What if They Gave A Revolution But Nobody Came?

Bernie Sanders wanted a revolution but it appears that no one read the memo announcing it.
The hallmark of the Sanders’ presidential campaign was to defy conventional wisdom held by mainstream political science and political operatives.  This wisdom depicts American public opinion and voters as plotted along a bell curve from political left to right, with the median voter at the center.  The theory says that most voters are in the political center and that the battle for victory in presidential elections is to move to the center and capture the five or so percent of the electorate who are swings, especially in the critical presidential swing states that will determine the electoral college victory.  This model recognizes that perhaps only about 55% of the electorate votes and that it would be extremely difficult to bring new voters into the voting booth.
Sanders’ campaign challenged that.  The allegation is that the electorate is less of a bell curve and one that has become bimodal with a decreasing percentage of the voters located at the center.  The median voter still exists but largely is immaterial given the polarization and shift in American public opinion.  It is also a model that says that effectively swing centrist voters have  disappeared and racing to the center to find them is futile.  Better to try to mobilize many of the 45% who do not vote.  These are young people, people of color, urban liberals.  They chose not to vote because they do not like the political choices or policy options they are offered. 
These non-voters, the theory goes, face an empirical reality different from voters.  Capitalism has not been kind to Millennials and Gen Z.  They face a wealth gap, high college costs, high housing costs, and an expensive medical and health care delivery system their Silent, Baby Boomer, and Gen Xers do not confront.  They are America’s future.  Speak to their concerns and issues and you move American politics to the left and build a movement and party for the future.
There is a lot of truth and empirical evidence to support Sanders’ theory.  The electorate has become bimodal.  There is evidence of a decreasing number of swing voters and the reality of the median voter.  The political attitudes of Millennials and Gen Z are very different from that of Silents and Boomers.    The problem seems to be the last leg of the theory–mobilize the young and non-voter.  This is not happening for Sanders this year.
We know now according to Pew Research that the Millennials this election are now the largest generational voting bloc, surpassing the Baby Boomers.  Millennials and Gen Z together are now 37% of the electorate–the 2020 election is the beginning of the end of the political era for Baby Boomers, and perhaps the last hurrah for the Silents.  Yet so far, younger voters have failed to turn out in the caucuses and primaries, with voting rates less than what they were in 2016. On average, turnout among younger voters is about 25% less than it was in 2016.  Why is Sanders’ revolution not happening?
There are many reasons.  First, he is an independent running as a Democrat and his politics is not within the mainstream of the party and so far the Millennials and Gen Zs are not in control of the party.  In fact, they do not like the Democratic Party as presently constituted, seeing it still as controlled by the Boomers.  That alone could be hurting him.  Two, he has done a bad job expanding his political coalition, including a failure to bring on African-Americans.
Moreover, Sanders might have done so well four years for three reasons not present now.  By that, many voters did not like Hillary Clinton and a vote for him was a protest vote.  Two, Sanders did well in caucus states (because the smaller numbers in those states favored a fervent few) and there are fewer of them this year.  Three, the depth of Democratic Party anger to beat Trump is greater this year than four years ago.  Pragmaticism might be prevailing.
There are other possibilities.  Perhaps it is too soon for the revolution.  Godot has not arrived and we need to wait for more Boomers to die.  Some claim voter suppression, but there is not a lot of evidence that accounts for the dramatic voter downturn.  The rejection of electoral politics may be a factor, but rallies go only so far in an electoral political system.
Conventional political science and politicos may be wrong about the bell curve, median voter, and swing voter, but they still seem correct in regards to the difficulty of motivating the non-voter on the left.  Sanders is not crazy to look to bringing them into the political system to build a movement, yet his failure is that of not being able to figure out how to do that.  Where he and progressives need to go is to identify the real barriers to their disengagement and then determine the ways to bring them in politically.  Should the Democrats or a third party not do that longer term, America’s electorate will shrink dramatically over the next few years, perpetuating a base of voters who are not representative of the majority.

