Storm Clouds Ahead for Democrats This Year?
What is happening to the Democratic Party this year? The attention being given on cable television to the raucous Republican campaign masks deep problems for Democrats’ prospects. Two different articles online in the AJC and New York Times today should be sending progressives to the pharmacy for antacids.
Here are the Georgia numbers. The overall voter turnout in our state in the 2008 and 2016 Presidential Primaries was comparable – 2.02 million in 2008 and 2.053 million in 2016 – a mere 51 thousand voter increase in a state that witnessed an estimated population surge, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2010 and 2015 of over 600,000 people.
The difference between 2008 and 2016 was the dramatic shift as to which party voters chose to cast their ballots in the presidential primary. In 2008, The Obama wave brought out 1.060 million Democratic voters compared to only 963 thousand Republican voters. This year, Democratic turnout dropped significantly to only 761 thousand voters compared to 1.292 million Republican voters.
Georgia is not an anomaly. The New York Times article points out that this same phenomenon is occurring in other primaries where Democratic turnout has dropped from a quarter to half from 2008 levels.
Donald Trump and the tone of Republican race may have its critics – count me as one of them – but there is no question that the excitement and enthusiasm this year is on the Republican side. The American voters want change and not a third Obama term that Hillary Clinton is promising. The question now is whether the GOP presidential race disintegrates into a fractured blood bath that allows it to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Stay tuned.
About Author
Edward
Edward Lindsey served in the Georgia House for a decade and as House Majority Whip for three terms. He currently practices law in Atlanta.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Short answer to the title question is NO. 2008 was an actual race between Obama and Clinton whereas this year is Clinton’s to lose, barring an indictment. (Gotta love America)
Also, I wouldn’t read the tea leaves too much from primary results. Many states, including ours, are open or semi-open primaries. As someone who plans on voting Democratic in November, I voted for Kasich on Tuesday because he’s level headed and the Republican party needs that.
My bleeding heart sister-in-law who lives in Tennessee voted for Rubio on Tuesday, not as an endorsement as so much a vote against Trump. I’m certain there are plenty of others in the same boat. Many posters here were discussing the same scenarios on Tuesday.
I did the same.
Another way to look at it is that Democrats would be content with either candidate and so don’t have a need to run to the primary polls. Republicans remain the party with the smallest voter identification nationwide. http://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/
All that said though, a really strong third party candidate who entered around May could win, IMO. And that would make me happy.
Me three.
Ed, the reason the Dems didn’t run to the polls is that we have our candidate and she will win in November.
Only the GOP is thinning out their clown car bit by painful bit.
I saw on TV today the following numbers to back up Rep Lindsey’s point.
In 2008 to this point when Obama won.
Dems had about 8mm votes in the primary
Gop had about 5mm votes….
In this election with Trump winning:
GOP has about 8.5mm
Dems about 5.3mm
The irony Trump would help the GOP down ticket like Obama did with all the new voters. Than math is the math….Fox, CNN, MSNBC all have had analysis say Trump like Obama did, is driving the numbers. If Trump gets run out the GOP they will take a beating in NOV. If the GOP plays it right they widened the tent. Not sure this marriage can happen from the old guard to Trump?
You are saying 20% of the Dems are “white nationalist” HUH???? Multiple polls, and results show that Trump is winning Reagan Dems, Independents and new voters across the country, adding on to traditional GOP vote. Our country has less than 1 percent of people in “white nationalist” type parties and or organizations. Your math does not add up! I was clear I am a Kasich supporter, but I am a realistic as well. I laugh because I feel like Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe on this blog, it is not, that I am endorsing or even supporting Trump, but it is what it is.
…….Poll: 20% of Dems would defect for Trump……..
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/265330-some-dems-would-defect-for-trump-poll-shows
Andrew,
The blue collar Dems feel like they got left behind with trade and immigration policy ie Reagan Dems…..
…….. #1 Monday Feb 22 These Blue Collar Working Class Democrats will Vote for Donald Trump, But, Not for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz who have both said they will Cut Social Security…..
Donald Trump has said several times that he will Protect Social Security and strengthen it……
You can see how this has shown up in many polls as well as results.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/orlando-fl/T0NPNKJJSNIV5392S
….. It’s bad polling all the way down the line. I’m sure I could have conducted the same poll and returned results saying 20% of Republicans would defect for Sanders…
You could, but the votes would not add up. It is clear Trump is driving Obama like numbers in the primary. The Dems overall voter turnout is down, like the issue the GOP had in 08 against Obama. You could argue that Trump may not get GOP establishment vote in a general, creating a win for Hillary. But it is obvious his issue is not with voters outside of the GOP establishment for a win. That is the real question, will the GOP establishment take a loss or support Trump?
