"It is fair to say that 2010 was the year of older, rich people." That's the conclusion of a new research memo from Project Vote, "An Analysis of Who Voted (and Who Didn't Vote) in the 2010 Election," by Dr. Lorraine Minnite. It finds that wealthier voters and Americans over the age of 65 surged to the polls in 2010, and increased their support for the Republican party, while young voters and minority voters (who strongly favor Democrats) dropped off at higher rates than in 2006.
Two years ago, African-Americans, lower-income Americans, and young Americans all participated in the 2008 presidential election in decisive numbers, making it the most diverse electorate in history. In 2010, however, these historically underrepresented groups were underrepresented again, as they (in common with most Americans) largely stayed home. Non-voters were the majority in 2010, a fact that "throws cold water on any victor's claims for a mandate."
This new memo analyzes exit poll and preliminary voting data to give the first comprehensive picture of the 2010 electorate. While this election largely followed patterns typical of midterms, Dr. Minnite found a few distinct features of the 2010 electorate that help explain the results. Absent a national race to galvanize new and minority voters, fewer voters turnout and the populations that do vote tend to be older. The racial composition of the population that voted in 2010 closely mirrored that of 2006: 80 percent of voters were white, 10 percent were black, eight percent Latino, and two percent Asian.
However, several distinct features of the 2010 voting population stand out, and contributed to the results on November 3:
1. Senior citizens turned out in force, with the number of ballots cast by voters over 65 increasing by 16 percent. While making up only 13 percent of the U.S. resident population, Americans in this age group constituted 21 percent of 2010 voters. This age group also significantly increased their support of Republican candidates, from 49 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2010.
2. The number of ballots cast by Americans from households making over $200,000 a year increased by 68 percent compared to 2006.
3. Relative to 2008, minority and youth voters dropped out of the voting population at higher rates than whites, undoing much of the gain in demographic parity achieved in 2008.
4. Women-already one of the most reliable voting groups-increased their share of the electorate, and significantly increased their support of the Republican Party.
5. Bucking the national trends, Latinos increased their share of the voting population in several states, saving at least three Senate seats for the Democrats.
"Perhaps the most significant point about voter turnout in 2010 is how many voters didn't vote," wrote Steven Thomma and William Douglas at McClatchy Newspapers on our study. "Some 38 percent of eligible voters didn't vote in 2008, and this November, another 33 percent didn't show up, which means that 'nonvoters were the majority in 2010.'"
As we know from our recent poll (among others), the electorate as a whole is shifting away from the views and values of these older, wealthier white conservatives who dominated the 2010 election: "As in most midterm elections, the people who voted in 2010 were not really representative of the American people," says Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote. "This study raises serious questions about which constituencies candidates choose to court and engage as they look ahead to 2012, since the electorate, as a whole, is shifting away from the views and values of the older, wealthier white conservatives who dominated the 2010 election."
Experts are predicting major Democrat losses in 2010’s midterm elections, and pundits are already saying that this year’s unusually competitive cycle is a referendum on the size and reach of government in a year dominated by Tea Party conservatives.
There is little doubt that the electoral groups that in 2008 embraced Barack Obama’s message of “hope, action and change” and brought Democratic control to Washington are less engaged and less likely to vote in a similar manner in 2010.
Yet many of the features of this year’s election, from the drop-off in voter turnout, to swings in political representation, and the uptick in activity by partisan idealists, are predictable outcomes that have distinguished midterm from presidential election cycles in recent years.
Public Policy Polling has a new survey out on the Pennsylvania Senate campaign between Pat Toomey and Joe Sestak. The poll shows the campaign knotted up at 415 for each candidate.
First, and less interestingly, this poll shows the White House job "scandal" has had no negative impact on Sestak. The Admiral up 6% on Toomey from the previous PPP poll of Pennsylvania. It was never clear what type of voter pays close enough attention to political news to not only have actually heard about the "scandal," but also to think less of Sestak because of it. The way the political media acted as though the American public were all neophyte, wide-eyed children about politics on this story was embarrassing.
