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.
No comments:
Post a Comment