Previously, in Part I, we celebrated record turnouts in 2008. But only briefly, until the huge drop in turnout in the midterm election of 2010, along with some disturbing shifts of loyalty among voter groups who traditionally support Democrats. We saw the effects of that "wave election" on governance and how the number of moderates/independents/in-the-middlers narrowed so much that only about 10-15% of potential voters have declared themselves "undecided."
And in Part II ...
... we looked at 2010's turnout and characteristics in broad demographic categories and speculated about voting behavior based on economic conditions, the strength of political ideologies (particularly among Republicans), income and wealth and groupings by age, gender and minorities.
Now it's time to pick some Battleground States for 2012, justify why, and ask: What's ahead for Democrats?
2012 WILL BE
A VERY
CLOSE
ELECTION
Here and often, I rely on these resources:
- The Almanac of American Politics, edited by Michael Barone and Chuck McCutcheon, published every two years by the National Journal. It's costly but as George Will blurbs, its 1838 pages are "the bible of American politics."
- How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election, by Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser. The definitive guide to 2008 presidential demographics. Please, you two, do this again for 2012, for the sake of the next generation!
- The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election, by Rudy Teixeira and John Halpin for the Center for American Progress. These 68 online pages deliver one gem of insight after another.
In 2008, Barack Obama won 53% of the popular vote, the largest margin of any presidential candidate since 1988. He won 27 states plus one of Nebraska's districts (which, like Maine, apportions its electoral votes) and DC, a total of 365 electoral votes. He carried the East and West coasts, New England, the Midwest, the "new South" states (Virginia, North Carolina and Florida), Colorado and, in the Southwest, Nevada and New Mexico.
Republicans carried 22 states and the rest of Nebraska, a total of 173 electoral votes. GOP strength was in the South, Southwest, Texas, the Dakotas, Missouri and Kansas.
Looking at a map of the United States with red ink covering so many states, Republicans would appear to be knock down favorites. But no, because votes are where the population is. Electoral math 101, as described in Path to 270: "The states the GOP carried [in 2008] tended to be rural and lightly populated. Sixteen out of 28 states Obama carried had 10 or more electoral votes while just 4 of the 21 that John McCain carried had that many electoral votes. Obama also carried seven of the eight most populous states: California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Only one of [those eight] - Texas - went for McCain."
No one - not one! - suggests that Barack Obama will again sweep 365 electoral votes out of the total of 538. (One EV each for 100 Senators, 435 members of Congress and three for DC. A tie vote goes to the House. In 2012, let's try to avoid a tie!) Various reasons are ascribed for undershooting 2008's margins: diminished enthusiasm, disaffection with Washington generally, anti-incumbency, "the President promised me hope-and-change and look what I didn't get," an awakened and resurgent Right, working class people stuck in a lousy economy, etc. Whatever, there are no votes to be taken for granted on or about November 6, 2012.
How to think geographically? First, get a good interactive map and go ahead, play with it, the strategists do! For example, try 270towin which suggests that Obama starts with 196 electoral votes (15 states and DC) and the GOP nominee with 170 (21 states), leaving 172 (14 states) undecided. Plug in your views and see how your choices mount up ... or not. Choose populated states rich in electoral votes and you'll see how much easier it is to win the presidency.
The Center for American Progress's detailed analysis Path to 270 starts with what it considers each party's core. It gives Barack Obama 186 EVs to 191 for the GOP nominee. It then concentrates on 12 battleground states in three regions, all of which Obama won in 2008.
- In the Midwest/Rust Belt, six states are key - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of these, CAP thinks Ohio is the most likely for the GOP. And, should Republicans win both Ohio and Pennsylvania (for better or worse, the home state of its former Senator Rick Santorum), they'd need only 41 more EVs, readily supplied by Florida and, in one of many possible scenarios, either of the other two New South states.
- The Southwest is sort of a political flip side of the Midwest. This is territory traditionally dominated by Republicans, yet Obama won Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado. If he can hold these three states in 2012, he can afford to lose Ohio in the Midwest and all three "New South states" and still be only 2 electoral votes short of victory, which any additional state can supply.