Second, and more interestingly, this poll suggests that the only reason Toomey is in this campaign at all is because of a massive enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans. According to the poll, Sestak is holding Obama voters just as well as Toomey is holding McCain voters, but McCain voters actually outnumber Obama voters in Pennsylvania by 1%. This is even though Obama won the state by over 10%:
This race is a vintage example of where the enthusiasm gap is giving Democrats problems. Sestak is winning 74% of the vote from people who supported Barack Obama in 2008. That's actually a tad higher than the 73% Toomey is getting from McCain voters. This is not a race where the Democratic candidate is struggling because folks who voted for Obama last election are supporting the GOP in droves. But the poll's respondents went for John McCain by a point in 2008 when Barack Obama actually took the state by 10. The only reason Sestak's not ahead in this race is that Republican voters are much more motivated to go out and vote in the fall than Democrats are.
Now, this is just one poll result, so it should not be taken as an article of faith. There is no doubt voter turnout patterns mean Democrats face a more difficult electorate in 2010 than they did in 2008, but for there to be a 10% swing due entirely to voter enthusiasm seems quite extreme. There will be at least a 2-3% swing due to age differences in the Democratic and Republican coalitions, but 10% would be mind-blowing.
Also, before people chime in with claims that a 10% swing is actually entirely understandable given how terribly disappointed and upset the base is with Obama, keep in mind this finding from PPP last month:
On our last national poll among the people who said they were only 'somewhat excited' about voting or 'not very excited' about voting Obama's approval was a 58/35 spread, much better than his overall numbers. Those folks also said they supported the health care bill by a 50/38 margin, again much better than we're seeing among all voters.
There is no singular explanation for the voter turnout problem Democrats face in the fall. Undoubtedly, there are a decent number of ideologically left voters, who usually break Democratic, who feel frustrated enough with the lack of progressive accomplishments by the Obama administration that they will not be active this cycle. However, available polling does not support that thesis as the majority cause for struggles in voter turnout.
The majority of unlikely voters approve of the health care bill and of President Obama. As such, the primary motivating factor in the lack of engagement among unlikely voters is not disgust with the administration or its accomplishments. The former fact disproves the latter thesis. There are certainly some progressives who have dropped out of voting or electoral activism, or who have perhaps even shifted their efforts to third-party candidates, but they are not the majority of 2008 Obama voters who are unlikely to vote this time around. And this PPP poll is not the first poll offering such evidence, either.
Democrats face a real voter turnout problem. However, its exact size, and exact causes, remains relatively unexplored by public pollsters.
Obama approval, by age group, compared to 2008 exit polls 18-29: 58%, down 8%
30-49: 48%, down 4%
50-64: 46%, down 4%
65+: 43%, down 2%
Obama's biggest drop from 2008 has come from his youthful base. With unemployment dominating the news today, it is worth noting that unemployment has hit youth hardest (statistics generated on this page):
Unemployment by age, May 2010, with change from November 2008 16-24: 18.1%, up 4.1%
25-34: 10.5%, up 3.5%
35-44: 8.1%, up 2.6%
45-54: 7.7%, up 2.5%
55+: 7.1%, up 2.3%
These numbers explain both why President Obama has a high approval rate among the unemployed, and why unemployment is hurting Democratic electoral hopes. Young people, who have been hit hardest by the unemployment wave in both absolute and relative terms, give Obama his highest approval rating and also have defected from Obama more than any other age group.
Unemployment is hitting the Democratic base hard. In addition to massive yoouth unemployment, African-Americans and blue collar workers suffering wildly disproportionate. To speculate for a moment, this disproportionate unemployment may also be connected to Democratic enthusiasm problems. It is hard to be excited, or even particularly engaged in civic society, when you lack a job. This could drive Democratic turnout down, even among groups who still generally like President Obama and the Democratic Party.
One of my pet peeves as a new media consultant is that many campaigns and organizations possess a Harry Potter style belief in how new media operates. The belief goes something like this:
Hire someone who works in new media;
Person just hired in new media waves magic wand;
Something amazing happens to benefit the campaign.
This is frustrating because it views new media as a magical realm that is the province of a few magical people who can somehow produce massive, tangible benefit to a campaign without any resources being invested in their efforts. In reality, new media requires significant investment of money and manpower to get an appropriate return on that investment.
