Can Democrats Win When Obama’s Not on the Ticket?

National Journal
Josh Kraushaar
May 13, 2014, 7:09 p.m.

By now, it’s ac­cep­ted wis­dom that Demo­crats per­form bet­ter in pres­id­en­tial elec­tions, when the elect­or­ate is more di­verse and young­er, while the GOP’s strength is in midterm elec­tions, when their core voters are like­li­er to turn out. But it’s worth re­mem­ber­ing that this is a re­cent phe­nomen­on, thanks to the chan­ging makeup of the Demo­crat­ic Party un­der Barack Obama’s pres­id­ency — and there’s no guar­an­tee it will con­tin­ue un­abated.

It wasn’t the case in 2004, when George W. Bush ef­fect­ively mo­bil­ized con­ser­vat­ive voters to over­come grow­ing pub­lic dis­sat­is­fac­tion to­ward his pres­id­ency. It wasn’t the case in 2006, when the Demo­crat­ic Party cap­it­al­ized on in­creased sup­port from older, white voters to re­take the House and Sen­ate. And it wasn’t the case in the dec­ades pri­or, when Demo­crats of­ten re­cor­ded sig­ni­fic­ant gains or out­per­formed ex­pect­a­tions in midterm years (1982, 1986, 1998), while Re­pub­lic­ans won five of sev­en pres­id­en­tial elec­tions from 1980 to 2004.

What’s changed is the makeup of both parties’ co­ali­tions. Seni­ors, who fre­quently voted Demo­crat­ic over pock­et­book is­sues like So­cial Se­cur­ity and Medi­care, have mi­grated in­to the Re­pub­lic­an column. White blue-col­lar voters, once a staple of Demo­crat­ic co­ali­tions past, have be­come es­tranged from their old polit­ic­al home over cul­tur­al is­sues. In their place are what my col­league Ron Brown­stein la­bels “the co­ali­tion of the as­cend­ant”single wo­men, minor­it­ies, and mil­len­ni­al voters. Voters with­in these groups turned out at high levels in the last two pres­id­en­tial elec­tions to off­set Demo­crat­ic losses else­where.

The chal­lenge for Demo­crats in this year’s midterms is get­ting these “as­cend­ant” voters en­thu­si­ast­ic about show­ing up to the polls when Obama isn’t on the bal­lot — something that Demo­crat­ic turnout spe­cial­ists are work­ing over­time to achieve. Even if they don’t show up and Re­pub­lic­ans re­take the Sen­ate in 2014, the as­sump­tion is they’re bound to re­turn at sim­il­ar levels for the next pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. That’s not ne­ces­sar­ily the case.

To be sure, the grow­ing di­versity of the elect­or­ate presents Re­pub­lic­ans with fun­da­ment­al chal­lenges, re­gard­less of the turnout rates of the core Demo­crat­ic groups. But it’s also clear that the his­tor­ic nature of Pres­id­ent Obama’s can­did­acy helped him rally Afric­an-Amer­ic­an voters to the polls in re­cord num­bers and at re­cord levels — a dy­nam­ic that’s un­likely to re­peat it­self in the fu­ture. For the first time in his­tory, Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans voted at a high­er rate than whites in 2012, with 66.2 per­cent of eli­gible black voters cast­ing bal­lots. That’s up six points from 2004, the last pres­id­en­tial elec­tion in which Obama wasn’t on the bal­lot. In many urb­an, heav­ily Afric­an-Amer­ic­an pre­cincts, sup­port for Obama ran close to 100 per­cent. Without that same de­gree of sup­port in the fu­ture, Demo­crats will need to make up lost ground with white voters, while main­tain­ing the over­whelm­ing ad­vant­ages with His­pan­ic and Asi­an-Amer­ic­an voters they en­joyed in 2012.

A postelec­tion ana­lys­is from Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion demo­graph­er Wil­li­am Frey found that if turnout rates from all ra­cial groups re­mained at the same levels as 2004, Mitt Rom­ney would have won the pres­id­ency — by 9,000 votes. And if only minor­ity turnout dipped to its 2004 levels (with white turnout at its lower 2012 rate), Obama would have barely de­feated Rom­ney. Giv­en the grow­ing share of His­pan­ic and Asi­an-Amer­ic­an voters, that’s far from en­cour­aging news for Re­pub­lic­ans, but it’s also a cau­tion­ary tale for the party de­pend­ent on demo­graph­ic des­tiny to win fu­ture pres­id­en­tial elec­tions.

