Post-Election Lessons for Progressives

While much has been made about what the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia portend for 2010, a post election survey of both voters and non-voters commissioned by Women's Voices Women Vote (WVWV) offers several important lessons for progressives and civic engagement groups.

Our survey takes an in-depth look at the difference between what we have termed the Rising American Electorate (RAE) ---unmarried women, youth (18-29), African Americans, Latinos, and other non-white races--- and the rest of the voters and non-voters in New Jersey and Virginia.

While much was made of the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial candidates' efforts to reach out to women voters, our research once again confirms that there is no such thing as "women voters," as married and unmarried women have very different lives, views, and voting patterns. Indeed, the "marriage gap" -- the difference in voting behavior between married and unmarried women - was a significant factor in these elections.

Despite a wide variety of differences among unmarried women, they overwhelmingly support progressive public policies. But here too, there is a lesson. While the marriage gap was significant in both New Jersey and Virginia, the fact that Creigh Deeds only garnered 53 percent of the vote among unmarried women and John Corzine only garnered 59 percent demonstrates that unmarried women need to be mobilized by progressives or they can be lost. In 2008, Barack Obama won 70 percent of the vote among unmarried women.

RAE voters, who were a major force in driving turnout in 2008, dropped off in disproportionate numbers in New Jersey and Virginia. In Virginia, as a proportion of the total electorate, the RAE dropped from 45 percent in 2008 to 39 percent in 2009; RAE voter drop-off was even higher in New Jersey, going from 49 percent to 39 percent.

However, our survey provides some important lessons as to what messages can motive RAE groups to vote. RAE voters who turned out to vote in New Jersey and Virginia were more likely than non-RAE voters to believe that their vote could make difference. Additionally, RAE voters who stayed away from the polls offered as their number one reason for not voting that they didn't think their vote mattered. The message here is clear, RAE voters need to be told their vote matters and why.

At the same time, RAE non-voters were the most likely to cite as a reason for not voting, that they did not know enough about the candidates or the issues. Fully 37 percent of RAE voters who did not vote say they did not know the issues or candidates well enough to make an informed vote. Again, the implications are clear: RAE voters need to hear candidates discuss issues in a straightforward manner that makes clear how the policies they advocate are relevant to voters' lives. It is also noteworthy that only 16 percent of RAE voters who did not vote heard more from the Deeds campaign than from the McDonnell campaign; 29 percent heard more from the McDonnell campaign. Part of this is a failure to educate.

Looking at the results of our survey, it is clear that progressives and civic engagement groups will need to pay particular attention to RAE voters, keeping them informed and engaged. WVWV and other independent groups must continue developing the methods and messages that engage the Rising American Electorate so that the gains achieved in voter interest and participation during the 2008 elections can be sustained. Such efforts are crucial to our ensuring that our public policy debates and future elections reflect the greatest number of citizens and broadest range of voices.

The Rising American Electorate now constitutes a majority -- 52% -- of the voting-eligible population in America. That's 107 million eligible voters. In 2008 elections, the RAE accounted for 47 percent of the electorate and made their voice heard in support of progressive public policies on education, energy, equality, health care, and the environment.

It goes without saying that if the RAE stays at home in 2010, the chances for progressive legislation being adopted will be greatly diminished. And for groups like WVWV, the achievements regarding the participation of traditionally underrepresented groups in our democracy will be undermined.

 

Comments

[PrairieView]

The Republicans led by Palin are starting to turn to other conservative third parties to move the Republican Party in the direction they want. The progressives need to do the same thing. Support the best third party and dump the Democrats. Obama is throwing all progressive issues (like abortion rights in the healthcare "reform" bill) under the bus for zero Republican votes. Obama knows he needs Republican votes to win again because of the way he has dissed progressives (40,000 more bodies for Afghan war). Death to the Democratic Party. I want to vote Progressive next time. I won't make the mistake of voting for Obama again. Fool me once shame on you, foll me twice shame on Shamu. Or, whatever. You know what I mean.

[ArchAngel]

You have betrayed the trust of progressives, so now they cast you off.

[wethepeople3884]

It must be realized among the media that local elections are not always about democrat verse conservative. It is not some sign of the future to come. It is mainly a reflection on the actual candidates. While i would be nearly impossible to be forced to vote for a republican senator or rep, I could easily see myself voting for one at the local level. Corzine did not do well and democrats knew it so many of us just didnt vote or didnt vote for him. I was pretty sure he wouldnt win and pretty sure I wouldnt care. Chris Christie isn't even "republican" as we consider them in congress and as president. He is for gun control, says he won't restrict abortion rights and will not interfere with same sex marriage. You never find the republicans supporting such things at the national level. Plus, corzine resorted to personal attacks and relentless bashing of the opponent making voters realize how little we all knew he himself actually did for the state. Unless the democratic congressman are supporting conservative agendas I would support them in every election, I can;t say the same about the local politics. THESE ELECTIONS ARE NOT A SIGN OF THINGS TO COME.