The subject of this post is another one of my pet peeves: the very similar belief among election observers about the magical nature of field campaigns. This belief goes as follows:
Polling shows a candidate tied, or down a couple points;
The candidate has a strong filed campaign;
The candidate will defy polling and win due to strong field campaign
Salon's war room offers up an example of this belief in their discussion of the Pennsylvania Senate primary today:
Obama's absence from the state means the race will probably just come down to whichever side has the stronger ground game. Polls have it virtually deadlocked (though one new one out Thursday had Sestak winning by nine points). Vice President Biden may still return before Tuesday. A close election that hinges on turnout could favor Specter, who's got several big unions plus the powerful Philadelphia Democratic apparatus on his side.
This is a nonsensical, Harry Potter style belief. It is also very widespread--I am not just picking on Salon here, just using a relevant news item as an example.
Have the mobilization efforts of the unions, Organizing for America, and the Philadelphia Democratic party somehow escaped the results of public opinion surveys to date? Of course not. The efforts of those groups to persuade voters and make them more likely to vote are already included in the public opinion surveys measuring the Pennsylvania Senate primary (which, on average, give Sestak a narrow lead).
Field campaigning does not operate in a different plane of non-muggle existence from other forms of voter contacts (paid media, free media, new media). Field campaigning is also not excluded from polling. Voters who have been contacted by phone calls, yard signs, or by person to person canvassing on the ground, are, just like all other voters, contacted by pollsters. The likelihood of these voters turning up to the polls is, just like all other voters, also measured by pollsters.
Polls measure the strength and effectiveness of field campaigns to date, as polls measure the strength and effectiveness of all campaigning through the date when the poll was conducted. The only way that a strong field campaign could surprise polls would be if that field campaign spent a disproportionate amount of its resources after the last public opinion survey had concluded its interviews. However,t his can be said of any aspect of a campaign, not just field. If a campaign spends disproportionate resources on television ads after the final poll was conducted, or one that manages to score a particularly good news cycle after the final poll was conducted, then the final poll will not measure the effectiveness of that aspect of the campaign, either.
For an example of how polling already measures the strength of field campaigns, look no further than the 2008 Presidential election. The final 15-day simple mean of national polls in 2008 showed Barack Obama ahead by 7.44% (across 61 polls, scroll to the link at the bottom). The final 2008 results gave Obama a 7.27% victory in the national popular vote. Few would dispute that the gap in quality between the field operations of the Obama and McCain campaign s was one of the highest ever in a Presidential election, with the decisive edge going to Obama. And yet, this advantage did not translate into an improvement for Obama from the final polls to the final result. This is because the strength of field operations, as is the strengthen of all aspects of a campaign, are measured by public opinion surveys.
The belief that field operations can produce a hidden vote polls are missing simply does not make any sense. Such a belief may serve as a comfort --or as a fear-based motivating tactic-- to steel the nerves of supporters of one candidate or another, but it is not supportable by either deductive reasoning or empirical observation.
The latest NBC poll has an interesting tidbit that helps explain a lot about the current political environment:
Obama is more helpful in rallying the GOP base (64% of Republican voters say they're voting GOP to OPPOSE Obama and Dem candidates) than he is his own base (49% of Dem voters say they're voting to SUPPORT Obama and Dem candidates). Translation: Obama's presence on the campaign trail might solidify the GOP base without guaranteeing the same lift to Democrats.
Second translation: Obama is the enthusiasm gap. He makes Republicans more excited about opposing him then Democrats more excited about supporting him.
Just 663K OH voters cast ballots in the competitive primary between LG Lee Fisher (D) and Sec/State Jennifer Brunner (D). That number is lower than the 872K voters who turned out in '06, when neither Gov. Ted Strickland (D) nor Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) faced primary opponents.
Only 425K voters turned out to pick a nominee against Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). The 14.4% turnout was smaller than the 444K voters -- or 18% of all registered Dem voters -- who turned out in '04, when Gov. Mike Easley (D) faced only a gadfly candidate in his bid to be renominated for a second term.
And in IN, just 204K Hoosiers voted for Dem House candidates, far fewer than the 357K who turned out in '02 and the 304K who turned out in '06.
