I got young voters wrong. They supported the Democrats by ten points. In many individual races, the GOP did a lot better among 18-24 than 25-29, but nationally they did the same with both groups: poorly.
Slight improvement in the white vote: 22 points ahead, about what they did in 2010. Still, if the GOP doesn’t appeal better to minorities, this is still a little short. They need 65%, they got 60%.
African-American voters didn’t vote for Democrats by as huge a margin as they did in the two elections that Obama was on the ticket, but it was still at the normal recent level of 89-10.
The GOP lost Latinos by 28 points. Bad, but better than 2012. And worse than 2010.
The GOP lost Asians by 1 point. That’s a HUGE improvement, and it shows that it’s one minority group we can reach.
The GOP started winning at the $50K income level, which isn’t unusual. What was unusual is that they won voters after that point by double digit margins.
It’s long been predicted, mostly by overly optimistic Republicans, that Jews would start leaving the Democrats. Well, it finally happened, a little. Democrats won Jews 65-33, when normally they get about 75% of the Jewish vote.
Republicans totally dominated among military vets, 59-39.
Republicans won full time workers by 10 points.
Information level: Democrats only won among voters who followed the election “not too closely”.
Republicans lost the gay vote 76-23. That has to change. It’s also one of the few groups that supported Democrats as much as in 2012.
Turnout among minorities was substantially down from 2012, but not that much among African-Americans. African-Americans made up 11% of voters in 2010, 13% of voters in 2012, and 12% of voters in 2014. Chris Matthews called them “the cavalry” last night. Looks like they might be.
The Latino vote, however, came out at 2010 levels.
The Asian vote was up over 2010: 2% in 2010, 3% in 2014, 4% in 2012. Problem is, Asians swung massively towards the GOP. The Democrats won the Asian vote 58-40 in 2010, 72-27 in 2012, and 50-49 in 2014. Asians are now the fastest growing group in the US. Predictions of Democratic demographic dominance will have to be put on hold if that continues.
The youth vote plunged: 18-29 voters made up 19% of the vote in 2012, 13% in 2014. That’s where Democrats suffered their biggest turnout problem.
The funny thing is, despite the news reports of a “thumping”, it doesn’t really look like a whole lot has changed. The only major improvement for Republicans was among Asian voters, which is great, but insufficient. The Republicans won last night primarily because Latino and young voters stayed home. Which is what happened last midterm too. The key is going to be 2016. Democrats turned out at historic levels in 2008 and 2012. Was this because of Barack Obama, or will Democrats continue to turn out at high levels in the higher profile Presidential election years?
One last thing not in the exit polls: Democratic efforts to make voting easier to increase turnout failed miserably again. In Colorado, which had the most convenient voting laws in the country, Democrats went from 34% of the electorate to 28%. it was a 30-year low for the Democratic vote in that state. You can’t make voting any easier than they did in Colorado. So can we put to rest this idea that people don’t vote because it’s too inconvenient? You mailed them a ballot! They didn’t return it. They could have registered same day. They didn’t. But here’s the most startling result: Guess who stayed home in Colorado? Women. Women made up 47% of the CO electorate, down from 51% in 2012. Udall’s one issue campaign fell completely flat among female voters.
From what I’ve seen this is exactly right. Among the only useful bit of commentary I saw last night was that this may have been an area where running away so hard from Obama hurt Democratic candidates. Because as lousy as Obama’s ratings are overall, minority Democratic voters still really like the guy. And nobody feels motivated to go vote for the candidate you only sort of like that’s been publicly dissing the guy you do like.
Until Democrats figure out a way to reliably increase mid-term turnout, this cycle will continue.
I think the “OTC birth control” counter-argument completely wrong-footed the Udall campaign, and I’m dumb-founded that they focused so single-mindedly on women voters when Latino voters seemed to be the bigger key to holding the state.
Very good points,** adaher.** Motivation to actually bother to vote is very important and yes, I too wonder what happens if in 2016 there is no “superstar” at the head of the tickets (and by now I have my doubts Hillary would really fill that role).
The GOP would do well to retake the efforts of both presidents Bush (and Jeb) to draw the Latino vote. There is plenty of good growth opportunity in that direction that is being wasted by being too worried about pleasing the OMG Keep Them Out faction.
Clinton can actually be that superstar for female voters at least. But if it’s not her, then I don’t see anyone who can be inspiring. I know a lot of Democrats will think of Liz Warren, but she’s exciting to the progressive base. She’s basically the Republicans’ Mike Huckabee, extremely popular to a certain sector of the party but everyone else in the Democratic Party is going to go “huh?”
But really, the Democrats need to move away from celebrity candidates, so Clinton staying out would actually be a good thing in the long run. Bill Clinton was no superstar before being elected. He became a superstar by being one of our best Presidents of the postwar era. There are a boatload of Democrats who are well qualified to be President and who would do the job well. They just happen to be more Dukakis than Obama in terms of personal magnetism.