Trump, Sanders, and the Crises of Republican and Democratic Party Orthodoxy

Trump and Sanders test Republican and Democratic Party orthodoxy.  They do so in different ways and for contrasting reasons, but over the next few weeks first the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary will tell us something about how real these candidates are and what it means for the future of the two major parties.

In my election law seminar one of the questions I ask is “Who is the Party?”  By that, I am asking a legal question regarding who in a political party gets to assert what rights on behalf of whom.  In asking that question possible answers are that the party is its elected officials, paid party officials, party leaders, convention attendees, primary voters, caucus attendees, general election voters, or even those who register or simply declare themselves to be members of that party.  This same legal question applies to thinking about Trump and Sanders in terms of what they mean to the Republicans and Democrats.

Consider Trump first.  Several months ago mainstream Republicans expressed with horror the prospect that he could be their party nominee.   Trump was the fringe candidate, Bush orthodoxy.  Trump’s polling numbers show his greatest support coming from white males without a college education, yet several recent polls now show that across the board Trump is consolidating support across broad portions of the Republican Party and that even its mainstream establishment  is coming to accept the fact that he may be their nominee.  Trump has a huge lead in NH and is second in Iowa to Cruz, yet the former is user the birther attack on the latter and it may succeed in weakening the latter.  Additionally Trump is turning up is attacks on Cruz, potentially suggesting a tightening of the race there over the next several weeks.

The big variable for Trump is twofold.  First, does he have a ground game to deliver his supports to the caucuses and polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.  So far there is little indication of this type of organization.  Second, assuming Trump does convert polls into votes, and as other candidates drop out, can he pick up their support and will he be able to consolidate the base around him?  These are good questions and especially important as the battle beyond NH moves south and one needs to see how well Trump does in winning the Bible belt vote which is critical to the Republican base.

But Trump’s challenge to the GOP is fascinating.  On the one hand he challenges party orthodoxy with his rhetoric, appealing to the fear, prejudice, and insecurities of white males who see a world no longer favoring them. Party leaders abhor his language.   Yet in other ways some point to the fact that Trump’s views simply represent the chickens coming home to roost.   The GOP for the last few years has appealed more to whites, males, working class, and those who espouse hostility to immigration and civil rights.  He is both mainstream and not mainstream Republicanism.

The problem for the Republicans is that much of their current base does support these positions yet this base is old and dying off or demographically represents a decreasing proportion of the population and the electorate with each election.  Unless Republicans reach out to new constituencies, perhaps necessitating a change in policy to do that, the GOP may simply see its base disappear in much of America.  Trump appeals to those who are both part of the base today but not of tomorrow.  He appeals to those who do not like the current Republican party but they are ones who often do not vote.  Trump is a candidate who both does and does not challenge the Republican Party in so many ways.

Democrats are giddy with the prospects of Trump and how he is dividing the Republican Party but they should not be so gleeful.  Clinton holds powerful advantages in 2016 within the Democratic Party as my friend Amy Fried points out.  But the Sanders challenge underscores a huge problem for her and orthodox Democratic Party politics.  First it is surprising that Sanders is doing so well in the polls given that he is not a Democrat.  He is an independent running as Democrat.  That alone should bring pause to the party that an outsider is doing as well as he is.  But with that polls in New Hampshire have him leading and Iowa polls have also narrowed and it is not impossible for him to win there also.  Both Sanders and Clinton have strong ground games in Iowa and lots of money to spend.  Clinton could lose the first two states but still win it all once  the primaries and caucuses head south.

Yet Clinton faces continuing challenges within her party.  She suffers from a significant enthusiasm gap with the Democratic Party, even among women. Moreover, among younger voters she has problems, yet this cuts two ways.  Short term Millennials do not vote in high percentages so perhaps this is not an issue.  But if we think of the future of the Democratic Party residing in capturing a new generation of voters–the demographics is destiny argument–Clinton is not helping the party.  Millennials are far more liberal than previous generations and more liberal than Clinton.

