Gallup Shows Broad GOP Losses In Almost All Demographics

by: Paul Rosenberg

Tue May 19, 2009 at 12:00


Sub-Group Shifts Run Counter To Obama Strategy

Frequent church-goers were the only demographic subgroup to show no decline in GOP allegiance from 2001 to 2009, according to a new survey brief from Gallup.  Declines among conservatives and those 65 and older were also minimal--the only bright spots reported for the GOP:

Democrats gained most from further consolidating support in their strongest demographic groups, rather than winning over Republican core groups, a shift that goes contrary to President Obama's repeated overtures to the GOP base:

Aside from education, for which the parties were basically at even strength in 2001, the Republicans' losses tend to be greater among groups that were not strong GOP supporters to begin with. These include self-identified liberals and moderates, church non-attenders, and lower-income and young adults. Thus, a big factor in the GOP's overall decline is the Democratic Party's consolidating its support among normally Democratically leaning groups.
Paul Rosenberg :: Gallup Shows Broad GOP Losses In Almost All Demographics
Losses among Blacks and minorities in general were also small, but these groups already have low levels of GOP support.  In fact, the 2% loss in total black support translated into a 17% loss of black Republicans.

The chart below (which adds a fourth column to the one released by Gallup) shows a loss of at least one in five GOP supporters among eight of the nine groups where the GOP lost eight or more percent support among the population at large.  For example, the nine percent loss among moderates in general, from 37% to 28%, translated into a loss of 24% of GOP moderates--just shy of one in five.  Combined with a 47% loss of GOP liberals and a 0% loss of GOP conservatives, this is yet another indication that the GOP is becoming more extreme as it shrinks:

Thus, although Gallup did not focus on this, one of the strongest take-aways from these results is that Obama's strategy of outreach to GOP stronghold groups runs directly counter to shifts in partisan trend: he is striving most visibly to reach out to those least inclined to listen, while offering a wide range of compromise, or at least soft-peddling with respect to issues that have have traditionally appealed to the groups where Democratic support has been growing.

The aggregate shift is represented in two charts, the first showing the shift in party support--members plus leaners:

The second shows the shift in support between party members and independents:

This simply reiterates previous reporting from Gallup as well as others, such as Pew, showing that GOP losses exceed Democratic gains. The combined picture is that roughly half of Democratic gains in support are from people who lean Democratic, but don't identify as party members--a further indication that Obama's relative de-emphasis on outreach to the Democratic base looks to be at odds with what would build the party at this time.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Can you ... (4.00 / 2)
The combined picture is that roughly half of Democratic gains in support are from people who lean Democratic, but don't identify as party members--a further indication that Obama's relative de-emphasis on outreach to the Democratic base looks to be at odds with what would build the party at this time.

or Mike get a comment on this from Axelrod or Plouffe?  It would be interesting to hear their excuse ... because they of all people should already know these things


Very odd (4.00 / 1)
Does anyone think Obama ran a campaign centered around having conservatives register as Democrats? I can't make sense of the complaint here.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

yeah, i'm having some trouble making sense of this... (0.00 / 0)
insofar as he was clearly working to try and win over 'moderate' and 'liberal' educated voters, and he clearly succeeded.  and the GOP, despite it's intense work courting the religious right, hasn't gained any ground in those subgroups... electoral strategy isn't just about maximizing your gains, its also about minimizing your losses.  

[ Parent ]
I do. (4.00 / 5)
What else was Rick Warren all about?  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
No Fair Thinking! (4.00 / 2)
Must regurgitate CW talking points! Must get pellets and water!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
minimizing his losses w/ the religious right... (4.00 / 1)
so that his gains with moderate republicans and indys would be more meaningful (as demonstrated nicely by the chart).

because, while he spoke at saddleback, said nice words about xian conservatives, and let warren deliver the invocation (symbolic gestures all), he pushed an actual platform that would appeal to moderate republicans (esp. in promoting cap and trade and in elevating the importance of science).  

the point is that this doesn't (necessarily) have to be mutually exclusive.  there is no reason to think that he would have won more moderate republicans if he hadn't gone to saddleback (which is really the crucial question here, based on paul's post).  i'm not saying i like all aspects of his outreach effort to xian conservatives, but i'm saying that the politics of it make sense -- and paul's post was exclusively about the political calculus.    


