Here is why I believe Obama won the presidential election and generally gained ground in Congress.
In a word - Consistency
1. He stuck to his principles.
2. Obama had a consistent narrative without any major outbursts by rogue members of his party. Republicans wre inconsistent in regards to their conservatism or moderation concerning social and entitlement issues. This resulted in a lack of cohesion, and allowed Romney to be associated with lightning rods in the party. What's more, Romney's inconsistency with his own narrative (47% and the pivot to the center) was equally damaging.
3. He maintained consistent appeal to minorities and the middle class.
4. He fared better with fact checkers. ('more' consistent telling the truth)
5. There were no major principles broken or renegotiated during term or campaign.
6. Obama's willingness to overlook political gain and take steps he believed would be beneficial to US healthcare, despite losing political power helped show a consistency that didn't change with the tides of popular opinion.
Six may be considered a stretch for using the term consistency, but I constantly hear people complaining about not wanting politicians to cow to pressure. I see the healthcare bill as an example of the president refusing to bow to pressure, despite the high political risk.
Even if you don't agree with his policies and ideologies, I don't believe that you can look at Obama's track record and call him a massive liar. Alternatively, Romney came off as a wiley coyote willing to do whatever it took to become president.
To add to Republican inconsistency, I'd like to note one other issue of the Republican party.
No more that 2 presidential elections ago, Republicans were touting the 'character' of their candidate. They did this primarily by pointing out religious affiliations. Now, that element of Republican campaign strategy is almost completely gone. I believe in the 2012 race, Obama was the candidate with better character.
There is almost a vacuum in that space as all but the youngest are fully aware of the missing propaganda. The void left is a reminder that Republicans are truly not a 'Christian' party, but a party interested in winning elections, a party willing to do what it takes to get votes, whether that is enlivening Evangelicals, or dropping the Christian moniker from their agenda. To be clear, I am saying that the Republicans are playing politics, and not sticking to ideals that some voters felt were core elements of the party. This has to leave some angry at being left behind.
I predict that the Republican party will further detangle itself from the Evangelical right as time goes on. This may create turmoil as the Tea Party (which has proven to be somewhat of a political liability) will have to be dealt with.
The question I leave you with is, If the Republican party drops Christian morality issues as part of its agenda, how long before conservative Evangelicals start re-evaluating their political ideals on issues unrelated to morality.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Election Trends
I am enamored with statistics and trends. I find looking at Google Trends quite interesting (pretty nerdy eh?). I just came across a treasure trove of statistical goodness for election data at US Election Atlas.
It has election data going back to the first election of 1778 (although the amount of data collected had very few datapoints). By 1940, most of the datapoints are in place. by 1960, it even shows popular election outcomes by county.
I put together a little spreadsheet of data showing the trending voter percentage gains by party from one election to the next. Net gain represents the percentage gain or loss for a party compared to the last election. This is based on the popular vote. Information is available per state. The Net Gain that I pulled is the total gain with all states added together.
The table lists the following:
NOTE: All highlighting and coloring was done by me in order to denote discussion points.
If you look for patterns in 'Net Gain', you will find something that has been talked about quite a lot in recent years - an entrenched electorate. The Net Gain numbers display this in a way that is easy to understand. Compared trends in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s to the 90s and 21st century.. Since 1984, there have been no double digit changes in popular vote patterns in regards to political party voted for. This points to a lack of fluidity in the electorship, with voters mostly staying within their chosen party. From the end of the 60's there is a big shift in the electorate toward the Republican party as the Hippie movement came to an end. This pattern continues more or less until 1984, then starts winding down to 7.73% gained by Republicans George H. W. Bush in 1988. In 1992, the Net Gain switches (although at a small level) toward the Democratic party.
I would call 1968 - 1988 a Republican era, where the Republican party obviously dominated the electorate.
After 1988, Democrats gained meager popular votes over Republicans each general election, with the exception of 2004, which found the US in the middle of the Iraq War and the War on Terror. It has been pointed out by political scientists and pundits that it is statistically probable that a wartime president will be re-elected, as the electorate is concerned with keeping momentum and consistency.
