) follow this analysis with the claim that political generations are often defined by political events occurring during young adulthood. (2) Indeed, the generation of voters in the 18-29 age group for the 2008 election were made up of those whose young adult political life would likely have included the events of September 11th as well as the expansion of political news availability via cable news and the Internet - not to mention the entire Bush Administration. The long term impact on the GOP of this swing will be felt for years to come in young voters are not appealed to with a positive, modern agenda that speaks to their concerns - the environment, energy, the economy, education, and entitlement reform. (Perhaps there's something with the letter "e"?)

So the electorate didn't look too much different than it did in 2004. But the likelihood that members of that electorate would call themselves a Republican or that they'd vote for Republicans was dramatically different.

The other factor that put the nail in the McCain campaign's coffin was the economy. Dr. Robert Shapiro (formerly of the Clinton administration) spoke with Johns Hopkins University graduate students before the election at a symposium event and reminded the attendees of a belief held by many social scientists - that more than slogans or advertising or anything the candidates themselves say or do, factors like the current president's job approval and the economy drive elections, and that when the economy is in a recession, it becomes incredibly difficult for the party in power to hold control. Indeed, there are no shortage of charts that highlight the massive divergence in polling numbers that happened right around the day Lehman Brothers shut its doors.

When the economy is the top issue for voters, it's best to have the confidence of those who are worried about it. Unfortunately for McCain, his forte is foreign policy - not the economy. Even more unfortunately, the Democrats quickly blamed the downturn on the sorts of economic policies associated with Republicans.. Being a Republican meant losing major footing on this issue, and as stocks went down, Obama's poll numbers went up.

On election day, McCain won the whopping 7% of Americans who said the economy was "excellent" or "good". However, the 93% who said the economy was "not so good" or "poor" broke for Obama 54%-44%. The 18% who didn't think the economic crisis would hurt their family broke for McCain; the 81% who were worried broke for Obama 62%-36%. Simply put, with economic turmoil gripping the nation, the McCain campaign needed to make a strong case for why he would be the best candidate on this issue. Given the results, it appears he was unable to accomplish this. And so went the election.

The Republican Party has two major challenges that jump from these numbers that must be tackled. First, the GOP must win back the youth vote. There's little reason to believe that this year was an aberration - that young voters came out for Obama but will fade away and become apathetic in years to come. However, barring major life events, young voters who leave a pattern of habitual non-voting by voting for the first time will be carried "inertia" to continue voting in future elections. As more and more young voters go to the polls, the norms surrounding voting among that age cohort will change the social costs of voting in a way that provides positive peer reinforcement, contributing to higher turnout. (3) Furthermore, the longer the GOP waits to try to win these voters back, the harder it will be - prior study has already established that as voters age, their partisan identification grows stronger. (4)

Second, the GOP must expand their "big tent" rather than contract. There is a great debate among many right now on the Right about whether or not the McCain candidacy represented stretching too far to reach to the middle, attempting to forge such a broad coalition that nobody wound up being happy with it. I would wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment that we'd be better off focusing on the base; in fact if the concept of the Republican "base" is not expanded and in fact the tent of the Republican Party is pulled inward, this gap in partisanship will only increase in future years.

This election was preceded by much talk of a complete realignment, a massive wave of turnout from particular voter groups and a complete repudiation of the Republican Party. While this election may not have been realigning, it is a loud and clear wake up call for the GOP. Make no mistake - the data show a number of trends that ought to be very troubling for the Republican Party. The next two to four years will be crucial to making up deficits among young and independent voters. Without progress on these two fronts, we very well may be looking at the start of a very long, dark night for Republicans at the ballot box.

*Overall turnout figures compiled from CNN. As ballots from 2008 are still being counted, these numbers are obviously subject to vary.

Notes:
1) Beck, Paul. (1974). A socialization theory of partisan realignments. In Richard Niemi and associates (eds.), The Politics of Future Citizens. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2) Billingsley, K., & Tucker, C. (1987). Generations, Status and Party Identification: A Theory of Operant Conditioning. Political Behavior, 9(4), 305-322
3)Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96(1), pp 41-56.
4)Claggett, W. (1981). Partisan acquisition versus partisan identity: life-cycle, generation, and period effects, 1952-1976. American Journal of Political Science, 25(2), pp 193-214. and Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., and Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York; Wiley.

 

Comments

I hate to be of help to the Republicans, but maybe it will cause them to reexamine their strategy for the good of the country. The election seems much closer than it really was because in the seven inland southern states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, not only didn't the Republican vote go down, but McCain beat Obama by approximately a combined 100,000 more votes than Bush beat Kerry, That is right, the Republican presidential andidate actually did better in those states in 2008 than in 2004. Unless you separate those states from the rest of your analysis you are simply hiding the reality.

____________________

Gary Kilbride:

Thanks for the very interesting analysis. In particular I appreciated the reference to Beck, 1974, and the socialization theory of realignment. I'll have to pick that up.