[ Parent ]
Well, no. (4.00 / 5)
I think you are completely missing the point of this post.

Obama didn't roll over for Rick Warren to please moderates. Moderates are as skeeved out by Warren as anyone else. He did it to please the Religious Right and put the Democratic base in its place.

But pleasing the Religious Right is a fool's game, as the statistics show. Putting the Democratic base in its place so far seems to carry no penalty, but that's an ongoing project.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Theory vs. Reality (4.00 / 4)
You've laid out a nice theory, seabrook, and it's certainly true that everything you say in your last paragraph is theoretically possible.

But in reality?  Not so much.  

If you spend all your time being all kissy face with hardline conservatives who will never give you an inch, you only empower them, you fail to develop a strong progressive narrative and you end up with folks like Erica Williams saying:

What the heck did I just say? Dear God - A TORTURE APOLOGIST TOOK OVER MY BODY.    

Looking back at the quote, I'm honestly not sure how I could have said something so wholly inaccurate and misrepresenting of my own personal opinion and the work of my organization and "the American people".  Me? A black woman who proudly wears her "Where are my reparations T-shirt" every Black History Month? Would I really suggest that America look away from and excuse its very recent and inhumane past? I think not. And yet, it appears as if I did.

This is, quite frankly, a recipe for disaster.  What can't be stated as a goal can never be achieved.  And we can't state our goals, because that might hurt Rick Warren's feelings.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Your Misunderstanding My Point (4.00 / 9)
These trends have been in the works for some time now, especially from 2005 onward.  Obama's campaign rhetoric, as well as his governing strategy (blind hoping to get 80 Senate votes for his tax-cut-heavy stimiulus bill, backing off de-escalating Bush's Mideast war, refusing to investigate BushCo war crimes, etc.) are all premised on the notion of "bringing together" Democrats with an increasingly small, but bitter GOP.

While this certainly played well with Versailles, who were just nuts over their own self-created myth of McCain, it didn't end up gaining Obama any significant electoral advantage over the Democratic Party as a whole.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that the rhetoric was nice for David Broder, but it flies in the face of what's happening in the electorate.  And since only unconditional surrender will make the GOP happy, Obama's continued success with such a strategy seems highly questionable.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
here's a 4 (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure I buy it as unsuccessful, but you've certainly been right before.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
um, well you could have made that point explicitly... (0.00 / 0)
but from where i sit, the gestures you refer to are more about maintaining the support of more hawkish (and/or budget hawkish) independents and 'moderate' republicans (ppl like joe scarborough).  none of those examples have anything to do with the christian conservatives that you are arguing he is trying in vain to reach out to.  

ultimately, it seems to me that the proof is in the pudding in terms of his high approval amongst both democrats and independents, and the shrinking percentage of the electorate that self-identifies with the GOP.  


[ Parent ]
Ran away (4.00 / 2)
Obama clearly ran a campaign that at times ran away from identifying as a Democrat offering a personal rather than a party appeal.  Remember his ad asking people to register as a "Democrat for a Day."

The result was that he ran ever so slightly behind the party's congessional candidates, not way ahead.

This is not Reaganism at full bloom a la the 80s but Bushism in defeat.  There was simply no need to seek any distance in the general election and little need in the primaries (I think by running as a personal rather than a party candidate he may have been helped in a few of the Plains and northern Mountaiin states in the primaries/caucuses).


[ Parent ]
meh (0.00 / 0)
Your comparison is meaningless. Democrats have controlled the House most years since 1965 but Obama got a higher percentage than any other Democrat in the time. No Democrat has done better than the House since Johnson.  (Plots that show the contrary like this one) are based on excluding Perot.)



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
Your objection is meaningless (4.00 / 2)
If you don't exclude Perot, your data points are limited to Republican victories, Carter's narrow win in 1976 and Gore's popular vote win electoral college loss.

The fact is that Obama had the best Democratic performance for president since LBJ, but still ran behind congressional Democrats.