Another interesting data point is 2000, when George W. Bush won election via electoral college, yet the Democratic party net gained 0.52% of the popular vote. This is the only time this has occured within the charted data.
Since Bill Clinton's election in 1992, Democrats have made gains in the popular vote all but one time. Add in the entrenched political ideologies of the Republican right, and it creates a challenge for the Republican party. In the height of the Republican era of 1968-1992, whites were the majority. White evangelicals were a predictable powerhouse for the pro life movement.
Now we are in the midst of shifting demographics in America. All the while, the Republican party has held onto the same demographics and the same ideas that seem anti-immigrant, anti-poor, and anti-regulation,(unless it is a moral issue or issue affecting the poor, in which they are quite willing to discuss regulating or preventing it).
There is one other interesting element that I think is missing from these numbers. Based on the Net Gain from election cycle to election cycle, how did the Democrats start winning more in 1992? The Republicans should have about 90% of the country by that time, shouldn't they?
The answer is no. One data point that I could have added to the chart would have been the number of voters. Population grows. Children are born. Children grow up and vote. As opposed to the height of the Republican era of 68-88, young people vote at a higher number today. Young people tend to be more liberal in their views, which tends to favor Democrat votes. So, while the Net Gain shows a very successful Republican era, it doesn't tell the whole story. As the electorate population grows, a disproportionate number of new voters are voting Democrat. This is how the Democratic party has crossed the threshold into an even match for the Republicans, and began to make strides toward widening the margin.
Of course, Net Gain measures the popular vote, not the electoral vote. So, there is still certainly room for strategic campaigning to allow electoral wins in tight races. The real point of Net Gain is to point out what party is gaining mindshare and voters within the nation. The electorate may still allow wins for the Republican status quo, but with the Net Gain showing increased Democrat mindshare, electorate strategy will become more and more difficult if the trend is not reversed.
I could speculate that the slow trend forming since 1992 is just starting to get momentum, but that would be only speculation and can't be categorically proven. What is true, is that demographics in America are changing. With those demographic shifts come differing ideals on social issues and the role of government. Many minority groups feel that there is a place for government in regards to welfare, healthcare, and other facets that affect Americans. As those demographics have grown, the Democratic party has honed their messaged and provided a consistent narrative that has attracted minorities.
The Republican party has been mostly unsuccessful in building support in these demographics. For decades the Republican party has behaved as if minorities weren't that important, and has repeatedly demonized minority issues.
Now that we have a very entrenched electorate where political party swapping accounts for 6% or less of the electorate, the Republican party must paddle upstream to throw off an earned stigma as moral legislators, anti-minority, and anti-immigration politics. This will take two things to be successful. First, it will require that Republican constituency is interested in changing the direction of the party in a consistent and meaningful way. This remains to be seen as Tea Party candidates have attempted to re-conservatize the party in recent years and attempted to swing the party further to the right. Time will tell the outcome of this particular struggle. Secondly, in order for the Republican brand to become a brand that is pro-minorities, it will take time. Time for minorities to forget the anti-minority agenda, time for Republicans to develop a new narrative and own it, and time for the party to do some 'House' cleaning so as to separate itself from congressmen that are often lightning rods with their ideals and statements. Consistency is key when trying to rework a narrative. Any deviation from the new narrative will just remind the electorship of the old narrative, sabotaging efforts to move forward.
If the Republican party does not make significant changes to policy and membership, these increasing demographics will simply be mobilized to hand Democratic presidents win after win, after win.
The party that can present a consistent track record in those issues is likely to gain/maintain those voters. Democrats have been doing this for years and more. The Republican party truly must be willing to change some of its philosophies and ideologies if they wish to attract these demographics as supporters while their prime voting block ages.
It has election data going back to the first election of 1778 (although the amount of data collected had very few datapoints). By 1940, most of the datapoints are in place. by 1960, it even shows popular election outcomes by county.