Some good points for the Dems but I do not think they explain it. In addition to Georgia population increases, we have also had a corresponding 10% increase in the voter rolls since 2008 according to the Secretary of State. That demonstrates an even greater slide in Democratic turnout. While the Democratic race appears to be clearly heading in Secretary Clinton’s direction, we are not at blow out stage like 2000 in the Gore/Bradley race.
Also, Senator Sanders is not just another conventional Democrat running like the former Governor of Maryland this year or Senator Bradley in 2000. He is a protest candidate arguing for fundamental change in direction from the present Democratic Administration, and while he is almost certainly not going to win, he is revealing deep discontent on the left with the Democratic establishment that Clinton represents. This should be a warning flag for Democrats in terms of their base turning out in numbers they need to win.
None of this means my party is going to win in November. I have written a few times already on the Republican party’s problems. It simply means that if the GOP loses, it really blew it this year because the wind should be at our back.
In 2008 2M voted for McCain and 1.8M voted for Obama in the General. In 2012, 2M voted for Romney and 1.8M voted for Obama in the General. I don’t see any reason to think that primary turnout has any correlation to General election results based on those two years and I’m not sure why that would be different this year.
However, the candidate surely does matter. So when the same 1.8M Dems vote for Hillary…and the GOP runs out Trump, all it will take is about 150,000 or so of those folks in Cobb, DeKalb and Fulton who are ‘moderates’ to either vote for Hillary out of protest or, alternatively vote for a third party candidate and the state goes blue. I don’t think there is any doubt that a Trump ticket would be a landslide victory for Hillary. And Conservatives would have no one to blame but themselves…this is a reap what you sow moment…you can’t spend a decade refusing to compromise and playing divisive games of winner take-all politics fueled by talk-show wannabes who are more entertainers than actual policy makers and then expect when it’s time to do the one thing a party is supposed to do, set a platform and select a standard bearer, that it will magically happen. 2008 when McCain felt like he had to select a ‘right wing’ VP in Palin or 2012 when Obama should have been vulnerable and you had ‘conservatives’ constantly attacking Romney…those should have been the canaries in the coal mine. Instead, you have a bunch of egos…Trump, Cruz or Kasich can’t win a national election. Just like Bernie Sanders isn’t winning a national election. I’m not even sure that Rubio can, but objectively, he’s the only one that has a chance. And yet the factions in the GOP still seem to think that a loss is better than rallying behind a candidate that can win.
I don’t blame Trump. He’s not a conservative or a Republican and frankly, should have been easily defeated. I blame the folks that claim they are conservatives and Republicans who can’t see that their insistence to dogma over winning elections is going to result in 12-16 years of Dem controlled policy and a liberal SCOTUS for decades.
……In 2008 2M voted for McCain and 1.8M voted for Obama in the General. In 2012, 2M voted for Romney and 1.8M voted for Obama in the General…….
The studies are based on overall vote in a primary based on a contested race. The overall vote with Obama in the race for the Dems was 60% better than the GOP in the primary. Obviously Obama won in a landslide with voter turn out the Dems had not seen in years ie new voters to the party. 2012 Obama had no opponent that is not a relevant number, since we are comparing numbers based on competitive primaries. By any measure, if the GOP can keep it together with Trump driving new numbers they win. BTW that is a big if?
I don’t understand, John. What studies? The Times uses phrases like “The falloff in Democratic primary turnout — which often reveals whether a candidate is exciting voters and attracting them to the polls”. It often ‘reveals’? Ok…show me how and show me the data? Womp Womp. It’s hard to get people to show up for uncontested elections….and while Bernie Sanders is a big deal to the NY media, there is no one in Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, or those other states the NY Times cited that actually thought he had a chance.
Here’s a good example…Massachusetts. Highly contested between Bernie and Hillary. 1.2M voters in 2008 and roughly the same in 2016. It’s all anecdotal until someone shows me correlation.
BTW…I disagree with your premise and the author’s premise that the GOP hasn’t already been fractured. Keep it together is not the question…bring it back to together is really the challenge. Fielding 17 candidates? Trump is leading but only has 34% of the popular vote. Kasich is the poster child. He’s stubbornly and some would say selfishly holding on to a lost cause when if he had stepped out of the race, it’s possible, if not probable, that Rubio would have won Virginia and Vermont.
Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. You can’t win those and you can’t win the White House. That should be the goal. Instead it’s personal agenda.
I know I will attacked by both sides on this study, but google yourself, you will see many noted this from the right and the left. I first saw this done by NBC on Morning Joe in the morning. While working out I was watching Fox at the gym, they noted the exact analysis of the numbers at FOX.
……..2008 was a peak year in the Democrat party for voter turnout. Previous years did not come close to the 38 million voters in the Democrat primary process and the 68 million in the general was a record. President Obama was a key factor. (2008 turnout exceeded 2012 by roughly 6%)
Current energy on the Republican side in 2016 is statistically higher than ever before. The four primary elections/caucuses that have taken place so far prove it because the current results smashed 2012’s results. (2012 were previous records).
The primary predictions are hard to do because in previous years, once a nominee was presumed, turn out (regardless of party) drops. People see their vote will not matter, so they don’t vote. The current predictions assume (maybe incorrectly) that both parties will fight this out later rather than sooner.
The terms “nomination process” and “primary process” are used interchangeably. Some of the data (like Iowa) is for caucuses, technically not a primary. To make absorption easier refer to the whole process as “nomination”, but typing “primary” is so much easier than “nomination process”. (Both used, they mean the same thing)……….
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/29/guest-post-the-2016-election-stats-the-media-and-establishment-republicans-prefer-to-ignore/
I think we could go around in circles on this. I think the important issue is the ‘why’ on the GOP side. People are turning out to vote for or against Trump. That’s not enthusiasm over the party or a sign that America wants change; it’s an internal call to arms.
65% of the people that have voted Republican in 2016 didn’t vote for Trump. I don’t buy the idea that these folks turned out in large numbers because they are excited about change and all the GOP needs to do between now and November is not screw it up.
Do I buy the idea that those voters could have been excited about change if conservatives would stop trying to eat their own and instead put aside the perfect for the sake of the good? Sure do.
Bgs,
In all due respect the GOP cannot win without States like Ohio. The numbers are clear Reagan Dems love Trump, the numbers do not lie. Btw which is why I supported Kasich, and made the same point very early on. But reality is Trump train is getting that support. It is clear they do not like Cruz and Rubio. Unless you have Kasich or Trump on top of the ticket the GOP will have a tough road. Now that Trump is rolling, the attacks from establishment like Romney, only helps Trump. The real issue is will the GOP establishment support Trump at the end or help Hillary win? Not saying I know the answer,but that is the question.
The thing though is that we’re now 32 years after Ronald Reagan was on a ballot. There aren’t really those “Reagan Dems” left all that much. You look at the 2012 data, and Obama lost the white working class vote by 30 points, and still won. There isn’t that much more juice left in the fruit, and whatever gains he makes there is going to be offset by the utter revulsion from suburban professionals and women.
Who are the 20 percent of white working class Dems supporting Trump via numerous polls? First you guys called them “white nationalist” when that did not work, you pretend they are not alive. Lol…..I am from Toledo Ohio and went to school with them. They may have been forgotten, but they are alive.
Indeed Reagan Democrats are now old white people, a demographic the GOP has largely owned for going on two decades.
Bgsmallz: Your argument on Massachusetts has some merit until you drill down and take a closer look. Yes, voter turnout in the Democratic primary was almost as great this year as in 2008 but that is against the backdrop of a growing population and voter registration rolls over the past eight years. By contrast, Republican turnout this year grew by about 17% over 2008. In fact, the Democratic Massachusetts Secretary of State noted a “significant” number of changes in voter registration prior to the primary from Democrat to Republican or Independent. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_nearly_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party.
I agree with you 100% on one point you raised. The GOP is fractured as I have discussed in previous columns. Hence, my earlier point, this year is its to lose if it does not get its act together.
Be honest, Sanders is the one, driving any new voters to the Dems. On a macro the numbers are in the toilet. Young Dems are not feeling fired up it all for Hillary, as well blue collar white Dems. Saturday night Live did a great skit about the lack of love for her.
SNL‘s Hillary Clinton Sings ‘I Can’t Make You Love Me’
So what you are saying is that in Georgia if the 329,000 democrats that wised up and voted republican stayed and voted democrat then Clinton would have lost the primary? feel the bern…. And then Trump and Rubio would be about out of it by now?