In­deed, Demo­crats could find them­selves re­li­ant on brand-name can­did­ates to gen­er­ate the same de­gree of en­thu­si­asm that Obama offered like-minded voters over the last two pres­id­en­tial elec­tions. Hil­lary Clin­ton fits the bill, giv­en her unique ap­peal among wo­men and po­ten­tial to im­prove on Obama’s per­form­ance among work­ing-class voters. But would Joe Biden or any gen­er­ic Demo­crat­ic of­fice­hold­er provide them with the same ad­vant­ages? (Think Mar­tin O’Mal­ley versus Marco Ru­bio.)

Des­pite the di­ver­si­fy­ing Demo­crat­ic co­ali­tion, the party’s bench is vir­tu­ally devoid of minor­ity of­fice­hold­ers. There are only four Demo­crat­ic gov­ernors or sen­at­ors of col­or, com­pared to sev­en Re­pub­lic­ans. Obama hasn’t brought along many oth­er Demo­crats who present the same post-ra­cial ap­peal he show­cased in 2008. Even Obama cam­paign strategist Dav­id Axel­rod ac­know­ledged the Demo­crat­ic Party “needs to do a bet­ter job” of re­cruit­ing more minor­ity of­fice­hold­ers on an Amer­ic­an Hos­pit­al As­so­ci­ation pan­el in which we both par­ti­cip­ated. Without those land­mark pres­id­en­tial can­did­ates in the fu­ture, it’s hard to see minor­ity voter en­thu­si­asm main­tain its healthy rate.

“Al­though long-term demo­graph­ic trends “¦ are fa­vor­able for the Demo­crats, trans­lat­ing those trends in­to true polit­ic­al and elect­or­al dom­in­ance will re­main dif­fi­cult so long as Demo­crats rely on simply turn­ing out core Obama co­ali­tion voters. Their mar­gins will be too thin and sub­ject to back­lash, es­pe­cially be­low the pres­id­en­tial level,” polit­ic­al sci­ent­ists Ruy Teixeira and An­drew Levis­on wrote last spring in The New Re­pub­lic. They later con­cluded: “If in 2016 white work­ing-class sup­port falls to or be­low the 33 per­cent it hit in 2012, a GOP pres­id­ent be­comes a very real pos­sib­il­ity.”

Teixeira, who pres­ci­ently an­ti­cip­ated that chan­ging demo­graph­ics would spur polit­ic­al re­align­ment in the land­mark book The Emer­ging Demo­crat­ic Ma­jor­ity, is now sug­gest­ing the lim­its Demo­crats face de­pend­ing en­tirely on the Obama-forged co­ali­tion. Mean­while, Obama’s job ap­prov­al among non­col­lege whites hit 29 per­cent in this month’s ABC News/Wash­ing­ton Post poll.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4947) }}

What We're Following See More »
Trump Jr. Meeting with GOP Members
5 hours ago
US Nukes Rely on Decades-Old Tech
5 hours ago
Eleven States Sue Administration Over Transgender Bathroom Access
7 hours ago

The great restroom war of 2016 continues apace, as eleven states have sued the Obama administration in federal court, claiming its federal guidance on how schools should accommodate transgender students "has no basis in law." "The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The lawsuit argues that the federal government has worked to turn workplaces and schools 'into laboratories for a massive social experiment.'"

Puerto Rico Debt Bill Passes House Committee
8 hours ago

By a 29-10 vote, the House Natural Resources Committee today passed the bill to allow Puerto Rico to restructure its $70 billion in debt. The legislation "would establish an oversight board to help the commonwealth restructure its un-payable debt and craft an economic recovery plan."

Wyden Bill Would Make Nominees’ Tax Disclosures Mandatory
8 hours ago

"Though every major party nominee since 1976 has released his tax returns while running for president, the practice has never been required by law. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) wants to change that. The senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, which handles tax issues, introduced a bill on Wednesday that would force presidential candidates to release their most recent tax returns. The Presidential Tax Transparency Act, as the bill is called, would require candidates to make their latest three years of tax returns public no later than 15 days after becoming the nominee."