Millennials are more likely to identify as Democrats when they do identify.  But overall Millennials are turned off by both parties, including the Democrats.  Clinton does little to bring these new people into the party, Sanders potentially does.  Sanders is like Eugene McCarthy once was, or Ted Kennedy to Jimmy Carter, Bill Bradley to Al Gore, Howard Dean to John Kerry, or even Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton in 2008.  Sanders represents a power challenge to party, but this time the challenge has an age and generational aspect that overlays with ideology.  Clinton is the Democratic Party as it is now or was 20 years ago when Baby Boomers were in charge.  But Obama was the first Gen X president and soon power will pass to the Millennials.  Clinton is perhaps the last gasp of the old Democratic Party, not one to build toward the future.

Clinton’s other problem is one similar to Trump’s; neither are very appealing to the independent or swing voter–especially in the swing states–who will really decide the presidency.  Clinton is less unpopular than Trump but should the latter get the nomination it is not unthinkable that Trump could win if he uses the same tactics against her that he is using against his Republican opponents.  Already Trump is going after Clinton via her husband’s sex life, and one can anticipate even other low blows and shots in a general election.  Remember Willie Horton ans Swift Boats for Turth?

What we see in Trump and Sanders are rival challenges to party orthodoxy.  In the same way that Trump speaks to voters whom the Republican Party appeals to but whom they have not benefitted, Sanders also appeals to a group of voters to whom the Democratic Party has ignored.  If Bush and Clinton represent status quo orthodox in the parties, Trump and Sanders show a rejection of such orthodoxy. Trump is perhaps the logical extension of party policies and rhetoric that will appeal to a demographic that puts the Republican party out of business.  Sanders potentially speaks to the coming Millennial generation without whose support the Democratic Party cannot survive in the future.

Election 2012: Politics in the Age of Division (And final predictions)

    Note:  This blog is based on my November 2, 2012 talk to the Minneapolis Rotary Club.  I have spoken to them many times in the past and they have always been a warm and gracious club to address.

     The polls perhaps say it all.  We have a closely divided race nationally for the presidential race.  In fact, go back six months ago and Obama and Romney were essentially tied at about the same place they are now.  Except for one month between the Democrat National Convention and a period after the first debate, the polls have been stable, revealing a stable yet clearly split electorate.
    I see other signs of division in the scores of individuals who come up to me and express fear that the country faces ruin if Obama is elected, or is it Romney?  The political ads make it seem like the end of the world or Armageddon is near. Facebook postings seem almost like rants and raves and if you are like me, I have seen one too many posts about politics or candidates that border on the lunatic, referencing or posting information whose veracity is at best questionable.
    People ask me if this is the most divided politics has ever been. No, think Civil War.  Additionally, the 19th century was meaner.  We often look at the past through halcyonic or rose-colored glasses thinking the past was more kind and gentle than it is now.   But despite that, politics does seem more divided, nasty and conflicted than in recent memory. Why?  Several factors point to the divide that we see this year and this division has implications for the election.

The transformation of American party politics.  The is some truth about a red and blue America and it starts with the change in traditional party structures.  American political parties used to be more coalitional and regional than they are now.  Parties were more likely to be mixed ideologically.  When I grew up in New in the 1960s my governor was Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  One Senator was Republican Jacob Javits, the other was Democrat Bobby Kennedy.  The lost liberal?  Javits.  The most conservative, Kennedy. 
    The Democrat and Republican parties had liberals, moderates, and conservatives in them.  Minnesota once had a pro-choice republican Governor in Arne Carlson and a pro-life DFL governor in Rudy Perpich.  Neither of those individuals could secure their party nomination today.   The two main parties in Minnesota and across the country have become more ideological and national, much more like European style political parties.  We see a disappearance of moderates in the two parties.  There is a rise of straight party line votes in the Congress, and a rise of straight party line votes in the MN legislature.  Both parties have moved to the right, the Republicans more so.  They have moved from the party of Eisenhower to that of Rockefeller, Nixon, Reagan, and now the Tea Party.  There are no more Hubert Humphreys and Paul Wellstones in the Democrat Party.  As a result, the two parties are further to the right and further apart than ever.

