The Changing Times and the Equinox Voter

We at Zogby International are always looking for new ways to understand the American voter, and in that endeavor, what we have found is that the old political paradigms just don't work today. For instance, we are thinking that the Red State vs. Blue State phenomenon may pass into history this year, with so many states being in play.

We've said right along -- including in this column -- that instead, this is a year to watch the swing voter and the centrist voter, who are back after a hiatus. There is evidence that these independent, centrist voters are going to play a big part in the presidential elections, but what does that mean? Who are these people? Have they changed much over the last decade? Who will they support this fall?

There has been lots of talk about white ethnic voters or the white working-class voters. These are the people who, on the Democratic side of the aisle, gave Hillary Clinton her substantial primary election wins over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. These are the former Reagan Democrats who had supported Bill Clinton but who have since climbed up onto the political fence to sit for a spell.

Can Obama win this group in November? Well, he didn't this spring, so that's our first clue. Another is the fact that neither Al Gore nor John Kerry won their support. It is a safe guess to say Obama would be in the same situation. If he is to avoid the same electoral fate as was suffered by Gore and Kerry, he must find other voters elsewhere.

But can he find enough voters elsewhere to make up for the loss of that voter bloc? Perhaps. This year we are looking at increased turnout among minorities, including Latino turnout, because of the immigration issue and an expected very large turnout of younger voters.

Incidentally, young people turned out in 2004. They maintained their percentage, about 20% of the total vote, from 2000 and 2004. The problem for the Democrats is that everyone else turned out, too. This time we're looking at young people perhaps to be 22-23% of the total vote and Obama doing particularly well. And I should say they were 20% of 105 million in 2000, 20% of 122 million in 2004 -- this year we're looking at 130-135 million voters, so that 22-23% of the total is significant, as is a heightened turnout of blacks and Latinos.

We're working to identify the earmarks of two new kinds of voters -- we call them the Equinox Voters, because they fall into two distinct groups: the "Spring-Aheads" and the "Fall-Backers."

The Spring-Aheads are the economic winners in America today, who largely reside in regions that have turned themselves around. They are the reason that southern New Hampshire, central and southwestern North Carolina, southern Florida, Colorado, parts of New Mexico -- even growing parts of Wyoming and Montana -- may be considered in play this election cycle. These are areas growing in diversity, in the population of the "creative class," and, for the Democrats, these are the areas that are the antidote to the areas mired in economic decline.

Those are the areas populated by many Fall Backers who have suffered at the hands of the changes in the U.S. economy over the past 15 years. They have not been able to recover from the movement from a manufacturing to an information economy. They are working for less money than they made a decade ago, and include those with uncertain futures and those who are concerned about maintaining a middle-class status. Those who fit this bill, historically, are less open to diversity. They are concerned about minorities because they represent a challenge in the workplace and elsewhere.

Fall Backers can be found in central and western Pennsylvania, the northern tier of Ohio, the southern tier of Indiana, and West Virginia. They can also be found in pockets in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, as well as in some parts of other Midwestern states.

The Equinox voters carry with them a political irony. That is that Fall Backers used to be Democrats, because Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, of the working class. But now, they are identifying in greater numbers with Republican ideas and proposals. Meanwhile, the Spring Aheads would traditionally be Republicans -- entrepreneurs and the party of the burgeoning voters on the move.

So what's behind this flip? What's making the Republicans more attractive to the economic losers and the Democrats the party of the economic winners? With an economy that's still in transition, Republicans have still not quite adjusted. In many ways, this is old economy vs. new economy.

I regularly speak to the National Association of Manufacturers; they're Republicans. Old economy is Republicans. You go to Palo Alto or Boston, they're Democrats, that's new economy. That's one part of it. Another factor is that is that when arguments go beyond economy, when people don't have a way of understanding what's happening in their world, there's a tendency to fall backward into tradition, to find scapegoats in immigrants, on race, on gays, or on anything that people perceive is making their world different.