[Theo]

How are "Progressives" supposed to get your RAE to vote, when there are no progressive choices on the ballot? The Democratic party has proven to be as anti-progressive as the Republicans. Don't take my word for it, just ask Congressman Stupack. Or ask any of the innocent men still languishing at Guantanamo bay, or still being tortured in the Bagram Air Force base. Or ask the bailout Wall St. bankers.

If progressives have no reason to vote, how can expect them to organize others to vote?

[robbep]

It doesnt matter if there is no one to vote for, we shld vote anyway bcz we have been told too. This article represents the kind of thinking that gets progressives no where bcz it assumes that not voting for people who dont represent you is worse than voting for people who dont represent you. The 68 democrats who voted to restrict a womans right to buy private insurance for abortions dont deserve pro choice votes.

[overd0g1]

"Progressing" towards what?

[ThePeacemakers]

Progressing to actually living in the 21st century instead of holding on to outdated superstitions from the 1st thru 19th centuries and the letting go of the 20th century military industrial complex and start creating an economy that's not built on death and destruction.

How about that???

[Sean 6399]

I don't see any reductions in militarism coming from this supposedly progressive administration. Did I miss it? Obama talked a lot about diplomacy when he was running for office, but since winning there's been no particular change in America's militaristic foreign policy, except for expanded combatant forces in Afghanistan.

The democrat establishment is just as beholden to the "military-­industrial complex" as those nasty republicans.

How about that??

[Theo]

Greater social and economic justice, as measured by quality of life, personal liberty, and shared prosperity.

Or, to use more classic terminology, we want progress towards "a more perfect union", where in all enjoy "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", "with liberty and justice for all".

Is that really too much to ask for?

[MidwestBlue]

John Corzine lost because of local issues and the fact that's he's an old Goldman Sachs guy. Deeds lost because he thought the way to win was to lean as far right as he possibly could. Believe it or not, people are beginning to vote the issues, not automatically perform as supporters of candidates who have a "D" after their names.
Instead of exhorting some focus group to get out and vote, you should realize that many true Progressives (and I'd say traditional Democrats) are having severe doubts about the Democratic party and would probably vote in Independent candidates like Bernie Sanders in a heartbeat if they could. It is not our job to vote for just any candidate. It is up to the candidate to perform in a way that benefits the citizens of this country and earns our vote. If we sit out or maybe write in a candidate or vote for the third party candidate, if available, you can bet all those "bipartisan" Democrats will sit up, take notice, and fly right. And who knows? Those third party candidates might be the best candidates for the job, anyway.

[Shirley Fisk]

11/10/09
11:52am
Alexandria, VA

Thanks for this article which helps me to not feel guilty if I eat chicken and a hot dog once in a while (like last night.) When people ask me if I'm a vegetarian I say, "Kinda."

[nolabels]

Your title should be: Post Election Lessons for People "Campaigning as" Progressives

We have yet to see a wholesale progressive agenda be enacted, despite much assurance that this would be accomplished if we met certain markers in the Senate and House.

[smpj]

Who assured you of the enaction of a 'wholesale progressive agenda'? You may have believed this to be so by the vague etherial phrasing you heard Obama utter during the campaign but you were merely expertly induced by him to believe whatever you wanted to believe, like so many others. Now that the rubber is actually meeting the road, the potholes that were always there are now finally being felt.

[nolabels]

Uhhhh, I was expertly induced to believe that he would properly weigh the options. Under that condition, only a progressive agenda would result. Oh, well. On with the fight. I really don't get this progressives calling out other progressives for being too idealistic. Don't blame me for wanting a better world.

[indy007]

As a progressive independent voter who supported Obama 100% from Springfield to the White House, I won't stay home in future elections. INSTEAD, I'll get my ass off the couch and vote for a DIFFERENT progressive to take Obama's place.

I couldn't stand Bush/Cheney but at least you didn't have to guess about their lack of ethics. Oh, and they did have a spine.

[FearlessFreep]

Kucinich in 2012!

[jeanrenoir]

The perfect way for the progressives to destroy themselves politically for a generation or two, as they did in '68, is to get "idealistic" and "purist" on abortion funding in the health care bill, or the war of necessity we're fighting in Afghanistan to keep New York from being nuked by Bin Laden, or anything else guaranteed to destroy the Obama presidency. The progressives, like me, were furious with LBJ over the war in '68, so we defeated Humphrey, like idiots, and guaranteed to victories for Nixon, Reagan, and W, as well as forty long years of conservative domination of American politics. Progressives can pull off the same mass political suicide again this year by "standing on principle," just like their madness in '68. Obama came to DC to end this idiotic Boomer politics of narcissistic righteousness, on the left as well as the right. He came to bring change through compromise, the only way it can be incrementally achieved in a democracy. Let's hope the progressives wake up, before they destroy their cause yet again for generations to come, and thereby hasten America's catastrophic political collapse.

[nolabels]

Something about your post churns my stomach. It isn't the historical facts. I grant you those although your belief that they will repeat themselves when the post clearly suggest that the demographics stand in opposition to your conclusion. I guess my issue is that nobody has clearly explained to me why, if we are right (and generally, I am sure we are), we are the ones that can't stand on principle. We are the ones that get our policy objectives bargained away to nothing time and time again. In fact, I think it is our willingness to be paper mache on issue after issue that leads people to have little faith in our message. It isn't, as the article suggests whether progressives are making the message clear. It seems to me that if people campaign on progressive issues and come out of the gate abandoning those issues, people lose faith. After 40 years, one would think you would have a little more sympathy for the people you claim to agree with. Maybe you prefer giving up one issue at a time rather than not simply offering your vote to people that will betray you.

Also, what a cheap tactic invoking Bin Laden nuking NYC. Some of us have the vast majority of people we love residing there and don't appreciate you using them to make a flimsy political point. I would think that the least "us" progressives can agree upon is not to us GWB's tactics.

[smpj]

Obama came in as a blank slate with little history and a deliberately vague agenda. What specifically did 'Hope & Change' actually mean? Many who voted for him expected way too much. The crying for joy seen in response to the election of an African American was beautiful, but any happy tears over monumental political expectations was just nieve. Governance consists of making real choices, some of which will disappoint even allies. Obama is in the process of coming down to earth. Reality's gravity always makes that happen.

[Laserbeam]

"Idealistic"?

Is it idealistic to say that women shouldn't be barred from seeking legal reproductive care?

After all, abortion has been legal for nearly fifty years.

FIFTY YEARS.

And we're STILL being attacked. I have been fighting this battle my whole life. Never thought my daughter would have to take over from me.

[thnk4selfagain]

The "purists" are the Catholic Bishops and all others involved in Stpak/Pitts amendment. The Health care bills of both house prohibited federal money for abortion, preserving Hyde, but these *men* wanted to restrict access, an end run around the law and around 52% of populations rights.

[luziannagirl]

If the Dems want the young voters, then they must work for them. Right now they're in office courtesy of 2 things only:

1) Widespread super-majority total pissedoffitude with Bush/Cheney and the far-right dominated Republicans.

2) Barack Obama's personal charisma and extraordinary rhetorical skills.

Sorry but those two factors are not enough to sustain a Dem majority on top of the Hill. So get up off your keisters, Dem leaders, and quit taking voters for granted. Any of us.

For once, just once, will you put your own interests and re-electability aside, and do what you know is right? Remember why you went into politics all those years ago? Well now's the time to step up, even if it means the end of your career. The worst that can happen is you won't get re-elected, but you'll know you were a hero when heroism and political courage were in short supply.

Just do it.

[mark331blue]

No, those two factors are not adequate to the sustenance of a Dem majority. That having been said, the youth vote hasn't demonstrated any more staying power than any of the other latest fads so attractive to them. They will be expected to do their part. And that means enough participation in the process to convince career politicians they must be taken more seriously than they have been in the past.

That participation must transcend mere voting. It must include ideas, action and work at the grass roots level, enough commitment that career politicians realize the likelihood that young voters will begin offering their own candidates if necessary. Nothing moves a career politician to action like the possibility of serious challengers.

[smpj]

They should have focused on fixing the economy. Because they didn't, the Republicans are now back in play.

[smpj]

Much will happen between now and the next election. Events will determine the numbers. Off off year elections seldom bring out the masses but the energy was definitely on the side of 'Please slow down!' this year. Anger and anxiety over current direction and the paltry results so far are the elephants in the room that progressives don't seem to want to acknowledge. If events and the economy turn positive, you won't need unmarried women to win. If things continue as they are now, or sour some more, you won't be able to hold even the single female vote.

[WorkingClass]

Poll the working class sometime. Get some Europeans to explain to you who they are. Workers are far and away the largest voting block in the country.

[ThePeacemakers]

Bet you could up the youth vote - tending toward progressivism anyway - by making moves to re-instate the draft.