I supported Hillary above Obama, but many times during the spring I commented that I understood the Democratic Party had more long term upside with an Obama presidency. He could win young voters at higher percentage, and more enthusiastically. Blend the 8 years of young voters repulsed by Bush to 8 more years magnetized by Obama and that is a 16 year block marching forward with potential to dictate outcomes, other than extremely favorable conditions for the GOP, like their own version of Obama.

Let's see, if I forfeit 90+% of the black vote, 2/3 of the Hispanic vote, a generation of young voters is aligning as Democrats, and my white base is shrinking at a steady rate of about 2% every four years, that's a remarkably sturdy negative expectancy I'm digging. Maybe the Republicans will be like one book I read as a kid. A guy was stuck in a deep hole in the jungle, seemingly trapped beyond any possibility of escape. One detail after another described his plight. Then the next chapter began, "After emerging from the pit..."

Don't ask how. Just do it. That's the GOP challenge going forward.

____________________

DTM:

Very interesting analysis, and as someone who thinks a viable conservative party will eventually be necessary for the good of the nation, I hope Republicans are listening.

____________________

EJP:

One factor that I am curious about is what effect the dying off of older voters in these time frames has.

Since 2000, say, how large a percentage of those who are no longer with us voted which way?

There is understandably talk of the youth vote, but at what point is this reinforced by attrition at the other end of life?

____________________

Another Mike:

I would take issue with your statement that "on election day, the proportion of young voters and African-Americans as a percentage of the electorate was not dramatically different from 2004." It's fair enough for young voters who went from 17% to 18%, a 6% increase even though the population is aging as a whole. But, African Americans went from 11% to 13%. That's an 18% increase in their vote share. If whites had had an 18% increase in their vote share from 2004 to 2008, they would have gone from 74% to 87%. I think we all would have described that as dramatic.

Interestingly, the group that did not increase its vote share was Latinos. They were 8% in both 2004 and 2008, despite large increases in their share of eligible voters in the last four years. Given their large tilt toward Democrats, this demographic remains a large, untapped resource for Democrats to exploit. It could easily get worse for Republicans.

____________________

Vicente Duque:

The Bucephalus Camelot Theory of Obama Appeal to young people :

I have been watching videos of Obama playing basketball in high schools and before the American Troops in Kuwait.

It is astonishing to see how the troops and everybody else adore this guy when he plays basketball and how he easily drains three point jumpers in a first try.

Only Elvis Presley or the Beatles can drive a crowd crazy like him.

These basketball shots have been compared to Alexander the Great taming the wild horse "Bucephalus" and thus proving to be fit for War and Conquest. ( Ha Ha Ha ! )

The secret is YOUTHFULNESS, something that McCain lacks !!

This guy is a new Ulysses. Smart and Shrewd.

Add Michelle and the two girls and we have Obamalot. Because we fools want to see a new Camelot in the White House.

The People and Fashion magazines are going to sell a lot with this replacement for Lady Di.

Sounds foolish ?? .... Wait until we see the Obama girls playing with the "First Dog".

More Obamamania foolishness here :

Milenials.com

Vicente Duque

____________________

RWCOLE:

It is unbelievable that many conservatives are blaming the loss on McCain for not being conservative enough....I guess the alternative is to say that conservative thinking got rejected- and that is impossible right?

Don't know how McCain could have run further to the right- everything he did was "to bring out the base"- but if the "base" is only 30% of the electorate, it seems like a pretty dumb strategy...oh well-they'll figure it out eventually.

____________________

todji:

Thanks for the article. You answered some questions I had posted in response to another pollster article a few days ago.

____________________

cinnamonape:

There is a silver lining in all of this for the Republicans.

What if Bush had actually have gotten millions of younger workers investing their life-savings in the stock-market?

"However, the 93% who said the economy was "not so good" or "poor" broke for Obama 54%-44%. The 18% who didn't think the economic crisis would hurt their family broke for McCain; the 81% who were worried broke for Obama 62%-36%."

That could have been the final result...

____________________

Vicente Duque:

Are the Republicans in Trouble ??

The Youth Vote's Generational Impact
Persistence of Young Political affiliation and Partisanship in future years of Youngsters

Norman J. Ornstein is a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. An election analyst for CBS News, he writes a weekly column called Congress Inside Out for Roll Call. He is a frequent contributor of the Washington Post and is working with Mr Bush and Mr Obama in the Transition.

Ornstein wrote many years ago :

"All the research done on the dramatic Democratic realignment of the 1930s shows that the key was young voters, coming of age as the Depression hit, influenced deeply by the contrast between Hoover and Roosevelt. Those young voters became lifelong Democrats. The oldest segment of today's population, those who came of age during the golden years for the Republicans (the Roaring Twenties), remain staunchly Republican today.”

So those who came of age during the Reagan years may be "incurable" reaganite conservatives.

I am doing more research in the Internet about this topic of Persistence of Political leanings for Youngsters when they are in later ages :

Milenials.com

Raciality.com

Vicente Duque

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR