I ended last week with an appearance on Hardball, with guest host Chuck Todd, discussing this Ron Brownstein piece on “the changing American electorate” in National Journal.
The general gist of the article is that the rapid growth in America’s minority populations — most notably Hispanics and Asian-Americans — is bad news for the GOP. By their calculations, Obama can do much worse among white Americans in certain key states and still win, because the growth in the share of the electorate by these other groups would counteract that.
I might argue the reverse, that some polling evidence suggests Obama’s support among whites is eroding, and he’ll need greater turnout among minority voters to offset those lost votes.
Obama won 43 percent of the white vote in 2008, and in a lot of the key swing states, Obama was winning percentages ranging from the mid-40s to more than 50 percent.
Obviously, Obama’s current approval rating doesn’t correlate perfectly with his likely share of the vote, but let’s presume that his share of the vote is within a few points of his approval rating. A recent National Journal poll finds, “Obama’s approval rating among whites remained at just 39 percent; it hasn’t cracked 40 percent since September 2009.” Even worse for the president, Quinnipiac’s latest puts Obama’s job approval among whites at 29 percent.
Obama won 43 percent of the white vote in 2008. When National Journal was trying to calculate how little of the white vote Obama could get and still win these states, the lowest swing states were North Carolina and Virginia at 38 percent. But if the publication’s own poll is accurate, Obama is really on the precipice of how little of the white voter support he can enjoy while remaining competitive, and if the Quinnipiac poll is accurate, he’s up a certain creek. (PPP puts his approval rating among whites at 35 percent in North Carolina and 37 percent in Virginia; recall National Journal calculates Obama needs 38 percent with higher minority turnout.)
Among Hispanics, Obama is doing much better, with a 64 percent approval rating according to Pew. In Gallup’s poll, it’s been as low as 54 percent. The organization Latino Decisions did a poll in February that put Obama’s approval rating pretty high — 70 percent — but only 43 percent were certain to vote for him. Obama won 67 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2008. If Obama wins a percentage close to those 70 percent who currently approve, he’s home free. If Obama’s level of support is closer to that 43 percent of current certain supporters, he’s in deep trouble.
Of course, one problem with this type of analysis is that we’re looking the numbers in a vacuum, presuming that past voting habits continue. For example, the unemployment rate for blacks is currently 13.7 percent and the unemployment rate among Hispanics is 11.3 percent. For almost all of Obama’s presidency, these troubling numbers have been even higher. Will Obama run as well among those groups if unemployment among them is significantly higher than it was in 2008?
Finally, I would note that in every election, and certainly since 2008, Democrats have counted on minority voters to turn out and support them in large numbers. By and large they have been disappointed, even in states with high Hispanic populations like New Jersey, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Virginia. Will turnout be up in a presidential year? Sure. But it’s worth noting that in the past two years, some very well-funded campaigns brought President Obama to rallies in places like Cleveland and Norfolk and Newark and Camden, and minority voters haven’t shown up for the Democrats in the numbers they were looking for. Sometimes, the voters just don’t show up.
UPDATE: Some more thoughts on this issue from Michael Barone here.
Unless the economy is booming, gas prices are lower and stable, and black and Hispanic unemployment is way down, minorities who vote Democratic are more likely to stay at home in 2012 than in 2008.
Then there's the question of Obama fatigue. In 2008 Obama was a fresh face, who chose to be black for blacks. He was new; change and hope were in the air. Four years on, we've proven we can elect a black to the presidency. Ho hum; now let's look at results.
Another factor might just be found in the typical difference in polling results between “registered voters” and “likely voters.” The latter tend to be more conservative and Republican. Reflecting that we on the right tend to get out and actually vote in greater proportion.
All in all, demographics may not be destiny. Plus, you want a game changer? Think Marco Rubio on the ticket.
I can't speak as wisely about ethnic voting in 2012 as Mr. Geraghty, but Mr. Barone's column reflects something I've long thought of whenever I read one of these "whites will be a minority in a few decades" pieces. Who says ethnicities stay put? If an Irish-American marries a Korean-American today, how will their kids identify themselves 30 years from now on a Census form, especially when they marry someone of Italian/Hispanic heritage and have kids of their own?
It seems to me it's more likely that the definition of "white" will prove more fluid in the decades to come than that ethnic identity will become hardened, both in personal lives and in politics.
I would hestitate to count future asian and hispanic chickens in the Democrats column ... both groups have strong reasons to vote Republican that unlike the African American community (which has many of the same reasons to vote GOP) can't be demagoged into voting Dem.
Immigration won't sell in the asian community and past evidence shows that it doesn't work among the legal hispanic community (you know, the ones who can vote) either ...