I'm not sure that identifying as a Democrat more would have helped him (he'd still have lost West Virginia handily and incumbents tend to poll ahead of challengers anyway) but it doesn't help the Democratic Party either way.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
I don't believe it (0.00 / 0)
I think this is yet another example of a poorly designed poll. What it really is measuring is people's dissatisfaction with current economic conditions, but since that wasn't the question asked, the people used a proxy (GOP affiliation) as a way to express their discontent.

More meaningful would be to ask questions about fundamental beliefs that have been strongly correlated with political affiliation in the past. I claim people don't really change their fundamental views much; the changes in aggregate social norms are the result of the old ideas dying off.

Those who get worked up about abortion or immigration or high taxes will always harbor those resentments, but if there is no candidate making an issue of them they will chose some other marker to make a decision. It is true that the GOP is at a loss right now for attractive hot button topics to attract voters and this may affect their electoral prospects, but that's not a proof that attitudes have changed.

The GOP didn't lose by that much, it is mostly the result of our winner takes all election laws which magnifies small differences in voting. Furthermore the Dems have moved so far to the right that many in the GOP aren't afraid of them anymore.

We have exactly two "liberal" members of congress: Sanders and Barney Frank, and Frank has been yielding to the banking sector of late, leaving one, totally ineffective, senator.

Policies not Politics


WTF? (4.00 / 2)
Asking people about their partisan identification is a "poorly designed poll"???

That's GOP-speak, pahdnuh!

As for the rest of what you wrote, there's certainly some truth in it--a good deal, even, in some respects.  But that's why (a) one needs to take all sorts of different polls in order to develop a sophisticated analysis, (b) Dem gains are strongest among younger voters, (c) most people only change from one party to another by going through a prolonged transition phase as an independent, which is part of what we see in the data above.

Finally, one needs to remember that realignments are different.  We've only had one realignment period during the time we've had anyscientific polling.  And that was so long ago that the polling record is much thinner than we'd like.  But we do have enough data--mostly from electoral results--to know that folks really do change their allegiances significantly and in large numbers during such periods, whereas normally they do not.  Generally speaking, it's not so much that they change "fundamental values", it's that they change configurations of how they see things fit together.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
social desirability bias (4.00 / 1)
I didn't make my self clear. They know the GOP is in disfavor and are therefore shying away from stating that they are affiliated with it.

I know you are well aware of social desirability bias when answering polls (even anonymously). That's why, for example, the number of those who report they go to church is double the figures taken by direct counts.

Saying that you are an "independent" when you will vote for the Republican will be more likely than the answers indicate. If a likable GOP candidate emerges in a given race these people will be happy to support him.

I do think that there is a small group of undecideds (about 5%) who really do swing from one election to the next, but I'm still to be convinced that the 45/45% split between Dems and Repubs has really changed and is not just a momentary expression of frustration.

If the Dems would stop being GOP lite and really pass some meaningful legislation then perhaps they could repeat their successes under FDR. Obama certain has the charisma, he's got the fireside chat down, now he needs to be bold and bash some heads a la LBJ.  

Policies not Politics


[ Parent ]
My We Sure Have A Lot Of Data-Resisters Out Today (0.00 / 0)
I'm still to be convinced that the 45/45% split between Dems and Repubs has really changed and is not just a momentary expression of frustration.

Your seat on the Sunday talk shows has been confirmed.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about (4.00 / 2)
Obama's rhetoric has ranged between liberal and moderately conservative. In other words: he's pretty much fully captured the range of the new and expanded Democratic Party. But in what sense has Obama been going after hard-core right wingers, as opposed to sensible and moderate conservatives?

yes, this is the question that i have yet to hear a reasonable answer to... (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Rick Warren (4.00 / 4)
in what sense has Obama been going after hard-core right wingers, as opposed to sensible and moderate conservatives?

Hard core anti-gay religious warrior.

There are literally tens of thousands of conservative religious figures in this country.  But Obama goes and picks one of the top hardline politicos.

Similarly, there is a honorable conservative tradition that really does take the rule of law seriously. Rather then reach out to that tradition, as well keep his promises to his progressive base, he panders to the pro-torture "Cheney can do no wrong crowd" which comprises maybe 15-20% of the population.

I could go on, but if you're going to ignore these prominent examples, you'll just ignore everything else I would cite, too.



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
well, I might dispute these examples (0.00 / 0)
But if you don't want to bother, I won't either.