The GOP needs to do better with the Latino vote, definitely, but how to do that without selling out their principles is what makes it so hard. The Republican base went along with the 1986 amnesty because it was thought to be a one-time solution and going forward we’d do a better job on border security. That didn’t happen, so if we do amnesty now we can assume we’ll probably do it again. So Republican voters want to see border security and then legalize the current undocumented population. The Democrats’ position is basically Santa Claus: they rhetorically oppose deportation as inhumane, even though they can’t quite bring themselves to encode it in law. But it’s the message they send to Latino voters and there’s no way for the GOP to outbid the Democrats in that respect.
What I think they should do is pass piecemeal immigration reforms over the next two years. One that could help with Latinos is to make Latino immigration easier. Who knows, maybe if we do that we can tell current illegals to go home, get in line, and realistically they’ll be allowed in legally after not too much time has passed.
“The youth vote plunged: 18-29 voters made up 19% of the vote in 2012, 13% in 2014. That’s where Democrats suffered their biggest turnout problem.”
This makes me sick – almost literally. Even if a large youth voter turnout had meant that Young Conservatives voted in droves, the fact that there wasn’t would still make me sick.
I’d normally insert a “get off your Twitter feeds and go vote – and get off my lawn” joke here, but this is no joking matter.
Had to guess, he’s probably going to make the biggest move that is within his executive power, maybe even stretch it a bit. The Pubbies will go apeshit, and oppose it with every fiber of their cramped and constipated being. Right out in public, where everybody can see.
I expect it might turn out that way, but such a move might have more negatives for Democrats than positives. Red state Democrats had to oppose the move while campaigning. And guess who will be asked about it first? Hillary Clinton.
Sure, an executive action and its aftermath might bind Latinos to the Democratic Party for a generation. It might also complete the exodus of the white working class from the Democratic Party. In the short term, that’s going to cost Democrats and I’m not sure Clinton will be too happy about Obama costing her the next election with a move like that.
Here’s what should actually happen: Obama should meet with McConnell and Boehner and say, “I need something, or else I’m going to act on my own. What can you give me?” Given that an executive amnesty is a kind of nuclear option that can hurt either party, both sides will have an incentive to deal. The end result won’t be comprehensive immigration reform, but it could involve border security, a DREAM ACT, and more liberal admittance policies towards Latinos, and finally, a partial amnesty that would give provisional legal status to about 3-5 million people currently here illegally. The path to citizenship as well as the status of the 5 million or so who are less attached to the US can be put off for later.
Kids have always been uninterested in politics, but I think it’s the lack of anyone to support more than anything else. People 18-29 have grown up with Bush and Obama as Presidents. Obama got them to turn out in 2008 but has since governed in a way that they are back to being uninspired. Give them a candidate they can support and they’ll come out.
You’re dreaming, adaher. Its a nice dream, its got intelligent elements of bi-partisan comity. But the Tea Party owns your ass, they got the receipt. At the very least, they think they do, which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
This is the crux of the issue, but it’s a bigger problem than you suggest.
It’s not just about Republican principles involving control of borders. It’s that even outside of any immigration issues, the Latinos are a natural Democratic constituency. They tend to be poorer and more reliant on social services that Democrats are big supporters of, along with various “minority rights” issues. (They tend to be more conservative on social issues (as do blacks) but this is not a dealbreaker and in any event this is exactly the area that the Republicans need to deemphasize.)
So the Republicans are in a bind. Either take a hard line on immigration and alienate a large and fast-growing portion of the electorate, or take a soft line and alientate them less but allow this portion of the electorate - still opposed to you albeit to a slightly lesser extent - to grow even faster.
I don’t see any way out of it.
[What complicates the picture even further is that there are individual legislators in safe seats who tend to act in their own self-interest and/or ideological beliefs more than in accordance with Republican Party national goals. The above is about the national strategy only, though in practice this gets muddled by individuals acting independently.]
The two Republicans who won recall elections in Colorado due to NRA funding their campaigns last year both lost by double digits in the real election. No surprise there. They were terrible people who just bought their seats for a year.
The Tea PArty doesn’t have the votes to stop a compromise. Not even close. The real problem is the Hastert rule and that’s very easy to overcome.
A war over an executive amnesty would be very bad for the country. Obama clearly would rather not do it and the Republicans clearly don’t want him to do it. And unlike on taxes, the immigration issue doesn’t involve any red lines for Republicans. All the base wants is for them to get REAL border security and internal enforcement, and anything else is just details.
Sean Trende looked at exit polling from the last few elections and found that unlike African-Americans, who are solidly Democratic regardless of income, Latino voters tend to be Democratic because they tend to be poor. Even wealthy Latinos are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, but the margins aren’t anything for Republicans to worry about given their dominance with the white vote these days.
the way to do well among Latinos is to make more middle class and wealthy Latinos. Encouraging assimilation is a very Republican way to do that, but also making it easier for this rather entrepenurial people to start businesses also helps. The Latino problem for the GOP is primarily a long term problem. In the short term, only 8-10% of voters are Latino. The GOP can survive quite fine on only 30% of their votes for quite some time. In the long run, they can do better as Latinos get more prosperous and more assimilated.
Oh, is that all? A mere two thousand mile wall? Oh, wait, we also have to spread barb wire from Washington across Minnesota and then on to Maine. Oh? Not that border, just the other one? Well, not to worry, maybe the Latinos won’t notice.
Internal? Who is hiring these illegals to work cheap? People on food assistance, you think?