- The "New South" is the three states of Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. CAP points out, "If Obama carries just Florida and the 18 states plus DC that Democrats have carried in every election since 1992, then he would be re-elected. ... But if the GOP is able to carry its core states plus all three New South states - a distinct possibility - that would likely put them very close to victory, needing only 22 more EVs from any combination of contested states. ... That's why success in all three of these states is likely to be a central part of GOP election strategy in 2012 - it would give them so many ways to win."
SEVEN BELLWETHER BATTLEGROUNDS IN 2012
These exemplify what we've been musing about turnout and election demographics. Florida (with 29 EVs) is the biggest of the traditional battlegrounds, along with Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18) and Michigan (16). The newer ones - vying for bellwether status on election night - are North Carolina (15), Virginia (13) and Colorado (9). All have dense urban areas that usually vote Democratic, separated by open spaces that typically favor Republicans. While Obama won them all in 2008, the GOP gained Congressional districts in all seven in 2010.
Colorado has two Democratic Senators and a House delegation with wide ideological splits. In 2010, one of the nation’s tightest election contests saw appointed Senator Michael Bennet win a contentious caucus over a popular state legislator who argued that he was more liberal, and then eke out a victory in the general election over Tea Party-backed County DA Ken Buck by less than 30,000 out of 1.7 million votes.
Bennet’s Senate race in 2010 might well the strategic model for many Democrats in 2012. Buck shot himself in the foot when he offended women by boasting that unlike his opponent in the caucuses, he didn’t wear high heels. He teed off liberals and moderates by comparing homosexuality to alcoholism and having a choice, refused to prosecute a rapist saying that the victim probably had “buyer’s remorse” and argued strongly against abortions and in favor of a “personhood” amendment. These kinds of tone-deaf gaffes sound familiar? Handed this propensity of the Far Right for self-immolation, what's a Democrat to do? Precisely what Michael Bennet did!
The Almanac quotes an interview in the Denver Post: “To a very large extent, Bennet made the issue not about the national economy, but about the characteristics of Ken Buck.” Bennet carried Colorado women by 56-40% and independents/unaffiliated voters by 54-41%. But significantly - in a state Obama won handily in 2008 by 54-45% - the 5D-2R split in Colorado’s House delegation in 2008 reversed to 3D-4R in 2010.
So, is Bennet's laser focus on Buck's social/"Family Values" views transferable elsewhere? Obviously, issues can play play very differently in an area the size and population of a Congressional district in a multi-district state. Generally speaking, the smaller and more discrete the group, the more alike are the preferences of the individuals within it. (Birds of a feather flock and nestle together; ask a data or marketing analyst.) But I believe there are the seeds of Democratic victories even within communities of social cause voters where arguments are measured and reasoned, fashioned to show up the the Far Right's bent for bluster and bludgeoning. (Check out political micro-targetting described in The New York Times on Tuesday, February 21, 2012.)
Obama won by 57-41% in Michigan. With union households voting 67-31% for him and non-union households at 52-46%, the GOP sustained a big loss in what Chuck Todd termed “the very heartland of the Reagan Democrats, the blue-collar workers who shifted away from Democrats in 1980.” Michigan demographics parallel much of the nation: 44% of Michigan voters told exit pollers in 2008 that they were independent, 32% said conservative, 24% said liberal.
The issue here is the economy but with Michigan's manufacturing base, the successful “bailouts” the Obama administration orchestrated for GM and Chrysler - against vocal opposition from right-to-work southern state Senators - resonated. (And, of course, Mitt Romney is now being confronted with saying he would have let the companies fail and then, Bain-like, rise from the ashes.) The success of the bailout rippled beyond Michigan’s car makers, through whole communities, the supply chain of parts makers and on to automobile dealers across the country, some 2000 of whom reportedly gave a standing ovation to a pre-screening of Clint Eastwood’s “Halftime in America” super bowl commercial.
So, economic doldrums – which affect much of the state – might not be as significant in 2012. It’s possible that Democrats can use bailout successes in Michigan to justify stimulus programs elsewhere and campaign accordingly. Also, like Wisconsin and Ohio, Michigan has seen the ministrations of a hard-edged governor and legislature swept in by the 2010 elections, who set out to nationalize troubled city governments in Michigan and disable unions.
Ohio is attractive for its 18 electoral votes and it is a traditional bellwether state, having voted for winners in all but one Presidential election in 50 years! Here, in 2008, election results rested squarely on turnout. Chuck Todd says 300,000 fewer Republicans showed up in 2008 compared to 2004.