At Zogby, we're asking the kinds of questions that probe this new Equinox Voters paradigm to truly understand this election. Stay tuned for what we find out.

Comments

[LTCKal]

I've been pondering this issue for a while. We all came from the working class at sometime in our families' histories, and it would be logical for working class people to vote Democrat. My experience in the academic world might provide an insight: 90% of all college professors come from working class families, yet most ignore their origins, and many actually sneer at them. Rarely do you hear a professor talk about his/her class origins. I have yet to see any state university boast that it is "the university of the working class," when in reality they all are, and that's what they do: enable people to leave the working class and enter the middle class. Working class people pick up on this and the more someone is a "college type," the more they are suspicious of him/her. Kerry and Gore fit this stereotype and, unfortunately, so does Obama. The Clintons do not, and neither does W, although heaven only knows he's NOT from the working class.

[AuntSally]

For the love of all that is bright and holy...

Forget about blue collar white males as a demographic. God bless 'em, they're like all of us -- complicated people who are, basically, good people. But we don't need their votes to win. The polls already show that. And when we win, they'll be better off, despite their own rotten judgement.

It's the uber-energized young voters that we need -- and right now Obama is doing his best to throw cold water on that crowd. I never saw a politician rain on his own parade as badly as Obama is doing right now.

[preemptivelove]

"Another factor is that is that when arguments go beyond economy, when people don't have a way of understanding what's happening in their world, there's a tendency to fall backward into tradition, to find scapegoats in immigrants, on race, on gays, or on anything that people perceive is making their world different."

This is what Obama was saying--that people do cling to ISSUES that are more about tradition and scapegoating when they feel disempowered and unrepresented.

I will also say that a big problem with the economic "losers" in our country is that they are becoming increasingly less educated. As a result, their responses to economic hardship are becoming increasingly misguided. With the loss of critical thinking skills, thanks to standardized testing and the elimination of art and science from school curriculum, people aren't making the right choices. All of the sudden you have entire blocks of people voting against their own best interests. It's a masterful ploy by the cynical right to create a class of uneducated and compliant worker bees.

[JamesRiddle]

This country is split into two irreconcible camps. Progressives on one hand, Cynical Republicans and their hypnotized white working class rubes on the other.

[HHarvey]

As is the country split in two. East and West coast political attitudes.

[darcy]

James, exactly right.

[ynp7]

With over 50% of voters identifying themselves as Democrats in polls, is it really the "independent" voters who are going to decide anything this year? It seems much more likely that those fools who can't decide between The Worst People in the World and Democrats may finally get tossed out on their asses in this election.

[bacaja]

White working class Americans voting for people who are sworn to outsource their
jobs as fast as possible, eliminate social security, and just plain destroy their quality
of life..well­...doesn't say much for the intelligence of the white working class American
does it?

[justobserve]

The telling sign is Bill Clinton won their supports by stealing Republican's policies! They rarely support Democrats even though through the primaries, Hillary twisted that they supported her, not Obama personally. That would have to be seen in the general election were Hillary the nominee. But according to her campaign's tactics, it was clear Hillary was one of the Republicans.

[kempis]

It's all about culture. The "creative class" longs to kick the working-class out of the Democratic party because the working-class tend to be less educated and more parochial. They are the sort of people that the creative class make fun of.

The GOP has played on this since the late 70s, which is why working-class Dems defected to Reagan. People will vote against their economic interests rather than vote for people who look down on them. And as comments here will show: the creative class looks down on the working class.

The purists in the Democratic party are attempting to purge the centrists and economic populists out of the party. In their place, they want a hip party.

A whole bunch of older Dems got the message and left the party by the end of the primaries. I know because I'm one of them: not a PUMA, but a "hey, what's this party about anymore?" voter.

So, it's going to be interesting to see what happens in November. To a lot of older Dems, the Democratic party that turned on the Clintons is a new party, and we don't know what this new one stands for. It's not the "great unwashed" working class.