[ Parent ]
And Donnie McClurkin. (4.00 / 5)
And praising Reagan.

Does no one else remember 2008?

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Sure I Remember 2008! (4.00 / 4)
That's when we were told, "Don't worry, wait till 2009, when Obama's President.  Then we'll all get our magic ponies!"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Maybe my pony is in Af-Pak? (4.00 / 1)
Speaking of appealing to sensible and moderate conservatives...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
And Let's Not Forget Either (0.00 / 0)
His Cosbyite/Bookerite speeches of personal responsibility-pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-the-government-can't-save-you proclamations which was clearly used as a political tactic to woo conservative voters who love seeing an educated, accomplished buppie like Obama chastise those Negroes who just can't get their act together! That damn Father's Day Speech made me want to pull my hair out, more than the whole Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren debacle -- and hell, I'm a gay black man! The only time Obama speaks "honestly" about race is when he's grandstanding about the supposed cultural failings of poor black people. Not sounding too much different than Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, etc. (He even goes one step further than Cosby in his stereotypical imagery of poor black parents feeding their kids Popeyes chicken for breakfast! No other politician in modern American history would've gotten away with that. Oh, that's right, I forgot! Since we're celebrating "history" we can sweep such moves by Obama under the rug.)

It's one thing when you hear that sort of speech from Bill Cosby. Cosby sounded like a frustrated old grandpa or uncle who sits on a porch yelling at the youngsters to "pull ya pants up!" You roll your eyes hearing it, but you know that he's speaking out of deep concerned for his people. I didn't get that same vibe from Obama. I saw nothing but pure political calculation on his part to use a core constituency to lure in that mythical "middle". Using poor black people for political gains has been a standard in American politics ever since the rise of Reagan (someone who Obama obviously admires). The fact he frames the whole discussion of poverty and race from a conservative, victim-blaming stance solidified my dislike for his neoliberal politics.  


[ Parent ]
I'm Planning A Weekend Diary That Will Deal With Some Of This (0.00 / 0)
So don't be surprised if end up lifting a quote or two from this comment of yours!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Maybe the point (0.00 / 0)
of Obama's reaching out to Republican politicians is to...reach out to reach out to Republican politicians.

Trends in party affiliation are interesting, but they are fairly meaningless unless dissected geographically.  An uptick in Democratic identification in California isn't particularly helpful.

Obama is making the Democratic party safe for Arlen Specter and Colin Powell.  The Republican party is decidedly not safe for moderates.  Reaching out to moderates may be a good strategy for consolidating power and is serving to marginalize the opposition.

On the other hand, it may be that Obama is a man without any firm principles, who would prefer to avoid fights just as a matter of style, and who is wholly accepting of many of the fundamentals of the conservative worldview.  He reaches out to conservatives because he thinks their views are entirely legitimate, and his disagreement based on little more than convenience.  There may be no strategy about it at all.


How is he making the party .. (4.00 / 1)
safe for Specter? .. Specter started his career as a Democrat .. changed parties when it would help further his career ... then changed again ... when it would help(possibly) further his career

[ Parent ]
By ensuring that there are (0.00 / 0)
no consequences whatsoever for continuing to act like a Republican.  In the Republican majority, breaking from the ranks had consequences, in the form of a committee assignments lost, pet project not supported, being shunned at the midday prayer meeting.  Furthermore, it remains to be seen how the possible primary challenge will be treated by the establishment Democrats - the Republicans have a system in which primary runs by wingnuts are encouraged.  I expect that Specter will have the full force of the establishment behind him.  

The most recent changes in party alignment are possibly beyond the control of the Obama administration, and the short term significance of further shifts might be minimal.  As Bowers has repeatedly demonstrated, almost every long term demographic trend favors the Democrats.  Obama's election was in part the result of some of these trends, not a reflection of Obama's campaign.  If party identification increases in Democratic strongholds, that is of almost no significance.  

The questions for Obama are how he can increase Democratic alignment in purple states and demographics in flux, and how to translate the increase in Democratic party identification into votes in Congress.  I don't think the way to accomplish those goals is to tack hard to the left on every issue.  However, I would think part of that strategy would be to move left on those issues on which the majority of people already agree with the Democratic position, and challenge the mentality of the centrist bubble.