I put together a little spreadsheet of data showing the trending voter percentage gains by party from one election to the next. Net gain represents the percentage gain or loss for a party compared to the last election. This is based on the popular vote. Information is available per state. The Net Gain that I pulled is the total gain with all states added together.
The table lists the following:
- Year of election
- Net Gain - The percentage of the popular vote that changed from the previous election.
- Trend Winner - The Party that had the positive trend.
- Election Winner - The Party that won the election.
| Year | Net Gain | Trend Winner | Election Winner |
| 1952 | 10.85 | Republican | Republican |
| 1956 | 15.4 | Republican | Republican |
| 1960 | 0.16 | Democrat | Democrat |
| 1964 | 22.58 | Democrat | Democrat |
| 1968 | 0.7 | Republican | Republican |
| 1972 | 23.15 | Republican | Republican |
| 1976 | 2.06 | Democrat | Democrat |
| 1980 | 9.74 | Republican | Republican |
| 1984 | 18.22 | Republican | Republican |
| 1988 | 7.73 | Republican | Republican |
| 1992 | 5.56 | Democrat | Democrat |
| 1996 | 8.52 | Democrat | Democrat |
| 2000 | 0.52 | Democrat | Republican |
| 2004 | 2.46 | Republican | Republican |
| 2008 | 7.26 | Democrat | Democrat |
| 2012 | 2.73 | Democrat | Democrat |
NOTE: All highlighting and coloring was done by me in order to denote discussion points.
What can we learn from this?
If you look for patterns in 'Net Gain', you will find something that has been talked about quite a lot in recent years - an entrenched electorate. The Net Gain numbers display this in a way that is easy to understand. Compared trends in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s to the 90s and 21st century.. Since 1984, there have been no double digit changes in popular vote patterns in regards to political party voted for. This points to a lack of fluidity in the electorship, with voters mostly staying within their chosen party. From the end of the 60's there is a big shift in the electorate toward the Republican party as the Hippie movement came to an end. This pattern continues more or less until 1984, then starts winding down to 7.73% gained by Republicans George H. W. Bush in 1988. In 1992, the Net Gain switches (although at a small level) toward the Democratic party.
I would call 1968 - 1988 a Republican era, where the Republican party obviously dominated the electorate.
After 1988, Democrats gained meager popular votes over Republicans each general election, with the exception of 2004, which found the US in the middle of the Iraq War and the War on Terror. It has been pointed out by political scientists and pundits that it is statistically probable that a wartime president will be re-elected, as the electorate is concerned with keeping momentum and consistency.
Another interesting data point is 2000, when George W. Bush won election via electoral college, yet the Democratic party net gained 0.52% of the popular vote. This is the only time this has occured within the charted data.
Since Bill Clinton's election in 1992, Democrats have made gains in the popular vote all but one time. Add in the entrenched political ideologies of the Republican right, and it creates a challenge for the Republican party. In the height of the Republican era of 1968-1992, whites were the majority. White evangelicals were a predictable powerhouse for the pro life movement.
Now we are in the midst of shifting demographics in America. All the while, the Republican party has held onto the same demographics and the same ideas that seem anti-immigrant, anti-poor, and anti-regulation,(unless it is a moral issue or issue affecting the poor, in which they are quite willing to discuss regulating or preventing it).
There is one other interesting element that I think is missing from these numbers. Based on the Net Gain from election cycle to election cycle, how did the Democrats start winning more in 1992? The Republicans should have about 90% of the country by that time, shouldn't they?
The answer is no. One data point that I could have added to the chart would have been the number of voters. Population grows. Children are born. Children grow up and vote. As opposed to the height of the Republican era of 68-88, young people vote at a higher number today. Young people tend to be more liberal in their views, which tends to favor Democrat votes. So, while the Net Gain shows a very successful Republican era, it doesn't tell the whole story. As the electorate population grows, a disproportionate number of new voters are voting Democrat. This is how the Democratic party has crossed the threshold into an even match for the Republicans, and began to make strides toward widening the margin.