[Fabienne]

It seems a bit disingenuous to imply that the Clintons are working class heroes, when, in fact, much of what Bill Clinton did during his presidency directly hurt the working class and the poor.

[justobserve]

Especially now he is a MULTI-MILLIONAIRE! In fact, he has lived in mansion after mansion for the last two decades. It's doubtful if the Clintons know what is the living costs of everyday thing and what their effects to working class people apart from stump speeches.

[JamesRiddle]

Your analysis is partly correct. The '"creative class" ( I figure you mean college educated?) does mock the "working class" element, or what's left of it, who identify themselves as Democrats but vote Republican. It's true. You are reduced to mocking people who consistently vote against their own economic self interests.

The party is "about "equality and accountablity. Equal rights mean equal rights for everyone, including gays and lesbians. Accountabilty means being held accountable for lying to the public. If you can't get behind these two 'hip' principles then go ahead and vote Republican.

[justobserve]

"are reduced to mocking people who consistently vote against their own economic self interests".
Not only from Democrat's "creative class" but from the Republicans too but they wouldn't care one bit!

[preemptivelove]

this notion of "looking down on them" is laughable in my view, and it's a creation of Rovian style politics. i don't buy in to that at all. it's a manufactured feeling, propagated by the Right.

i think it's false that the creative class looks down on the working class. the creative class are the ones opposing NAFTA and trying to keep this country from crapping on its working class. it's the creative class that is attempting to keep the working class agenda on the radar of our politics.

it is a false argument, and one created by the Right. divide and conquer. tell the working class that the creative class hates you and thinks they're better than you. get em mad, and then move their jobs overseas and take away their healthcare and stick em with 5$ a gallon gasoline. oh yeah, trash their schools by creating a voucher system that pulls badly needed dollars from public education.

it is the right who looks down on working people. period.

[Marlyn]

Obama can't win any voters now that he has promised to expand Bush policies.

[Fabienne]

Exactly what Bush policies has Obama promised to "expand" except the faith-based initiative? As long as that is monitored against missionary work and services being given out in exchange for conversions, I have no problem with this despite the fact that I do not belong to any institutionalized religion. The churches often have in place the best apparatus for providing services, which they do with the least expenditure of overhead.

[OriginalScreenName]

I'm so about to leave this site. Obama says that he's looking to include faith-based groups in way that is very significantly different than how Bush did it, and all of a sudden Obama is taking on all Bush policies.

This is why the country is NOT left. And so much for the Left being the more educated side.

[frankel1205]

Mr. Zogby, I do not know ONE "Reagan Democrat" (working class Republican) who supported Bill Clinton. I live in a state with lots of so called Reagan Dems. They joined the Republican Party to vote for Reagan and have never returned to the Democratic Party. There are many reasons. Most of them have to do with "values" issues i.e. distractions such as abortion, gays, flag burning, "under God", etc. Some of them have to do with issues such as affirmative action or big government. Fact is, these people have voted for three decades to cut their own throats economically. It is baffling to witness their total blindness and inability to connect the dots. The entire nation has suffered the consequences of the wrongheadedness and ignorance of this group of Americans. Most of the people whom I know that are in this category watch FOX News exclusively and listened faithfully to Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio shows (Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, etc.) Their minds are brainwashed. I am not feeling positive about their ability to see the reality they have created.

[Freemind42]

How true. I highly suggest that you read the book "What's the matter with Kansas?" this is the point that Thomas Frank makes.

[HHarvey]

"Mein Kampf" another book to read to understand the persuasiveness of propaganda and how it can take people and twist them into cutting their own throats.

[JamesRiddle]

Bullseye! Perhaps this is why Republicans are less prone to legislate educational reforms/programs in general. It will work against their interests. It would be political suicide to enlighten the white working class voter. One hundred and fifty years ago it was a capital offense to teach a slave how to read.

[preemptivelove]

yep.

[darcy]

frankel, you said a mouthful! Republicans have manipulated this group up one side and down the other, while robbing them blind.

[rcat99]

Part 1
How do the spinners and image-makers get a working-man, someone who spends 8 hours a day, five days a week, at least, trying to make ends meet believe that the essential Rep philosophy is his friend? Working-class people struggling to put food on the table and pay their mortgage and educate their children, hard-working guys whose real income has declined or at best stagnated in a time of de-regulated billionair­e-creation are told that less government, "free" markets, a hands-off approach to business is good for him.

[rcat99]

Part 2
The distraction of the social agenda: abortion; the death penalty; gun-
control; gay, married terrorists. Now, I don't belittle the significance of these issues to those personally connected to them but how large should they loom in your consciousness compared to the very real and palpable forces affecting your daily life? The economy, our jobs and the availability of jobs in the future, our health care and its availability, the regressing quality of education in a world where we are told education is the answer, issues that directly affect you and the futures of your children.

Workers who are obsoleted after giving years to the company, consumers who are taken for granted by their credit card company, abused by their bank, put on hold to wait to talk to a machine by their phone company, these very same people who are then convinced that there's too much government regulation. Government gets in the way… of what?!?! Of screwing you!!! Don't you get it? Regulation is the only check on the phone company and the credit card company and all the big corporations that have accumulated enormous power over you and your life. Then these poor souls go off and vote -- blinded, distracted and manipulated by the conservative social agenda -- for the party that must be chuckling behind their backs as they put ever more distance between themselves and their duped supporters.

[Fabienne]

We must remember that Bill Clinton and many of the Democrats did their fair share of deregulation, which, I believe, is one of the points Frank makes in his book: that the working class and poor are savvy enough to understand that the Democratic Party really isn't doing much for them, so they might as well vote for "social" issues.

[jeanrenoir]

It's fascinating that Zogby's fall back voters are so stupid that after all they've suffered under the Bush administration, and despite the much better economic times they experienced in the last Democratic years under Clinton, they will still probably vote Republican this fall. How dumb can people be? The recent book Just How Stupid Are We? (meaning THEM) says it all. But I'm hoping Obama is smart enough to have long since chosen Jim Webb as his running mate so he can run on a very aggressive populist strategy targeting poor whites, especially in Appalachia, with Webb being the point man to try to wake these people up to the way Republicans have bamboozled them for decades by using race and other irrational fears to con these morons into voting against their economic interest, over and over.

[EngineerBill]

"That's one part of it. Another factor is that is that when arguments go beyond economy, when people don't have a way of understanding what's happening in their world, there's a tendency to fall backward into tradition, to find scapegoats in immigrants, on race, on gays, or on anything that people perceive is making their world different."
When Mr. Zogby says it, it is considered astute analysis. When Obama says it, the pundits and Repugnicans accuse him of being elitist. Oh well, nobody ever says life is fair, do they?

[JamesRiddle]

I was thinking the same thing. Zogby confirms Obama's bitter comments. It must be nice not having to run for President. You can speak the truth.

[bayman]

The way you describe the 'Fall-Backers' suggests they may be bitter.

[Gma11]

Fascinating analysis. Thank you.

I had been thinking somewhat along these lines, but very vaguely and abstractly. I'll watch to see if this happens this fall.

[scottarino]

You don't win working class votes without being 100% behind unions. you remember unions? The guys who used to have real power against corporations, the guys who used to get their workers good wages, benefits, help set immigration policy, had a real say in government policy, ect. The thing that BUILT the middle class.

[Kache]

Yeah. I remember unions. Past tense.

Mickey Mouse supporting unions 100% would not get him elected because unions can't deliver. That's not Mickey's fault, it's the fault of the unions. Unions did not become centers of power because some politician gave them power, They became a center of power because they took power. And likewise unions have not lost power because some politician took it away, they've lost power because THEY lost it.

Get back to Mickey when you've got something to offer.