By contrast, GOP turnout was up almost across the board. 373K people voted in Burr's uncompetitive primary, nearly 9% higher than the 343K who voted in the equally non-competitive primary in '04. Turnout in House races in IN rose 14.6% from '06, fueled by the competitive Senate primary, which attracted 550K voters. And 728K voters cast ballots for a GOP Sec/State nominee in Ohio, the highest-ranking statewide election with a primary; in '06, just 444K voters cast ballots in that race.
I have repeatedly argued that Democrats would lose a net 2% of the national vote from 2008 to 2010 just because of the age demographics of the two major coalitions (Democrats are skewing younger and younger, and young people don't vote in midterms). However, these turnout figures paint a picture significantly worse than just the expected 2% drop-off. This is more than just a demographic problem based on age--there really is a meaningful enthusiasm gap.
And yet, despite this, there are still no public, national polls looking for answers on why Democratic turnout is so low. All it would take would be to ask a single, open-ended question to 500 people who voted in 2008, but self-identify as unlikely to vote in 2010, "why don't you intend on voting?" Everyone has theories, but those theories lack empirical supporting evidence and invariably little more than "I speak for all unlikely voters, and they are unhappy for the exact same reasons I am."
Per the article linked above, the DNC is promising to spend $30M on GOTV efforts this year. Surely, they could spend a little of that money on a transparent, representative, scientifically random, poll of unlikely voters of the sort I listed above. A lot of people are going to be working to try and improve turnout this year, and our jobs would be a lot easier if we actually knew what was motivating unlikely voters.
A new poll from Democracy Corps shows exactly why the Democratic National committee and Organizing for America are focusing on voter turnout in the 2010 elections. People who voted in 2008, but who are currently considered to not be likely voters in 2010, favor Democrats by an eye-popping 57%-29%. Removing them from the electorate produces a net swing of 4% for Republicans:
Generic Ballot, Democracy Corps (incumbent names were used, if applicable)
--Likely voters are defined as those 2008 voters who voted or were not eligible in 2006 AND are almost certain to vote, probable to vote, or don't know if they will vote in 2010.
--Drop-off voters are defined as those 2008 voters who are not likely voters.
Drop-off voters are not exactly the same group as the first-time voters President Obama and DNC Chair Tim Kaine focused on in recent 2010 strategy discussions. However, they are a more accurate definition of the type of voters Democrats need to be targeting for turnout. The current margins for Democrats among 2008 voters who are unlikely to vote in 2010 are enormous. Whether or not 2008 was the first time a drop-off voter voted, Democrats need those voters to return to the polls in 2010.
The reasons drop-off voters have for not being likely to vote in 2010 remains almost entirely unexplored by national polling. Many pundits have pet theories on the motivations of drop-off voters. However, those theories usually just support whatever course of action the pundit thinks Democrats should take (be more bipartisan, focus on the same issues the pundit focus on, move to the left, etc), and are lacking in supporting empirical evidence.
It is going to be very difficult for Democrats to reach drop-off voters unless they find out what motivates those voters. Doubtless there are many motivating factors, but conducting regular, scientific surveys of public opinion among a large sample drop-off voters would likely be revealing. Given the focus that Democratic organizations are going to be placing on drop-off voters this year, it surprises me that none of them have conducted, or at least publicly released, polling of this nature.
It would be a big help to their grassroots supporters if Democrats provided good public polling on the motivations of drop-off voters. Informal discussions among family, friends, and co-workers still represent a huge proportion of voter contacts. Politically active Democrats would be aided in these discussions if they had better information on what is likely to motivate drop-off voters. This is one way that polling could make a difference in the 2010 elections, and conducting a few polls of this sort would be a drop in the bucket, financially speaking, for the larger Democratic Party committees.
In a video message to Organizing for America's 13 million members today, President Obama announced that targeting people who voted for the first time in 2008 would be the top tactical priority for OFA 2010. This makes perfect sense. Compared to Gore and Kerry, young voters and first-time voters where President Obama's top demographic groups. Obama's margin among those two groups surpassed Gore's by over 30%:
Young voters and first-time voters are absolutely Obama's base. McCain actually won voters age 40 and over, and Obama only won non-first-time voters by 2%. Compared to other recent Democratic coalitions, Obama relied far more heavily upon young voters and first-time 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.