Party Membership and generational divide.  The Democrats and Republicans are a tale of two parties The GOP are older, whiter, male, more Christian, and part of the Silent generation along with some older Boomers.  They vote against gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and favor smaller government.  The Democrats are younger, more female,  less white, less Christian, and they represent the  Millennials and Gen Xers. They favor gay rights, choice, immigration and diversity, and more government.  The two parties represent two generations and world views, and party of the intensity right now is a demographic contest witnessing the passing of power from one generation to another.  It also represents a racial polarization the greatest since 1988, and an identity shift as America moves from a White Christian nation to something else.


Political Geography.  Politics and geography now overlay and intersect.  It is not just red and blue states but red and blue neighborhoods.   There is a political sorting of living space by geography.  We increasingly have Democrat and Republican neighborhoods.  We are divided politically by rural and urban.  The result is a decline in the number of real marginal or swing districts and such a problem is only accentuated by redistricting in some states (or conversely, even the best redistricting cannot overcome the political sorting we are experiencing).  There are only 50 or so competitive seats in Congress, and 25 or so competitive seats in MN Legislature.  The remainder are certainties for either of the two major parties.  Partisan districts create less incentive to compromise, reinforcing  polarization.

Evidence of political polarization by public.   The public is polarized.  In Minnesota support for the marriage and elections amendments divides almost perfectly by party.  Two sides have their own versions of truth.  But the division goes to our consumption habits .  Each party has its own network to watch–MSNBC and Fox News–giving each side its own version of the truth.  The produces we consume reveal our political preferences.  Our geography reveal our political preferences.  Thus, combine target marketing data, GPS, and politics and we see in 2012 the use of very specific marketing to seel candidates. 

Implications for 2012
Overall, the polarization, if not as great or significant as the Civil War, is still significant.  How does it affect the 2012 presidential?  First, the choice of Obama and Romney is not great and neither seems to have a clue about what to do with the economy.  But the polarization makes it impossible for third party candidates such as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to gain any attention or momentum.  Fear of voting for one’s hopes and it electing one’s last choice dooms alternative politics.

Having said that, for months the race for the presidency was simply a set of three numbers: 10/10/270.  Ten percent of the voters (the undecideds)  in ten states would determine who gets 270 electoral votes and win the presidency.  Now the race is 5/7/270.  Five percent of the voters in seven states will decide who wins the presidency.

The original ten swing states were:
Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin

In those 10 swing states, the Associated Press has argued that it is up to about 106 battle ground counties. How many voters are we talking about that might influence the election of president?
Assume 5% undecided in those ten swing states and the number is 1,835,599 voters.
Assume 8% undecided voters in those ten swing states and the number is 2,936,958 voters.

Now assume North Carolina and Nevada are no longer swinging, we have eight swing states.  In the remaining swing states on average 4.9% undecided according to polls in Real Clear Politics on October 25.  My estimate then is that between 1.500,000 and 1.835.599 voters will decide the election, with the focus being on about 11 counties across the country where the battles are really taking place.  These counties in my estimate are:

Arapahoe County, Colorado
Bremer County, Iowa (Waverly)
Chester County, PA  (some have told me this is not swinging this year, though).
Hamilton County, Ohio
Hillsborough County, NH
Hillsborough County, FL (Tampa)
Jefferson County, Colorado
Pinellas County, FL
Prince William County, Virginia
Racine County, WI
Winnebago County, WI

Finally, now assume in 2012 that the estimated eligible voter population is 222,000,000.  In 2010 it was 217,000,000, and in 2008 it was approximately 212,000,000 with about a 63% (131 million voters) turnout.  Assume again about 63% voter turnout this year due to high interest and intensity in the race.   The average of 1.500,000 and 1.835.599 voters (total number of undeceived swing voters in the swing states) is approximately 1,650,000.  Divide that number by the estimated eligible voting population in 2012 (222,000,000) and this means that approximately 0.74% of the eligible voting population will decide the presidential election.

