Veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg agrees with my prior assessments that this year’s electoral map is unlikely to vary much from those of 2000 and 2004, but also notes the danger to Barack Obama of potential defections by downscale, older white voters:
Even minimal defections from this group should cause concern among Democratic strategists, since the party has been able to count on this constituency in the past.
In 2000, for example, Al Gore carried voters age 60 and older (who constituted 22 percent of all voters in that election), 51 percent to 47 percent, and he won a majority of voters with an income of less than $50,000 per year (47 percent of all voters).
In both 2000 and 2004, exit polls found 11 percent of Democrats voting for Bush. In contrast, 8 percent of Republicans voted for Gore in 2000 and 6 percent crossed over to support Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) four years later. Obama may be able to improve on those percentages among Republicans, but it seems unlikely that he will be able to limit Democratic defections to below what they were in the past two contests.
Rothenberg thus joins those contemplating the possibility of another split decision along the lines of the 2000 cycle, though he (unlike Marc Ambinder) has the good sense not to call it a Constitutional crisis.
Does the phrase “Constitutional crisis” mean Dems lost an election?
Rothenberg skirts the issue of the die off of the Depression Yellow Dog Dems. They were the “reliables” who assured Dem supremacy and the generation with the highest Dem/Rep ratio ever. The youngest among them is now 78 and the group composes the bulk of the 2 million plus annual deaths in the US. The 13%ers and the black bloc don’t come close to replacing them.
Somebody tell Nishi–the old folks may get their revenge by voting for their boy, the old guy, in the election…
All I’m saying is, there’s a reason why the AARP is feared and respected.
“Does the phrase “Constitutional crisis†mean Dems lost an election?”
Bingo!
Jim in KC,
Are you saying that the demographic segment carrying the heaviest electoral weight probably isn’t going to go for a Chicago Machine jerkoff with a smooth line because he promises to tax away their retirement savings? That they might actually vote for McCain because of their perception of their own economic interest?
Gosh, that’s not very progressive of you.
Happily so, Rick.
I’m also sort of getting at the notion that the demographic you mention isn’t likely to see his age as much of an impediment to his ability to hold the office of President.
It’s no surprise that losing voters of any demographic (when the last two national elections were pretty much even) is something to avoid. This election will be close, but there are many things that can stir up the electorate. This story will be the fallback story for any reporter seeking something that will allow for anecdotes, warnings against betrayal, strong rhetoric, and all the rest. But the fact remains that if either candidate loses a big part of any traditional voting demographic, this one’s over.
“but there are many things that can stir up the electorate”
True. But very, very few carry the import of a promise to raise taxes in order to support failed “social” programs which have generated no discernible benefit during the forty odd years of their existence. The segment of the population in question has socked away over $17 trillion dollars over the past 15 years and they are not going to allow a buffoon like Vibratin’ BHO the chance to pilfer it to provide illusory “benefits” to those choosing not to participate in productive pursuits.
Keep whistlin’ though – I hear it drives the ghosts away.
Of course, all those people who invested in their homes aren’t so happy right now either. And they’re more likely to blame politicians than themselves. Energy costs aren’t making many people happy, either. Some proposed changes in tax structure may make some people leery of Obama, but there’s plenty of furrowed brows looking at McCain as well. My guess is that economics will be a wash, the electorate will be about the same, but Obama has the advantage this year.
Only a progressive would blame a politician for their own choice to take out a home loan, jon.
“And they’re more likely to blame politicians than themselves. Energy costs aren’t making many people happy, either.”
Good points, Jon. Things really have turned to crap economically since Pelosi became Speaker and Reid became Majority Leader. McCain might have been able to effect some positive changes had the Democrats not been in the majority.
We’ll have to change that.
I’m not saying it always or even rarely makes sense to blame politicians for stock collapses, housing bubbles, oil and commodity prices, weather, gun crimes, moral depravity, or failing schools, but I’m just saying there’s a proportion of the electorate who expects action and demands retribution.
And JD, many a non-progressive are demanding that something be done about their home costs. Neither candidate is pandering to them all that much, but the blame game is going to be interesting. At least it could be.
Karl,
It appears that BHO’s gonna lose the observant Catholic demo as well. That may not be as bad as it seems at first glance, lots of Catholics are codgers as well as being Catholics. Possibly as many as 20% of them AFAICT.
It certainly won’t affect the 13%ers nor have a major impact upon the black bloc. I guess that’s something to which BHO will be able to bitterly cling.
And JD, many a non-progressive are demanding that something be done about their home costs.
Then those people are idiots too. How is it the government and politician’s role to regulate the cost of the loan someone voluntarily agreed to?
JD, there’s an old story about Adlai Stevenson running for President. A woman said all the thinking people will vote for him. Stevenson replied something along the lines of: “That’s not enough, I need a majority.”
No politician openly and actively embraces the dumb vote, but it’s always there for the taking.
I am a codger.
Fear me.
Cowboy,
It’s “Sonny, I can’t hear you, could you step a little closer.” said while cupping the left ear as the right hand loosens the stiletto in its sheath. “Fear me” may cause expenditure of energy better reserved for use ‘up close’.
As the snipers say: “You can run, but you’ll just die tired.”
No I don’t think Obama is going to get many older voters, but he might get a lot of people who usually don’t vote because they are all stirred up and excited by the hopiness.
I am codger, hear me bore.
And get the hell off my lawn.