When young voters and unlikely voters form such a central pillar of a presidential electoral coalition, then that coalition is going to face huge problems in midterm elections. While it is absolutely the correct move for Organizing for America to try and get those voters back to the polls in 2010, they are unfortunately faced with an almost impossible task. Overall turnout drops by more than 33% from presidential elections to midterm elections, and by much more than that among young voters. No GOTV operation, however strong, can reverse trends on that massive scale. Whatever efforts OFA ends up making will only limit the amount of damage Democrats will suffer by basing their coalition on younger voters and irregular voters.
Representative Luis Gutierrez has some harsh words for Democrats in Congress due to their inaction on immigration reform:
In a press conference today blasting a new anti-immigration law in Arizona, Gutierrez said, "It seems to me that is an option for people to stay home [in November]. The choices have always been framed the following way -- the Republicans are so mean-spirited and so anti-immigrant that they simply push immigrants and Latinos into the waiting arms of Democrats."
"There is a third option for those voters," he added. "They don't necessarily have to fill the ranks of the Democratic Party. They can simply stay home, and that to me is an option that is there. It is not an option that I have called for. But let me be clear: It's not an option I have ruled out... Will I rule it out in the future? Absolutely not!"
While I don't doubt Rep. Gutierrez's frustration, this threat rings extremely hollow.
First Gutierrez is really hedging here. Rather than actually calling for Latino voters to stay home out of protest, he says that he will not rule out doing so in the future. Kind of like the way he threatened to vote against the health care bill because it was too harsh on immigrants, but ended up voting for it anyway.
Second, the entire "voters will stay home unless you address their issue" threat is based on a very questionable premise. Specifically, it posits that infrequent voters, who tend to be the less engaged in civic life that other portions of the electorate, are actually heavy consumers of political news who engage in transactional, advocacy organization type politics over wonky legislative details.
This is just silly. Not many people stay home because they are pissed about the failure of the governing party to pass legislation HR 27891, or about the wording of page 391 of HR 27891. Even fewer people will publicly declare their intent to not vote for those reasons, thereby offering some sort of public proof that they exist and should be taken seriously.
Infrequent voters are generally disengaged, and don't follow political news much. Their disengagement makes it difficult to organize them into directed, collective, public action of the sort that would actually threaten members of Congress. As such, threats about groups of voters staying home just ring hollow because the people making the threats can't back them up with proof or organizational prowess.
Has there ever been a prominent advocacy campaign that successfully proved it convinced a decisive number of voters to stay home because a governing party failed to address the issues of those decisive voters? If there is, I haven't heard of it, but I'm pretty sure I never heard of it because it never happened.
Unless you can actually prove that you can convince a bunch of voters to stay home unless Member of Congress X passes legislation Y, it is probably best not to claim that you represent the interests of a large number of infrequent voters.
Another bad campaign finance ruling: Federal Appeals Court unanimously strikes down the $5,000 contribution limit to Federal PACs.
Senate Adjourns with unfinished business: In addition to not passing an extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits, the Senate left town without passing a Medicare doc fix. This will result in Medicare doctors receiving a 21% cut in pay starting on April 1st. The Senate plans to solve this problem by passing an extension in mid-April that will restore the lost benefits and pay retroactively:
Meanwhile, COBRA benefits expire April 1; a 21-percent cut in Medicare doctor payments is scheduled to take effect that same day; and the filing deadline for UI benefits arrives April 5.
Senate lawmakers will tweak the bill to make the extensions retroactive, Reid's office said.
The money will come, but having it come late will still cause problems for a lot of people. Not good.
New foreclosure prevention program announced: The Obama administration is revamping their program to prevent foreclosures. Once again, it takes money from TARP (which is good) instead of appropriating new funds. I don't pretend to understand this policy very well, but Wonk Room is impressed. It better work, because this program is probably the last best chance for Democrats to improve the economy for average Americans before the midterm elections.
