I’ve often noted here over the years how at some key points in our history Democrats have decided to either teach their party a lesson, or just not voted. Then they complain about Republicans using the power won in elections go give the voters who voted for them (some of) what they promised. In my views, Democrats virtually gave their dominance on the Supreme Court away. Greg Sergent on The Washington Post’s Plumb Line notes how getting the Obama coalition out to vote could be Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem if she gets the nomination because — a big “no duh” here — Republicans are highly motivated to get out to vote:
As many have already observed, one of the big questions that will help decide whether Hillary Clinton wins the White House next year is this: Can Clinton turn out the coalition that helped power Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 wins at the same levels that the president did?
A new poll by veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, to be released later this morning, illustrates the challenge Clinton faces.
The new poll, which was commissioned by Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund and conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, shows that members of the Rising American Electorate — minorities, millennials, and single women — are significantly less tuned in to next year’s election than GOP-aligned voter groups are.
This isn’t surprising. Conservative talkers and the conservative political entertainment complex — which has turned political narratives into the style of professional wrestling narratives with The Future of the Nation at stake — do a far better job of embedding key phrases and beliefs in their audiences’ minds than liberals do (moderates these days are increasingly out of style in both parties).
But there’s also the fact that a key characteristic of Democrats has been the let-me-show-my-party-by-not-voting, coupled with the inaccurate contention that there’s no difference between parties. Most Republicans know this as well: there is indeed a difference between the parties — and there will be no matter who gets the nomination of each party. MORE:
The poll has some good news for Democrats. The survey, which was taken in four key battleground states — Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin — suggests that in those states, the demographics do favor Dems. That’s because the poll finds that RAE voter groups — who helped drive Obama’s wins — now make up a “majority or near majority of the vote” in all those states. The poll also finds Dems leading in Senate races in two of those states and tied in two others.
But members of the RAE are insufficiently engaged in next year’s election when compared to Republican-aligned voter groups.
The details are telling:
Unmarried women, minorities, and particularly millennials are less interested in next year’s voting than seniors, conservatives, and white non-college men are. Non-college women — a group the Clinton camp is reportedly eyeing as a way to expand on the Obama coalition — are also less interested.“Unmarried women are a key dynamic in American politics,” Page Gardner, the president of Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, tells me. “It’s clear that the party or candidate who can increase turnout of unmarried women and the other segments of the Rising American Electorate will be well-positioned for victory in 2016.”
AND:
Now, obviously there is a very long way to go, and plenty of time for these voter groups to get more engaged. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, and the prospect of electing the first female president seems increasingly within reach, you could see engagement kicking in much more substantially. (It will be interesting to see how non-college, unmarried, minority and millennial women respond.)
But Greenberg’s pollsters are sounding the alarm now, warning that Democrats need to take more steps to tailor their message towards boosting the interest level among these voters. As Stan Greenberg outlines in his new book, America Ascendant, the key to engaging these voters is two-fold. It isn’t enough to simply outline bold economic policies to deal with college affordability, child care (universal pre-K), workplace flexibility (paid family and sick leave), and so forth, though those things are crucial. What’s also required to engage these groups, Greenberg argues, is a reform agenda geared to reducing the influence of the wealthy, the lobbyists, and the special interests over our politics. Today’s new poll suggests the same.
The basic problem outlined by Greenberg (and noted by other Dem pollsters) is that, even if Democratic economic policies are broadly popular, this isn’t enough on its own, because many Americans don’t believe government can or will actually deliver on those policies. Greenberg writes: “when voters hear the reform narrative first, they are dramatically more open to the middle-class economic narrative that calls for government activism in response to America’s problems.”
You can already see some Democrats who support Sanders, either seemingly inching towards or flat-out saying they might not support Clinton. Here’s a reasoned example why one Democrat would prefer to sit it out which is worth reading.
I fully remember 2000 with the Democrats who decided to teach their party a lesson and not vote because they saw so little difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Or they voted for Ralph Nader. But, in the end, they realized there was a difference once George W. Bush got into power (irregardless of the role of the Supreme Court). In 2016 — as many Republicans and Democrats know full well — the fate of the Supreme Court for a generation (or more) could be set by the outcome.
Still, there are some don’t care. And won’t care.
But if history is any guide at some pivotal moments, more Democrats are likely to sit it out than Republicans. And they’ll spend the post-election period expressing shock at how the Republicans used the power won under the rules of our Democratic system to give as much as they promised to those who voted for them.
If you want to place a bet in Vegas, a safe bet would be for one reason or another more Democrats stay home than Republicans (unless the Republican establishment somehow rams through the nomination of Jeb! Bush). Rush, Sean and Fox & Friends will make sure their audiences know it’s a pivotal election. (Sorry: Rachael and the two Chrises on MSNBC simply don’t have the same clout.)
graphic via shutterstock.com
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.