In fact, if I wanted to pick one county where the race for the presidency comes down to, it is look to what happens in Hamilton County, Ohio.  Whoever wins it wins Ohio and then the presidency.  This shows the polarization we face in this country when such a small number decides who wins.

Final Predictions
Presidency:  Back in March I said Obama would win with 272 electoral votes. He still wins but with 290-305 electoral votes.  He also will get around 50.5% of the popular vote.

US Senate: Democrats retain control with 51 seats.
US House: Republicans retain control but with a slightly narrower margin.

Minnesota Congressional Delegation: No change.  Nolan and Cravaack is too close to call but a slight nod to the incumbent.

Minnesota House: DFL or GOP control by one seat for either and a real chance of 67-67.
Minnesota Senate: Republicans retain close control.

Marriage and Elections Amendments: Both pass.

The Uniqueness of the 2012 Election

This blog originally appeared as a June 5, 2012 National Public Radio digital news story by Linton Weeks. My comments are featured in a story about what is unique about the 2012 elections.

Volunteers unfurl a banner with the Preamble to the Constitution during a demonstration against the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling on campaign finance rules at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., Oct. 20, 2010.

All U.S. presidential elections "are unique in some fashion," says John G. Geer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University.

Sure, but what about 2012? What exactly will make the 2012 election between President Obama and Mitt Romney truly unique?

For one thing, though the candidates have many similarities, as noted by NPR and The New York Times, there is a clear-cut choice between directions the country might take.

And there are other — what shall we call them? — uniquities.

Carol S. Weissert, director of the LeRoy Collins Institute — a nonpartisan public policy think tank in Tallahassee, Fla. — points out that the presidential election in November will be the first since the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court opinion that opened the barn door to unregulated spending in all political campaigns — but especially presidential campaigns.

"We're seeing some glimpses of what unregulated spending is doing in the Wisconsin recall," Weissert says, "but we haven't seen anything yet."

And, she says, it'll be the first election during a time when our country's economic well-being is linked in large part with Europe's economy. "If the eurozone collapses — or maybe when," Weissert says, "this will shake the core of our economy and affect the presidential election. And there is little we can do about it but watch."

The 2012 election, says Caroline Tolbert, a political science professor at the University of Iowa, will be sui generis in several ways. Never before has this country seen an African-American incumbent president run for re-election, she says. And never before has there been a major party nominee who was a Mormon.

Tolbert also cites the president's mad skills at digital campaigning and politics. "Obama has 26 million likes on Facebook," she says, "compared to less than 2 million for Romney."

For David Schultz, a public policy professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., the approaching election "is about an America that is divided by a partisan politics of nostalgia versus a politics of tomorrow."

Schultz, who also teaches election law at the University of Minnesota's law school, says the country is at a critical crossroads. One path will determine how America responds to its global role and ranking in a hyperdynamic world.

"The second path America is crossing is demographics," Schultz says. "We are witnesses to a country where one generation of citizens — the baby boomers — are waning in influence and are being replaced by a new generation sharing a different agenda than those who came of age during the 1960s. This election is about the end of the 1960s as a defining moment in American politics. The other demographic change is racial. We are seeing a growth in the strength of people of color, as their numbers increase and the white majority recedes to a white plurality."

The third path, Schultz says, leads to a war over wealth that this country has not seen in a century.

"America is economically more unequal today than it has been since the 1920s," Schultz says, "with multiple statistics and studies demonstrating that the gap between rich and poor has exploded in the last three decades. Occupy Wall Street has highlighted this battle of wealth versus the people, portending a possibility that this election is about whether American democracy is for real or for sale."

Those scenarios — America's place in the world, shifting demographics and the battle between dollars and democracy — are setting up two contrasting political narratives, Schultz says. One narrative leads toward a nostalgic past; the other toward a fast-changing future. "This election," Schultz says, "is about which of the narratives will win."

Vanderbilt's Geer frames it another way. The 2012 election, he says, "strikes me as very much a product of long-standing forces. In this case: the condition of the economy and which candidate we most trust to lead America for the next four years."