Nuclear arms reduction treaty: Russia and the USA have signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty. Details on the treaty can be found here. It is a good first step, but it will face the hurdle of ratification in the United States Senate. Anything that requires approval from that chamber is pretty much always in danger.
Democrats getting riled up?: Democrats might be narrowing the voter intensity gap, according to the weekly Daily Kos poll tracking poll. Whether this holds up as the year goes on, and in other polls, is another question. Kos is absolutely correct when writes, in his press release for the poll, that "this intensity gap will bear tracking the rest of this cycle."
The dangers of over-promising and relaxing on health reform: David Dayen responds to my article from earlier today touting the expansion of public health insurance and public care for low-income Americans as a major progressive accomplishment in the far from perfect health reform legislation. He is worried about complacency and overpromising:
Student loan reform is smart and 100% defensible in concept. The Affordable Care Act involved legislative compromise and must be watched carefully to ensure it achieves the promise that many liberals are touting this week. Rather than labeling it, we have to work to make it actually operate properly.
I don't disagree. In fact, analogously, I think there was far too much complacency in the center-left after the 2008 elections. Everyone was tired and happy after the election, and didn't want to work to prevent bad transition appointments like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. Those appointments resulted in bad policies like an ineffective foreclosure prevention program that helped far to few people, and which the Obama administration has now had to entirely revamp. And, those bad policies have resulted in an economic environment that is worse than it had to be for average Americans, which has in turn resulted in an electoral environment that is far worse than it had to be for Democrats. And, that will result in even worse policies down the road, as Republicans and conservatives accrue more power.
We have to always keep pushing. I just don't think that is incommensurate with feeling good, and pointing out that we have made some gains, too.
One fairly common narrative in left-wing media is that Democrats will suffer in mid-term elections unless they excite "the base." "The base," we are told, is so disappointed in President Obama and the Democratic Congress, that it will stay home, thus resulting in widespread Democratic losses in 2010.
Q.11 Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
Likely Voters
Registered Unlikely Voters
Approve
47%
59%
Disapprove
48%
35%
Despite the small sample size, this is not an isolated finding. Previous Democracy Corps polls in November (Approve 61%--32% Disapporve) and January (61%--33%) have also found President Obama with a sky-high job approval rating among people who are registered to vote but who are considered unlikely to vote in 2010.
How can "the base" be so disappointed in President Obama that they are deciding not to vote, when registered voters who are considered unlikely to vote overwhelmingly approve of President Obama's job performance?
The argument that "the base" is not going to turn out because they are disappointed in Obama does not hold up to available empirical evidence. And Democracy Corps is, to the best of my knowledge, the only polling organization that is tracking President Obama's job approval rating among people who are registered to vote but considered unlikely to vote in 2010. Other organizations have asked tangential questions, but not the basic questions, such as job performance. That's too bad--every polling organization that publishes likely voter results should publish crosstabs on unlikely voters, not to mention asking the unlikely voters open-ended questions about why they are unlikely to vote.
A better explanation is that the Democratic base is relatively youthful, and younger people don't turn out for midterm elections. Both of these are empirical observations, not conjecture. Until there is better and more frequent polling about what unlikely voters think, it remains the most demonstrable hypothesis on the market today.
Entering an election year, the Democratic Party faces a problem with its relatively less enthusiastic voting base. However, the extent of that problem is often exaggerated, especially when compared to long-term trends. In fact, enthusiasm woes are currently costing Democrats at most 3% nationally, and possibly as little as 2%. Further, that 2-3% problem mainly appears to be caused by a lack of enthusiasm among the part of the base that votes Democratic due to economic fragility, rather than for the part of the base that votes Democratic for more ideologically oriented reasons.
I've been writing a lot on what happened in Maine (most recently this piece yesterday in a Los Angeles LGBT magazine), and where our movement should go from here. NGLTF had run much of the field program in Maine, as well as within the No On 8 campaign in California, so I sat down yesterday to do an interview with Rea Carey, the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, to address some criticisms and her thoughts on the marriage equality movement. We were joined by Dan Hawes, Director of Organizing and Training, who heads up NGLTF's national field operations and ran the field program in Cumberland County, the most populous in the state.