Comparing Dem turnout to 2008 is generally a bad idea because 2008 was an absurd outlier in terms of turnout. Current Dem turnout is above 2004, 2000, etc. In general two things drive Presidential primary turnout: Being out of power and a competitive race, and right now the Democrats have neither. The best analogue is 1988. That year there were 12 million Republican primary voters and 23 and a half million Democrats. Bush still stomped Dukakis by a landslide that fall: Why? Because Republicans were happy with Reagan and happy with Bush, while Democrats were starved for power and fighting amongst Dukakis, Gephardt, Jackson, Gore, Simon, and Hart. Same thing is more or less happening this year. Democrats are happy with Obama, and happy with Clinton. Republicans are desperate to get the White House back and facing bloodsport amongst their candidates. Doesn’t mean their set for November. These days it seems like they’re more set for the 1968 or 1972 Democratic Conventions.
Huh, I guess Bernie Sanders race with Hillary is not happening? I guess the low trust numbers for Hillary are just made up? And the low approval numbers for Obama are just made up? The working class Democrtas are happy thier manufacturing jobs got traded away? College are students are happy with thier massive student loans?
There were some Dole and Pat Robertson supporters in ’88 too. Dole won a few states. The presence of a race doesn’t necessarily mean broad dissatisfaction. But you look at the polls, President Obama’s approval with Democrats is 94%, HRC’s is about 84% (in the heat of a primary, no less, that will go up as the party rallies together as you head towards November). Beyond the white heat of Twitter, Democratic voters in exit poll after exit poll have favorable opinions of both candidates.
Not buying the Bernie crowd will come out, and vote for Hillary who represents the establishment on the DEM side.
From the left, making my same point.
……Don’t Assume Bernie Sanders Supporters Will Back Hillary Clinton If She’s The Nominee
Some of the Vermont senator’s fans would rather not vote — or even vote for Donald Trump — than vote for Hillary……….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-supporters-wont-vote-hillary_us_56d7571ae4b0871f60edb9fe
I think Mr. Lindsey is whistling through the graveyard with this one. The Dems may not be too enthused at this point but many in the GOP are damn depressed at this point.
Will: You are absolutely right. Many in the GOP are depressed — and that includes me. I expected this year to see the GOP’s A listed candidates to enter the arena — successful governors who had proven track records in red, purple, and even blue states and rising stars in the Congress. Together they would elevate the conservative debate to discuss how conservative principles could intelligently address the real world problems facing our nation and the world. Instead, we have . . . . Well, everyone knows what we have.
The point of my post is that it should not be this way. Despite the protestations of my Democratic friends in this discussion who have valiantly argued here that all is well on their side, there is deep dissatisfaction in our society with the direction in our country and not a lot of enthusiasm for the Democratic front runner in terms of policy or personality.
This should be a Republican year and, if it is not, it is because my party blew it. Plain and simple.
You’ve got 4.9% unemployment and a POTUS with 50% approval ratings. That’s not exactly a recipe for a Republican Year, even getting beyond the general demographic disaster that faces Republicans in a general electorate: Where Reagan ’84 margins with white voters for Romney still resulted in a narrow loss, even as the electorate is more diverse now than it was four years ago.
David,
Real wages have been flat to down for 30 years, healthcare/college cost out of control, retirement savings in the toilet, endless war….this is why you are having a revolt in your own party with Bernie. The only difference is the Dem establishment were able to stop the revolt via unfair rules from super delegates, forcing voters to vote in public in front of union bosses for Hillary, crazy coin toss stories, I could go on and on…much of what went on in your party is what we send election monitors to make it does not happen in corrupt third world countries. Debbie Wassermann Shultz the head of this process, had people quite via the dishonest behavior.
John,
There’s a ‘revolt’ in my party among certain white liberals and activists. It isn’t actually reflected in the voting. Superdelegates don’t matter: HRC leads in pledged delegates by nearly 200 already, and that lead shows no signs of being cut anywhere. The ‘coin toss stories’ were debunked right after the caucuses (it turns out, no, that when you toss coins, it actually ends up being a 50/50 outcome). Bernie has, so far, done far better in caucuses where people can look over your shoulder while you vote than in actual, secret ballot elections. If Colorado and Minnesota came down to full electorates instead of the hundred thousand or so people who are free on a Tuesday night, I suspect HRC would have won those states as well. The reason the ‘revolt’ stalled is that it hasn’t been able to get outside of certain white liberal activists (found in large numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire, and almost no place else) to the actual Democratic base: minority voters, especially minority women, have been voting Clinton by 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 margins. He’s gotten annihilated in the South, lost narrowly in Massachusetts, is on track to lose Michigan next Tuesday and then lose Illinois, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Missouri on the Tuesday afterward. HRC has led among registered Democrats in nearly every contest: Even when losing New Hampshire badly, Sanders’ margin was pretty much entirely crossover Indys and Rs in open primaries. Suffice to say, your evidence for ‘open revolt in my own party’ is nonsense. Bernie’s had good success, in part because there will always be an ‘anti-Candidate’ for the overwhelming frontrunner (for every Bush a McCain, or Gore a Bradley, or Ford a Reagan, or Reagan a Bush, or Mondale a Hart) and that’s what’s happening here. He’s doing better than Bradley, but far worse than Hart. If Obama were on the ballot and Sanders tried to primary him, he’d be running up the score even bigger than HRC is.