Of course, Net Gain measures the popular vote, not the electoral vote. So, there is still certainly room for strategic campaigning to allow electoral wins in tight races. The real point of Net Gain is to point out what party is gaining mindshare and voters within the nation. The electorate may still allow wins for the Republican status quo, but with the Net Gain showing increased Democrat mindshare, electorate strategy will become more and more difficult if the trend is not reversed.
A clear winner for the future? Not quite.
I could speculate that the slow trend forming since 1992 is just starting to get momentum, but that would be only speculation and can't be categorically proven. What is true, is that demographics in America are changing. With those demographic shifts come differing ideals on social issues and the role of government. Many minority groups feel that there is a place for government in regards to welfare, healthcare, and other facets that affect Americans. As those demographics have grown, the Democratic party has honed their messaged and provided a consistent narrative that has attracted minorities.
The Republican party has been mostly unsuccessful in building support in these demographics. For decades the Republican party has behaved as if minorities weren't that important, and has repeatedly demonized minority issues.
Now that we have a very entrenched electorate where political party swapping accounts for 6% or less of the electorate, the Republican party must paddle upstream to throw off an earned stigma as moral legislators, anti-minority, and anti-immigration politics. This will take two things to be successful. First, it will require that Republican constituency is interested in changing the direction of the party in a consistent and meaningful way. This remains to be seen as Tea Party candidates have attempted to re-conservatize the party in recent years and attempted to swing the party further to the right. Time will tell the outcome of this particular struggle. Secondly, in order for the Republican brand to become a brand that is pro-minorities, it will take time. Time for minorities to forget the anti-minority agenda, time for Republicans to develop a new narrative and own it, and time for the party to do some 'House' cleaning so as to separate itself from congressmen that are often lightning rods with their ideals and statements. Consistency is key when trying to rework a narrative. Any deviation from the new narrative will just remind the electorship of the old narrative, sabotaging efforts to move forward.
If the Republican party does not make significant changes to policy and membership, these increasing demographics will simply be mobilized to hand Democratic presidents win after win, after win.
The party that can present a consistent track record in those issues is likely to gain/maintain those voters. Democrats have been doing this for years and more. The Republican party truly must be willing to change some of its philosophies and ideologies if they wish to attract these demographics as supporters while their prime voting block ages.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
The Republican History of the Last 30 Years
I want to open this post and state that it is an assessment of strategy and a view of how that strategy works/ has worked.
I am not stating an opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of the strategy, however I believe I would be lying if I said there was no bias.
Without further ado...
In the
1980s, the Republican party began taking on the pro life issue. In the 70's, this was not a core component of the republican agenda. In the 80s and 90s, this agenda grew to an
almost single hot button issue that fueled white religious conservative voters to vote Republican.
This worked
well with the moral majority, which was a powerful voting block.
Move
forward 20 years. With increased
fundamentalism and hateful rhetoric dominating the topic of abortion and other
ethics issues over 20 years, non-Evangelicals, unaffiliated voting groups, and
minorities have grown increasingly wary of the white Evangelical message and its politics.
It is now
safe to say that the white moral majority has now officially become a
minority. The reasons of this are out of
scope of this discussion, but I think we can agree it is a true statement.
Increasingly
through the early 2000s, Republican candidates have taken more moderate or
liberal stances on abortion. This has
created a slow rage amongst white Evangelicals, in part leading to the Tea
Party.
The Tea
Party is attempting to re-conservatize the Republican party (at least that is
the primary element that I see).
In the 2010 election, the Tea Party routed some Democrat and even some moderate Republican incumbents. The result was a
surprised Democratic party, and an enlivened Evangelical base.
In 2012, we
see Barack Obama re-elected, an increase in Democrat seats in the Senate, and
increased Democrat seats in the House.
The senate maintains Democrat majority, while the House retains
Republican majority.
The 2010 elections led to a sense that Democrats had overspent their political capital
with Obamacare, and the Republicans were poised for a new surge in 2012. So, what went wrong?