This is part one related to the No On 1 campaign in Maine and the marriage equality movement in general. I'll be posting the second part, related to LGBT rights at the federal level and the performance of the Obama administration.
Among the highlights:
Dan commenting that the campaign "could have had a more direct message", "more lengthy conversations at the door with voters", and done more persuasion rather than "just trying to GOTV our supporters"
Rea commenting on marriage equality at the ballot box "we simply don't have enough people to win at the ballot box yet"
Rea and Dan declining to say whether re-run campaigns in California and Maine could have won, or definitively whether marriage equality is winnable in the short-term
Dan defending against criticisms made with respect to the field program in Maine, and praising various aspects of the campaign
Rea and Dan arguing that provided there is a plan and the time is right, despite the movement's recent losses and overall record at the ballot box, donors will "step up" to contribute the tens of millions necessary to win a Prop 8 repeal effort in California
Full transcript below the fold.
Q: What did you both think of the No On 1 campaign, the result, and where we go from here?
Dan: I think generally it was a well-run campaign with a disappointing result, where we were unable to build a solid majority who supported marriage equality. Our various polling within the campaign and outside the campaign showed we never started with 50% or more of Mainers who were on our side, but I felt like we could probably look piece-by-piece at the campaign, and there's always things we could do differently. But I felt like folks gave their best effort generally to work to win across the board.
Q: What could be done differently?
Dan: It's clear that we haven't yet built a majority of support for marriage, which is part of the problem- we go into these campaigns trying to build a majority rather than defend a majority at the ballot box which is very different. We need to figure out what message will be effective at moving voters to stand with us on marriage quality, which is a venture across the board on all these campaigns, which stands true in Maine as well.
Rea: I would just add to that, one of the things that's so striking having been in California and Maine and having many years under our belts with these things is this challenge in creating a majority vs. defending it. I was so struck, I went canvassing [Election Day] morning, and spoke with a number of voters including some Yes voters, and a gentleman who told me he had voted Yes, he was very nice, very kind about it, but he had voted Yes, and explained why and it was interesting because he said you know I have gay friends, he was a father of three, I have gay friends who were married in Massachusetts and I just feel I want them to have the protections, but I'm not there yet on voting for marriage.
I think there are unfortunately what we've seen in a number of states with trying different messaging and different tactics- and I agree with Dan that every campaign has some different and something that can be learned from and improved upon- we simply don't have enough people to win at the ballot box yet. I absolutely think we're going to get there. I think if you look at the trajectory over the last twenty years, even in a state like California where we used to be behind by twenty points, now we're behind by about four, the trajectory is moving in the right direction, we're just not there yet.
Q: You both have said that we don't have the number of votes, we're short, which is certainly an important point with regard to the electorate. My question originally, though, was what could be done differently? Or was it a flawless campaign, was it near-flawless?
Rather than being an overwhelming sweep, most elections are a mix of good and bad news for each political party and the progressive and conservative movements in our country, and the 2009 off year elections certainly fits into that category.
In the category of the expected, both parties had easy wins: Bob McDonnell won the VA Governor's race in a blowout, while progressive Democrat John Garamendi easily won the Congressional special election to replace Blue Dog Ellen Tauscher.
In the more competitive races, the Republicans won the NJ Gov race, and the Republicans/conservative movement lost the special Congressional election in NY 23rd.
And in the saddest news of the day for progressives, the Maine ballot initiative to strip marriage rights from gays and lesbians narrowly won, although progressives won some other initiative battles like the fight against the highly regressive TABOR initiative in ME.
Republicans, conservative Democrats, and corporate lobbyists are all eagerly lining up to spin the losses in the two Governors' races as evidence that Democrats should become more cautious, go slower with change, pull back on their ambitions. That is the worst possible thing Democrats could do right now. It's a little like conservatives saying that the problem in NY-23 was that Republicans just weren't conservative enough, which you know they will be somehow trying to spin.
Let me try to explain this to the caution captains in my party. There are two reasons we lost those Governors' races yesterday, and they are closely related: voters are in a foul mood, and base Democrats- young folks, unmarried women, minorities- didn't come out.
STATE BLOGS
