Democrats’ Future FAR Worse Than Predicted
I knew things were bad for Democrats, but I had no idea they were this bad.
Democrat politicians throw around words like Armageddon often. But in regard to their political future, Armageddon may not be strong enough.
As this article suggests, the Democrats have major problems ahead. Unfortunately for Democrats, Barack Obama skewed the real trend:
In 2008, Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama outperformed his predecessors John Kerry and Al Gore with virtually every single demographic group, handily defeating his Republican rival John McCain. This success spread to down-ballot races as well: Democrats expanded control over the House and the Senate; they controlled most governorships and state legislatures nationwide.
Many progressives came to believe that these results were not a fluke, that Obama’s coalition represented the future: an Emerging Democratic Majority that stood to reshape politics as we know it. The logic was simple: most of those who are young, college-educated, women or minorities lean left. Older white men lean right, but whites were declining as a portion of the electorate due to immigration and interracial unions. Therefore, as the older generation passes away and a younger, more diverse, and more educated cohort steps into the fore, America will become more progressive in an enduring way.
In 2008, I foresaw the future of Democrats.
I sat in the office of a CEO client, and he mentioned a meeting he had with James Carville. In that meeting Carville said that Democrats would be in control of politics for the foreseeable 100 years. He further suggested that the CEO set a more “progressive” strategy in running his organization.
Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?
I told my friend that Carville got things completely wrong. I said that the election of Barack Obama would begin the downfall of progressivism. I explained that Obama was completely incompetent, and only a fool would put his faith in someone with such little experience.
Further, I informed my friend that business is not politics, but human nature. And progressivism goes against human nature. It seems the author of this article agrees:
In a virtual inversion of 2008 (only worse), Republicans comfortably control both chambers of Congress. They also dominate state legislatures and governorships nationwide—bodies which arguably matter more to people’s everyday lives than the federal government. Meanwhile, Democrats lost perhaps their best chance in a generation to fundamentally reshape the Supreme Court. And the new Republican Administration seems committed to rolling back many of the signature accomplishments of the most charismatic and successful Democratic President since LBJ.
In the midst of such a bleak reality, it may be tempting to hold onto the faith that the Emerging Demographic Majority thesis remains essentially sound: Trump is an anomaly, certain to self-destruct, ushered into power as a final, desperate act of defiance by a segment of the population that knows its time is up. However, such optimism would be ill-advised–the electoral trend actually seems to be going the opposite direction.
Interesting that according to the author, Trump is not an anomaly. Trump’s success notwithstanding, if the author is right, then Democrats should be panicked.
Let’s look at the numbers:
FROM BALLOT COUNTING TO EXIT POLLS
The Democratic coalition rapidly deteriorated after the 2008 election. The Democrats’ 2010 midterm losses were historic: they lost the House in the most sweeping Congressional reversal of the preceding 62 years. The hole only got deeper in 2014, as the Senate also came under Republican control. Between 2008 and 2016 there was a dramatic downward trajectory across presidential races as well:
In 2008 Barack Obama beat John McCain by 192 Electoral College votes and 8.54 million popular votes. In 2012 he beat Mitt Romney by 126 electoral votes and 3.48 million popular votes. Obama’s margin of victory, while objectively comfortable, represented a 34 percent decline in his electoral dominance as compared to 2008, and a 59 percent decline in his the size of his popular vote lead.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.87 million. Even if she had won the presidency on this basis, it would have marked another steep decline in Democrats’ margin of victory: down nearly 18 percent from Barack Obama’s 2012 performance, and 66 percent as compared to 2008. It would have marked the narrowest popular vote margin of any winning candidate since the 2000 election (for comparison, Bush won by 3.48 million votes in 2004). However, Clinton’s popular vote lead came overwhelmingly from densely-populated and left-leaning states like California and New York. Relative to Barack Obama, Clinton under-performed in key Midwestern states, ultimately losing the Electoral College by 74 votes and costing the Democrats the White House. All said, the Democratic Party is in its weakest electoral position since the Civil War.
Many Leftist outlets trumpeted the popular vote theme.
The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The Chicago Tribune gave a thorough history of the anomaly:
Only George W. Bush seemed to escape this fate, for a time. But his temporary success had more to do with the acclaim he received after the attacks of 9/11 than anything else he accomplished in office. And this crisis-induced honeymoon didn’t last: During most of his second term, Bush’s rating stalled far below the 48 percent of the vote he had won in 2000, when more than half a million Americans preferred Al Gore.
The three other presidents who lost the popular vote all lived and governed in the 19th century. None managed to overcome his initial political deficit or to enact any of the major policies he desired. In the 1824 election, John Quincy Adams drew just 31 percentof the popular vote. The conditions of that contest have never been repeated: Adams was one of four candidates, all of whom nominally belonged to the same party, the Democratic-Republicans. Because no man won an electoral-vote majority, the decision fell to the House of Representatives. Adams triumphed, largely because he agreed to appoint Henry Clay, one of his erstwhile rivals, as secretary of state. Andrew Jackson, whose popular-vote count had easily topped that of Adams, screamed that his rivals had made a “corrupt bargain”; if citizens accepted it, he charged, “they may bid farewell to their freedom.”
Keep in mind that the popular vote credited to Hillary Clinton likely has many questionable votes.
Dead voters, illegals voting, and so on. Few people would argue that when it comes to manufacturing votes, the Democrats have the best equipment. As one of my colleagues noted:
“Why is it that all dead people seem to vote Democrat?”
The article goes on to reveal two critical things:
First, Democrats are losing voters in all demographic dimensions. And second, Republicans are gaining in all demographic dimensions.
Exit-polls are a great resource for understanding why the Emerging Democratic Majority thesis has failed so spectacularly over the last ten years. In fact, they are specifically designed to help pundits and analysts make sense of electoral outcomes and produce narrative frames.
Relying on New York Times exit-poll data from the last three midterm (2006, 2010, 2014) and presidential cycles (2008, 2012, 2016), we can identify longitudinal trends across demographic dimensions such as gender, race, age, income, educational attainment and ideological alignment. Patterns which persisted across all cycles are analyzed below. As one might imagine given the Democrats’ breathtaking electoral collapse, there is basically nothing but bad news:
I suggest you read the article to see the trend lines documented, therein. But suffice it to say, the Democrats who believe they are doing well just bounced their reality check.