Sell a color and ethnically blind message of personal liberty and economic freedom and trust that it will win the day because otherwise you just end up trying to pander to demographics and that means selling your soul for votes ...
To Dorsai's point, my impression is that 100 years ago, the offspring of an Italian immigrant marrying say, someone of another European ethnicity, would likely self-identify as simply a White American. Today, the progeny of mixed minorities are more likely than not to identify themselves as, say Hispanic or Asian or whatnot. This is the result of affirmative action for minorities, and the incessant promotion of group identities. Me, I don't like it. But the good news for Republicans is that this leads to an overstatement of self-identified minorities. In reality these "minorities" are going to be influenced by the culture and political affiliation of their families and friends to varying degrees, just like they've always been regardless of their or the government's classification.
This very magazine back in 1999 or 2000 took the demographic voting results of the 1988 election and project them forwards and predicted that 2004 would be the last election the GOP would ever win. So much so that by 2048 election, even Reagan's 59-41 win would become a 48-52 loss. Only Nixon's 1972 win of 62% would survive past 2050.
What would a one party USA look like?
-Dem party would be deeply corrupt and totally bankrupt morally and intellectually, think Mexican PRI or Japanese Liberal Democrat Party, but with identity politics ruling the day, it wont matter
-Most likely without a serious GOP or center-right party, the Dem party would also breakup, into a far left party and a center-left party.
-If the above were to occur, a center right party could emerge and win with less than 40% of the vote, think Canadian Conservatives or UK Tories.
It is hard to say what will happen exactly, but it wont likely be good.
The key words are "voters just don’t show up."
Unless the economy is booming, gas prices are lower and stable, and black and Hispanic unemployment is way down, minorities who vote Democratic are more likely to stay at home in 2012 than in 2008.
Then there's the question of Obama fatigue. In 2008 Obama was a fresh face, who chose to be black for blacks. He was new; change and hope were in the air. Four years on, we've proven we can elect a black to the presidency. Ho hum; now let's look at results.
Another factor might just be found in the typical difference in polling results between “registered voters” and “likely voters.” The latter tend to be more conservative and Republican. Reflecting that we on the right tend to get out and actually vote in greater proportion.
All in all, demographics may not be destiny. Plus, you want a game changer? Think Marco Rubio on the ticket.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMccain would have won with 1992's Demographics. So just 2 presidencies turned a loss into a comfortable win. What happens 2 presidencies later?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't speak as wisely about ethnic voting in 2012 as Mr. Geraghty, but Mr. Barone's column reflects something I've long thought of whenever I read one of these "whites will be a minority in a few decades" pieces. Who says ethnicities stay put? If an Irish-American marries a Korean-American today, how will their kids identify themselves 30 years from now on a Census form, especially when they marry someone of Italian/Hispanic heritage and have kids of their own?
It seems to me it's more likely that the definition of "white" will prove more fluid in the decades to come than that ethnic identity will become hardened, both in personal lives and in politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would hestitate to count future asian and hispanic chickens in the Democrats column ... both groups have strong reasons to vote Republican that unlike the African American community (which has many of the same reasons to vote GOP) can't be demagoged into voting Dem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImmigration won't sell in the asian community and past evidence shows that it doesn't work among the legal hispanic community (you know, the ones who can vote) either ...
Sell a color and ethnically blind message of personal liberty and economic freedom and trust that it will win the day because otherwise you just end up trying to pander to demographics and that means selling your soul for votes ...
To Dorsai's point, my impression is that 100 years ago, the offspring of an Italian immigrant marrying say, someone of another European ethnicity, would likely self-identify as simply a White American. Today, the progeny of mixed minorities are more likely than not to identify themselves as, say Hispanic or Asian or whatnot. This is the result of affirmative action for minorities, and the incessant promotion of group identities. Me, I don't like it. But the good news for Republicans is that this leads to an overstatement of self-identified minorities. In reality these "minorities" are going to be influenced by the culture and political affiliation of their families and friends to varying degrees, just like they've always been regardless of their or the government's classification.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis very magazine back in 1999 or 2000 took the demographic voting results of the 1988 election and project them forwards and predicted that 2004 would be the last election the GOP would ever win. So much so that by 2048 election, even Reagan's 59-41 win would become a 48-52 loss. Only Nixon's 1972 win of 62% would survive past 2050.
What would a one party USA look like?
-Dem party would be deeply corrupt and totally bankrupt morally and intellectually, think Mexican PRI or Japanese Liberal Democrat Party, but with identity politics ruling the day, it wont matter
-Most likely without a serious GOP or center-right party, the Dem party would also breakup, into a far left party and a center-left party.
-If the above were to occur, a center right party could emerge and win with less than 40% of the vote, think Canadian Conservatives or UK Tories.
It is hard to say what will happen exactly, but it wont likely be good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse