The Blame Election

I haven't yet had a chance to digest all the numbers from yesterday's election, but what is coming through loud and clear from all the analysis I have seen is that the biggest difference by far between the 2008 election results and the 2009 results is simply that the two electorates were radically different.

For as long as I have been in politics (my 30-year anniversary as a full time politico is coming up next year, and I started knocking on doors 10 years before that), I have been hearing some Democratic politicians and operatives dismiss concerns of progressives by saying "Well, what are they going to do, vote for the Republican?" Well, comparing the differences in the electorates in 2008 and 2009 (not unlike the difference between 1992 and 1994 by the way) should destroy that myth completely. In both 2008 and 1992, Democrats won in large part because unusually high numbers of young people, people of color, and unmarried/working class women came out to vote and voted strongly in their favor. In 2009 and 1994, those sectors of the electorate still voted Democratic when they came to the polls, but strikingly high numbers of all those demographic groups just simply failed to vote.

Now it is also true that independent voters turned away from Democratic candidates in NJ and VA, but there is some overlap here. Remember that many registered independents lean heavily toward one party or another. Young, non-white, lower income and female registered independents tend to lean much more heavily toward the Democratic party than older, higher income, white, and male independents. If the kinds of independents showing up to vote are more heavily weighted to the latter categories, as they were yesterday, Republicans will gain from that.

Having said all that, I think we need to be careful about over-simplifying or over-hyping our analysis here. It's important not to read too much into yesterday's very small sample of elections, especially given the mixed results, and it's important for progressive strategists to understand that the problems Democrats face are about swing voters as well as base voters. I think what is clear is that, as I wrote yesterday, both kinds of voters are in an irritable mood, and that will only get worse over the course of the next year. Absent a stunningly strong economic recovery with millions more new jobs than anyone thinks likely, 2010 is shaping up as a classic kind of blame election. Next year, swing voters will likely be walking into the polling place really angry, looking to cast blame and send a big message. The biggest surprise yesterday wasn't in the gubernatorial or congressional races, it was Michael Bloomberg's remarkably close re-election margin -- the voters are irritable and wanted to send the heavily favored incumbent a message.

So how is it that the party in power survives a blame election? Part of the answer, as I wrote yesterday, is to actually deliver the goods -- get real things done that average folks notice in their every day lives. A very wise person once said to me that if an incumbent has to explain what they have done for the voter, they probably have already lost. I remember with painful clarity the increasing desperation in 1994 as Bill Clinton in speech after speech tried to tell people all the great things he had accomplished for them, but voters hadn't felt it yet in their lives and they tuned him out. So our health care had better deliver real benefits to people right away, and we need to be creating jobs ASAP. I can't think of a worse political strategy than telling people things would have been so much worse if it wasn't for us, and don't worry about a lack of jobs because they are a lagging indicator, they'll get here someday.

In a down economy, though, we will only be able to deliver so much that is tangible. We need to keep focused on doing it, but it's not going to be enough. The other thing we have to do is get voters anger focused on something other than Democrats as the party in power. However, blaming the Republicans is just not going to sell. They aren't in charge, and voters don't want to hear it. Blaming the first George Bush didn't work for Clinton in 1994, and blaming Jimmy Carter didn't work for Reagan in the 1982 recession. If you are in charge, voters will hold you responsible- period, end of story.

There is a believable villain to blame, because voters do consider them very responsible for so many of our problems, and that is the wealthy, powerful special interests- first and foremost the big banks. Very big majorities of voters believe that the big special interests have too much power in DC, and that their power is a huge part of our country's problems. They know, in their heads and in their guts, that our economic problems stem first and foremost from the power of the big banks. But right now, they don't perceive either party as being willing to take the big boys on and fight them. Democrats supporting the bailouts unfortunately reinforced this perception.

Nothing would be healthier for the Democratic Party than if the President went populist and came after the bankers hard. But absent that, my advice to all the Democrats running for office in 2010 is to become fighters against Wall Street, to take them on in every way you can. I would call for breaking up the too big to fail banks, I would call for investigating and prosecuting some of these high rolling traders for fraud, I would call hearing after hearing where they are subpoenaed for everything under the sun. And whatever financial regulatory legislation you are supporting better not be seen as having been weakened to meet the backers demands.

Both base and swing voters are in a bad mood. With the base, it means they won't come out to vote. With the swing, it means they are more likely to swing against the party in power. But if Democrats look they are starting to deliver on their promise for change, and look like they are actually fighting the powers that be, both swing and base voters will come rallying to your side.

 

Comments

[edaugher]

Thanks Mike, I needed to read that, good point, keep up the good work.

[DianneinCA]

A very good point. I have backed President Obama through everything, but even I am tired of non action going on in congress. I love that our president is pragmatic and calm, but it is time to get in there and fight. Even if he rises to the occasion in the election the damage of long term non action still lingers. Get it done and stop the inter party fighting in the media. Get HCR done and then take on the banks and stay on them!

[rancone]

This election cycle - especially the VA election is a referendum on Tim Kaine DNC Chairperson - and he failed big.
Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has been chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to head the DNC.

A top Democrat familiar with the move said Kaine first indicated that he was not interested, but then decided to take the post when Obama personally intervened.

Well in hindsight he has displayed insufficient interest to do what has to be done to win elections - most embarrassingly in his home state.

The pick was a bet that an energetic younger leader will help the party capitalize on the historic enthusiasm that swept Obama to his landslide win. A bet that has been lost - don't pick up your marbles, just go home.

[Chernynkaya]

A great deal of the frustration and anger in this country is at the bankers and Wall St. Unemployment is painful, and people want jobs, but I do not think that is where the real anger resides. People, while hurting, understand-- if only in vague terms-- that employment takes time to rebound.

The issue that has mobilized people on the Right and frustrated us on the Left is the Wall St. bailouts. It is a slap in our faces to see their "let them eat cake" attitudes, their bonuses and their total disregard for the consumer. They continue to be treated as the masters of the universe. They-- who put us out of work by ruining the economy-- instead of being punished, get all the benefits. President Obama must do a 360 on Geithner's policies if he wants to keep our majority in Congress. He must.

[wattnot]

Few observers have made a better point than motivates voters is a sense that something meaningful has been done for them. I think it is also true that many people who are lucky enough to have things going well for them in their own lives will make their voting decisions based on what they perceive has been done for people who (in their view) needed a break. This is not pathetic liberalism, this is hard pragmatism- if your neighbor needs help to get his head above water because things have changed for him in ways that he did not have any control over, it is better to give him a hand up than to risk that he will be reduced to stealing from you, or worse. I have been at the poverty line myself, and I can tell you that when you reach that point law, order, morality, ethics and all that luxurious claptrap are indistinguishable from what issues from the back end of a horse.

[Chernynkaya]

Good post!

[themainpoint]

"In a down economy, though, we will only be able to deliver so much that is tangible. We need to keep focused on doing it, but it's not going to be enough."

I think Congress could deliver plenty. One glaring example:

Americans are overcharged more than twice the going rate for health care due to an anti-competitive health care industry and giveaways from Congress to big drug, insurance and other players in the health care industry (e.g., in many cases, Americans docs charge twice what others in western countries charge.)

If these health care interests had to compete for a living like the rest of Americans who are paying their rigged prices and profits, then every American's health insurance cost would be cut in half.

That means a middle class family of 4 paying 12,000 a year for insurance that may still bankrupt them if they get ill, would pay 6,000 per year and have 6,000 additional dollars to help them through the down economy. It would also provide a stimulus to the economy.

There is plenty Congress could be doing. Let's not kids ourselves any longer---we've been doing it far too long already and that's part of why we're in the current mess.

[seawolf77]

Not to mention all the new jobs that would be created if small companies could provide health insurance for thier emplyees. But the lemmings have been told it's "BAAAAADDD" and so they do what lemmings do.

[BocaMom]

It's amazing! No one in Congress, no one in the White House and no one in the media, including the HP,
will tell the truth. It's the terrible economy and the constant loss of millions of jobs that is turning us against Washington and EVERYONE we voted in. Nobody really cares about the economy and all the people out of work. You can barely find an article on the front pate of the NY Times, LA Times or even the Huffington Post! That's the number one issue with most of us! Sure, we want good health. And, of course, we want equal rights for gays. And clean air. And by all mean, get us out of the war! But first and foremost, fix the economy by any means and get America back to work. People losing their homes, their businesses and states are going broke because of a shortage of collecting taxes. If you look back at Congress and the White House over the past year and there is really nothing to show for it! If they would have only fixe the economy, then healthcare and all the other social programs could have been paid for! Trust me, if the do nothing Congress and White House stays on the same course, it will be a Republican sweep in 2010 and 2012!

[Geekboy]

This is rich. W's administration caused the problems we have now. And since even as a minority party, the GOP has been relatively successful in blocking significant progress, the answer would be to vote the GOP in? You may be right.. some voters may have attention spans that short. But I sure hope not!
But yes, I agree with you that "it's the economy, stupid".

[blizb]

I believe they are doing a great deal it's moving so slowly and people want it now.

Bush and deregulation caused this mess, people are angry about it and want to lay it all in Obama's lap before he is in office a year.

All the massive problems that face our country that existed before Bush and during Bush have to be tackled and since not enough people are informed about what has changed in a positive way they focus only on the economy.

They forget Bush started the bail-out and it had to be completed in order to save our country from total collapse.

Republicans supported "trickle down" economics which has been proven not to work, the rich just took the money and provided no reinvestment or jobs.

Republicans support Bush and his policies which has created a disaster of monumental proportion.

Republicans supported tax cuts for the rich.

Republicans supported deregulation.

I have a hard time believing they will vote that back in.