First off,
non-presidential election cycles are notoriously small voter turnout compared
to presidential election years. With the
grassroots efforts of the Tea Party, and millions poured into the efforts by the
Koch brothers and their like, the Tea Party dominated local and regional
ads. It worked in 20010.
The
Democrats were surprised by the grassroots efforts of mid election cycle
Republicanism. Yet, so were moderate
Republicans (some of which were ousted).
What
followed was 2 years of even more divisive politics, with House Tea Party
Republicans using their filibuster and new found power to block most anything
that came out of the Obama Administration and House Democrats.
This creates an interesting paradox.
Obama couldn't pass anything that may have given new rally cries to the
conservatives. It served more to harm
Republican reputation, and paint them as bell ringers that were preventing anything from
passing.
This led to
an increasingly anti-Tea Party sentiment with moderates and liberals.
Within
these same two years, the political capital of the Tea Party waned as there
were no new 'socialist' experiments’ by the Obama administration. Medicare began to see doughnut holes
shrunken, Osama Bin Laden was killed, the Iraq
war was brought to an end, Afghanistan
All of
these elements helped Obama, while the only major hate cry that the Republican
party had against Obama was Obamacare which was from back in 2010 and a claim that the economic recovery hadn't proved successful enough.
Additionally, Obamacare
became less of a hateful point, especially as Obama adopted the term and began
taking control of the Obamacare narrative, decreasing the sting of using
the term.
In
addition, for all the hate against Obama, he has not proven to be a liar or
disingenuous, at least not to the general public. He has principles and ideals that define his
presidency. He has stuck to those principles and they have guided his
actions. It was not politically advantageous to
press forward with Healthcare Reform. It almost cost him a second term. But he stuck with his principles, was not
shady, and stayed the course.
This gained
him additional votes over Romney, who repeatedly backpedaled statements that
came out along the way. Romney
flip-flopped on issues, and attempted to transform from a conservative to
moderate as he went from Republican primary candidate to general election
candidate. What's more, the hardcore
right was left a little confused when, for the second election in a row, the
faith of the Republican candidate couldn't be a rallying cry. Instead it was something to
be left in the closet, for fear of negative reaction.
2012...
Election night. High voter turnout, with
Democrats focusing on key groups to get out the vote. This worked despite
Republican efforts to quell Latinos and the poor from voting through greater
voter ID regulations.
Romney
didn't even know what was happening because he didn't believe in the 'facts' of
non-partisan pollsters, so he hired his own 'yes' men pollsters. That left him
writing a concession speech at the last minute when it all came crashing down.
<Biased Viewpoint>
One concern I have is that, in an attempt to do right, a portion (white Evangelicals) of American voters has lost sight of the real goal of a political party... To win.
</Biased Viewpoint>
Now, what
does it really mean?
1. The Moral
Majority (now Minority) has spent most of its political capital legislating
morality, and is left deflated after losing to a Democrat that was not highly
successful economically, and highly controversial in regards to
healthcare. This is an indicator that
Republican party philosophy and/or the Republican candidate left something for
Americans to desire.
2. The
Republican party proper is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Tea
Party conservatives. The Tea party is proving to be a lightning rod, and seems more interested in blocking
legislation than allowing government to efficiently work through compromise and
negotiation. I expect a further shift away from the
conservatives over the next decade.
3. Cities
tend toward Democrat and rural tend toward Republican. Suburbs have more independent or swing
voters.
4. The
Senate is state wide. It is safe to say
based on the Democrat lead that more states in a statewide fashion tend toward
Democrat when the rural, city, and suburban populations are tallied together.
5. The
House of Representatives is geographically oriented, so rural, suburban, and
city districts get equal representation.
This tends to a Republican majority because there is more rural
geography in US states than suburban or city geography.
6. The Republican Party is clearly anti-regulation, except on issues affecting the poor and minorities (which just so happen to be primarily Democrats).
7. Legislating morality does not work in the long run. What's more, it eats away at the perceived character of the constituency attempting to legislate their views on morality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)