Obama is frustrating because he has consolidated power and political capital and refuses to use it.  The starry-eyed optimist in me hopes that he is just waiting for the opportunity - maybe after Franken is seated, the Senate will offer Specter a chairmanship, a tiara, and a couple bridges to get his vote on a few key pieces of historic progressive legislation.  But Obama has disappointed the starry-eyed optimist in me too many times to believe it.    


[ Parent ]
Just Wait Till 2017! (4.00 / 1)
Obama is frustrating because he has consolidated power and political capital and refuses to use it.  The starry-eyed optimist in me hopes that he is just waiting for the opportunity -

That's when the million dollar speaking fees kick in!

Talk about opportunity!

Unless, of course, he pulls a Hoover between now and 2012.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
The problem is ... (4.00 / 1)
the Democrats have been "keeping their powder dry" for ages ...  at least(that I can remember) since Alito and Roberts(I became a political junkie around then .. not because of the nomination fights)

[ Parent ]
Republican Politicians Who Otherwise Would Be "Pursuing Other Interests" (4.00 / 5)
So, instead of progressive Democrats, whose support comes from the Democratic base, we get conservadem imports from the GOP, who will only support Obama's agenda in a further diluted form.

With "victories" like this, who needs defeat?

It should be remembered that Republican politicians re-registered as Democrats back during the New Deal, too.  And they weren't conservadems, either.  One prominent example was the only real liberal Democratic governor that California's had since 1950: Edmund "Pat" Brown, who basically created the modern state of California.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Low hanging fruit (4.00 / 5)
As you suggest, the proper response is to pick up the low hanging fruit.  Take the Northeast.  Over the last five Presidential elections, Republicans have managed to win one state (NH in 2000) one time picking up a grand total of 4 of a possible 600 electoral votes to 596 for the Democrats.  At the same time, Democrats have been slowly picking off Senate seats in the region.  Republicans have gone from 10 Senate seats after 1994 to 3 today and probably 2 after the 2010 elections (leaving them with the Maine ladies and only the Maine ladies).

Those seven seats are enormous in the context of the national party (2 in PA, D'Amato in NY, Roth in DE, Jeffords switch in VT, Chaffee in RI, and Sunnunu in NH).  We have not only picked up 7 seats but the votes are generally to the left of the center of the Democratic party.  Judd Gregg's open seat is the low hanging fruit in 2010.

The six Great Lakes states are 10-2 in the Senate (Dick Lugar and George Voinovich being the exceptions).  The five Pacific states are 9-1 (Lisa Murkowski).  Ohio is a state where we are favored for 2010.

Some parts of these regions are still Republican strongholds (Central PA).  But there is still room to consolidate and pick up ideologically friendly seats from our strongholds.  Think PA-6, IL-10, WA-8, and some of the CA districts.  

Parts of the Mountain states and even the South are opportunity zones as well but only parts.  Think Burr in NC, the FL governorship, the FL Senate seat if Crist loses to Rubio.  Eventually that should include Ensign's seat in NV and McCain and Kyl's seats in AZ.

At that point, the threat of the fillibuster is gone and the Republicans are at least temorarily out of power.  I don't see FDR redux in terms of onesidedness but Democrats won the White House for five straight elections from 1932 through 1948 and had the trifecta for 18 out of 20 of those years.  This is not the time to reach out it is the time to accomplish the unfulfilled goals of the past 40 years.


So which unfulfilled goals would those be? (0.00 / 0)
Handing two trillion to the banksters with no transparency and no accountability?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
universal health care / green energy / undoing the "imperial presidency"/ etc. (0.00 / 0)
1) Universal Health Care (HR 676, for example)
2) The WE campaign (100% renewable electricity within 10 years)
3) restore the civil liberties that were stolen by Bush & Co.; also a special proescutor for Bush admin. war crimes
4) Fix the tax system by closing loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas / remove the cap on Social Security and Medicare taxes
5) (fill in the blank) - I am open to other ideas...



Luke 12:48 "to whom much is given, of him shall much be required". Would Jesus want progressive taxation, or regressive taxation?


[ Parent ]
Irony... (0.00 / 0)
... CD, irony. Corrente is a very strong supporter of single payer.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox