Earlier today, I noted that "drop off" voters (that is, people who voted in 2008 but are currently considered unlikely to voter in 2010), are actually much happier about the direction of the country, and of the Democratic Party, than are likely voters. This makes it very difficult to argue that drop-off voters are dropping out primarily due to increasing cynicism rooted in the current direction of Democratic governance.
Surely, there are some drop-off voters whose primary motivation is the Democratic failure to deliver on sweeping change. As with any large group of people (in this case, tens of millions), more than one motivation is in play. But what is the primary motivation behind drop-off voters, and what can be done to get Democratic drop-off voters to the polls in 2010?
I have a theory: nothing. There is nothing that can be done to bring the drop-off voters to the polls. The lack of participation among drop-off voters is consistent with long-term civic trends in the United States, and not specific to the current political situation. The problem is particularly pronounced for Democrats in 2010 because the Democratic coalition has become increasingly dependent upon young voters who, despite what anyone has tried since 18-year olds were first given suffrage almost 40 years ago, have always seen their participation plummet in midterm elections relative to older voters. As such, Democratic and progressive efforts to win elections in 2010 must be focused primarily, if not entirely, on voter persuasion rather than voter mobilization.
The 2006 midterm elections were great for Democrats, as they netted 30 House seats, 6 Senate seats, 6 Governorships, and a slew of state legislative bodies. This happened despite many of the demographic groups that lean Democratic declining as a percentage of the overall electorate:
Percentage of electorate, various demographics, 2004-2006
The drop among young voters from 2004 to 2006 was particularly pronounced. It also accounts for the Democratic drop among the other demographics. Young voters are more LGBT, less Christian, less white, and poorer than older voters.
Long-term data from the census bureau indicates that the turnout gap between Americans above and below the age of 45 widens significantly in mid-term elections. For example, over the last nine Presidential elections, Americans aged 45-64 turned out, on average, at a rate 12.7% higher than Americans aged 25-44. However, in mid-term elections, the average gap over the last nine cycles has been 17.1%.
In 2008, Democrats did better among young voters than in any other election in since 1964. President Obama won voters under 45 by a 57%-41% margin. This means that the "natural" lower turnout among young voters in midterm elections will hurt Democrats more than in any midterm since 1964.
Any coalition based so heavily on younger voters, as is Barack Obama's, will almost inevitably suffer a major setback in midterm elections. Shifting 10% of the electorate (which happened from 2004 to 2006) from the under-45 age group (which Obama won by 16%) to the over-45 age group (which Obama lost by 2%), results in a national popular vote shift of 2% of the popular vote to Republicans. Given that lower turnout is currently costing Democrats about a 3% in the popular vote, almost all of the damage Democrats are taking from lower turnout is consistent with historical trends rather than being specific to the current political environment. The remaining 1% could even be due to rounding, or statistical noise.
Winning in 2010, whether as any type of Democrat or as a Progressive Democrat, is going to require successful voter persuasion much more than it will require successful voter mobilization. Although I lack specific data to back this up right now, the most attractive option for voter persuasion is anti-Wall Street populism, combined with an attack on members (and potential members) of Congress who collude with Wall Street. Without improved economic conditions, Democratic candidates are going to need a villain other than themselves for the current economic woes. Elections in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia show that just blaming past Republican administrations is not enough. Voters can, and will, turn back to Republicans unless you convince them you are willing to fight what people almost universally recognize as the real villain of our times.
But that is just a theory. I'd like to do more research to test it.
STATE BLOGS