You are really drinking the Kool-aid.
From Huffington Post article I posted above:
……When they learned their candidate had beaten Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, taking the largest share of the state’s available delegates, they chanted and cheered the Vermont senator’s name — and many vowed never to support his opponent, even if she goes on to win the Democratic nomination……
……….Burch isn’t alone. He’s part of a group on social media called Grassroots Action for Bernie that has promised to support only Sanders in the election, using the hashtag “BernieorBust” to spread its message. Similarly, 50,000 people have signed an online pledge to write in Sanders’ name or vote for the Green Party candidate in the general election if the former Secretary of State wins the nomination.
If that happens, some in this crowd are willing to go a step further in the general election and cast their ballot for Republican front-runner Donald Trump.
“I would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat,” said Patt Coltem, 60, of St. Paul. “She’s just too shady. She’s a pathological liar.”
Although the Democratic front-runner has adopted much of Sanders’ platform, Coltem acknowledges that she cannot vote for Clinton. Clinton is still the establishment-backed candidate, and her ties to Wall Street and refusal to release transcripts of her paid speeches is feeding a growing mistrust among voters. Coltem said Donald Trump’s outsider status makes him a little bit more appealing.
“He’s the only other person in this race who doesn’t have someone backing him,” Coltem explained. “Trump is crazy; he does a lot of weird stuff. I would prefer not to vote for him for president, but that’s how much I dislike Hillary Clinton.”…….
The plural of anecdote is not data. Every poll, exit poll and otherwise shows broad approval and high favorables of both candidates by Democratic voters. Sure there will be some green/write in votes this fall: In an electorate of 130,000,000 you’ll get a few. (Even in 2012, 470,000 voted Green and 1.275 million voted Libertarian.) 50,000 is a drop in the bucket spread across the nation. And this is before you have Sanders dropping out and endorsing the candidate, saying how important the election is and how Trump/Cruz must be stopped and raising the hands together, and the Convention, and Elizabeth Warren and the President endorsing and all the rest. There are usually plenty of “I’m never voting for XXX” folks in primary season that come home by November. (Usually this is reflected in the ‘convention bump’: soft partisans get supercharged and come back to their natural home). If you go hunting for sour grapes, you find a few. But you end up ignoring most of the vine.
Dave and our other Democratic Apologists:
Here are the facts: Real Clear Politics tracks multiple polls that ask voters if the country is going in the Right/Wrong direction. Six different commissioned polls — Rasmussen, CBS, AP, Economist, Reuters, and USA Today — have the following Right/Wrong track average for February: 28.5/64.3. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html.
Furthermore, according to a recent poll reported in the Daily Caller, Hillary Clinton was ranked dead last among Presidential candidates with only 27% finding her trustworthy. http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/poll-hillary-clinton-least-honest-and-trustworthy-of-all-presidential-candidates/ . This is on top of an ABC/WAPO poll that found that only 36% of Democrats find her to be trustworthy. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/27/wapoabc-poll-hillarys-trustworthiness-down-to-36-among-democrats/. Also, check out the following Washington Post article on the same issue. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/10/hillary-clinton-has-a-major-honesty-problem-after-new-hampshire/
Now, our Democratic friends can argue here whether this national mood is fair or the rap against Hillary Clinton is unfair, but the fact of the matter is that the American people are unhappy with the status quo and even Democrats don’t trust their likely nominee.
In the meantime you guys are starting to sound like the ROTC student in Animal House at the end of the movie who kept trying to argue all is well in the middle of a riot.
Lol….you I ignore polls showing 20 percent of Dems support Trump, and now you ignore the liberal Huffington Post who verifies the issues with Dems supporting Hillary. Happy hour early today for you? ?
Sorry about typo and that was for David, not Rep. Lindsey.