Like so many other places, Obama won here in population centers and with solid support from unions (in three of ten Ohio households), young people (17% of the electorate, 63-34% for Obama) and black voters (only 11% of the population, but 97% for Obama).
In 2012, the GOP may be looking to Ohio as the Midwest state most receptive to its propositions. In sluggish if not stagnant economic conditions, the white working class vote can be a central factor here, as elsewhere. But look at the four surviving GOP presidential aspirants: long, some lifelong, politicians - two of them lobbyists or, ahem, almost so - and one a prince of the upper reaches of the financial realm. None of these men resembles the electorate the GOP badly needs to woo.
It is no accident that President Obama has made so many visits to Ohio in the last 18 months.
Pennsylvania is another state deeply divided by ideology. Described as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Arkansas in between, it has been a classic battleground state for decades. Obama won in the east, the population center of Philadelphia and suburbs and the Allentown-to-Scranton corridor to its north, and only barely lost PA’s western counties 49-50%. When results were announced on election night – 54-44% for Obama statewide – you could be pretty sure the election was Barack Obama’s to win.
Interestingly, some of the areas around Philly, particularly in Montgomery County, showed serious gains for Democrats. These suburbs, a combination of middle class and wealthy, gave Obama a 58% margin. Scranton, which got plenty of attention from native Joe Biden wearing his blue-collar background, voted solidly Democratic. As for other areas in the state, CAP’s Path to 270 concludes: "In a nutshell, Democrats’ presidential voting strength has been increasing in growing areas of the state, while Republicans have held their own only in declining parts of the state."
It is here where the votes of working class Americans will be put to an acid test and turnout matters. Will economic pessimism decrease turnout among African-Americans and Hispanics? Will college students in Penn State’s “Happy Valley” go to the polls? Will voters in the middle class and wealthy Philadelphia suburbs stick with Obama?
The “New South” is so named for fast population growth, well ahead of national averages. In these states, not to put too fine a point on it, the South is rising again.
Virginia went for Obama in 2008 by 53-46%, the first time a Democrat (and Yes, he’s also black!) has won there since 1964. Northern Virginia, heavily influenced by DC and the wealthy, well-educated and filled with Federal government and military people, was a significant factor. Two other areas – Richmond and Williamsburg/Virginia Beach – also saw Democratic gains. CAP points out these three areas encompassed 72% of the statewide vote.
But what’s to explain the durability of six-term Eric Cantor from Richmond? (Nominal opposition for one thing.) And the fact that very conservative Republicans now hold the governorship, a super-majority in the House and the evenly split Senate is presided over by the Republican Lt. Governor? Secure in the Far Rightness of their positions, the House passed a “personhood” amendment and the legislature was poised to pass a bill to mandate a medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasound probe be administered to any woman who is considering an abortion. (At this writing, the bill is on pause, probably because of some combination of adverse nationwide news and opinion coverage, protesters outside the capitol building and Governor Bob McDonnell's withdrawal from his earlier commitment to sign the bill.)
Women in Virginia voted for Obama 53-46% in 2008. How will they regard this spate of assertive social conservatism? Will a reasonably good record on economic matters in the state keep the post-2008 loyalty that voters delivered to Republicans?
Word has it that Mitt Romney will consider McDonnell (who came from nowhere to win the governorship soundly in 2009) as VP. McDonnell, a Catholic, campaigned by downplaying his conservatism but then fired up a prominent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, signaled being anti-choice and favoring stricter immigration laws and regulations. To the Far Right, McDonnell as Romney's running mate could help to reassure them that the administration would pay attention to them. For the rest of us, it would serve to confirm how extreme the GOP has become.
North Carolina is yet another wonderfully diverse state, a battleground personified. Blacks (23% of the population) voted for Obama 95-5%. White Evangelicals/Born Agains (44% of the Gen Pop) voted for McCain 74-25%. Women (54% of the voters) went 55-44% for Democrats, men were 56-43% for the GOP. You gotta be awed by a state that elects Democrat Bev Perdue its first female governor, puts the state legislature solidly in Republican hands, sends 100% conservative-voting Virginia Foxx to the House from the center of the state and splits its representation in the US Senate.
Obama won here by the slimmest of all his margins, 49.7% to 49.4%, about 14,000 votes out of 4.3 million. Todd and Gawiser tell how he did it:
“The Obama camp was always at its best when it could change the makeup of an electorate. [North Carolina had all the ingredients]: an under-registered African-American population, a slew of new voters who were nonnative North Carolinians, and a fairly youthful population. ... [T]he campaign went overboard in its attempt to register new voters.”
Wiser heads than I will have to call this state’s election results in 2012!
And then there’s Florida with its bounty of 29 electoral votes. The Almanac describes Florida as a “…kind of nation-state, historically Southern, demographically Northeastern and Midwestern, and culturally, at least partly, Latin-American.” But even the Latin-American cohort - 22.5% of the vote in 2008 - splits between Hispanics (influenced by Haitians and Puerto Ricans) who voted 3:1 for Obama and Cubans who voted 65% for McCain.
Florida has a variety of economies - tourism, entertainment, international shipping, citrus agriculture and construction. But the flourishing building and construction activity that enriched the state for two decades was hit hard by the housing bubble, “ranking near the top in foreclosures and every indicator of housing market distress.” Unemployment is nearly 11%, higher in the vote-rich Miami area. CAP concludes, “[T]here is no gainsaying the fact that the poor economy gives the Republicans an excellent chance of taking back this state, despite the demographic tide running in Obama’s favor.”
The Sunshine State has its extremes and sends many of them to Congress. Atop the state is its quintessentially southern conservative panhandle. Along the 447 miles of its Atlantic coast are solidly Democratic areas in Broward County/Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach. Below them is the dense Miami metro area that went for Obama 51-49%, but has elected a Cuban-American moderate Republican Congresswoman to 11 terms.
Regrettably, Florida is a state with a long history of voting rights abuses, from suspicious shenanigans to outright illegality. No one needs to be reminded of the debacles in 2000 over vote counts before the re-count was stopped at a propitious time so the electoral vote overruled the nationwide popular vote. (In case you forgot, Gore won 50,999,897 (48.4%) to Bush’s 50,456,002 (47.9%) whereas Bush won by 271 electoral votes to 266.)
Five Florida counties so repeatedly violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that they must get DOJ clearance. Bringing the practice of voter suppression to new depths, the legislature has enacted a host of changes - many minutely detailed provisions with high penalties for minor infractions, reduced days for early voting and prohibited voting on the Sunday before an election, required those who change addresses close to election dates to cast only provisional ballots (a signal in some states that they may someday be counted ... or not) and, possibly worst of all, imposing rules on third party registration drives that are so arcane and penal the League of Women Voters declined to work in Florida. What satisfaction those who crafted these laws must have enjoyed to so artfully disempower minority voters in a democracy!
* *
So, have you been reading these articles for answers or at least predictions?
Okay, here are a few answers:
- Registration matters.
- Vigilance to secure voter eligibility and protect it matters.
- Getting out the vote - and the huge amount of work required for it by committed volunteers - matters.
- Reasoned advocacy, with respect for the facts and an understanding of contrary opinions, matters too!
But there are many more questions.
Will disaffected youth return to ballot boxes with hope and change in their hearts? If seniors and those-about-to-be are concerned about proposals to reform funding for Social Security and Medicare, which party does that favor? Will women be energized by the sharia-style laws of the New and Farther Right? Will minorities, seniors and those who look like illegals be disenfranchised? Will unions and those who sympathize with them be able to counter the palpable threats to their existence and to their members in states where unions used to be political powerhouses? Will a third party movement come forth to divert votes from mainstream parties, making a close election even dicier?
And what will come from the campaigns and Big Money, given super-abundant financing by super-PACs and the wealthiest among us, the heightened negativity of campaign rhetoric and the allure of over-simplified slogans and code words in preference for details and reasoned discourse?
The extremes so far in the runup to Election 2012 - slogans and vitriol, bluster and posturing, turmoil and intrigue, hubris, sycophantic followers, premonitions, folly, fate and the sound and fury of it all - bring to mind the Bard:
When shall we three meet again?
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won. ...
Fair is foul. And foul is fair.
Macbeth, I, i
Yes, for both sides, there are so many ways to win ... and lose.