If the US presidential election were held today–Look at what the Young Spectator will do

  The US presidential election remains inconclusively close.  But it still favors Donald Trump.

However, as political scientist E.E. Schattschneider  once declared, look at role of the audience or the undecided voter when it comes to political fights or elections. In this election, it may come down to the youth voters who decide the election and who are notoriously difficult to poll. 

As has been the case for well over a year, the 2024 presidential election has come down to six swing states where 150,000 to 200,000 voters will decide the electoral college outcome.  The electorate is polarized and there are few voters to persuade or move.  Polls suggest a close race. As of September 30, Harris is leading in three of the swing states. Trump is leading in three of the swing states. But the margins of their leads ranges from one-tenth of a point for Harris in Pennsylvania to a two point lead for Trump in Arizona.  Most of the polls being done have margins of error ranging from two to four points, while  indicating approximately two percent of the voters described as likely to cast a ballot  who are undecided. 

What we know is that polls indicate a that Trump is favored in terms of his handling of the economy and immigration, both of which are listed as important, if not the most important, issues in 2024.  His supporters have been loyal and enthusiastic for him from the start, and there is no question they will show up to vote for him. 

Additionally, among those few voters who list themselves as undecided, generally 60% vote against the incumbent.  That is, if they vote. In 2024 Harris is viewed as the incumbent.  A majority of Americans also do not like the direction the country is headed. Put all this together, these numbers and trends favor Donald Trump. 

Conversely, Harris has many things operating in her favor.  She has largely, but not completely, overcome the enthusiasm gap that stymied Joe Biden versus Donald Trump. She has an incredible amount of money and a cash advantage over Donald Trump to be able to  get out the vote, advertising, and other electoral matters. She has the abortion issue on her side, which is tremendously important to many college educated suburban women, as well as many other voters, Harris has picked up increasing support among Latinos and African Americans.  All of this suggests movement in the right direction for her, and some polls suggest that she would squeak out a narrow electoral college victory.

But the real challenge in this election is with younger voters, those under the age of 30.  They are much less likely to vote than those over the age of 30.  While Joe Biden's was in the race, they were unenthusiastic to vote for him. With Taylor Swift's endorsement of Vice President Harris, we've seen some evidence of increased voter registration among younger voters.  Most evidence suggests that celebrity endorsements have at best marginal impact on voters but Taylor Swift could very well be different in terms of her impact.  Additionally, this could be an election where reproductive rights, LGBTQ issues, and perhaps other matters of concern to voters under the age of 30 might drive them yet again to the ballot in ways pollster do not see.

But it is difficult for pollsters to capture this group of voters in polling.  Survey research wants to determine who a likely voter is. If you have not voted before or just turned 18, for example, polling you or assessing you as a likely voter is problematic and it is possible that the polls are not capturing these younger voters. They are the audience or the bystanders in a political fight.

EE Schattschneider once stated that what the audience or what the bystander does, determines the outcome of political fights, in this case, an election.  What we don't know is whether these younger voters will go from being audience or bystanders who are currently not reflected in the polls to participants and voters in the 2024 election in the critical swing states that will decide the outcome.

Backfire: Keeping Trump off the Ballot and Impeaching Biden May Get you Something Worse

 

            Don’t wish for something, it might happen. When it comes to American politics in 2024, that might be the warning for Democrats seeking to keep Donald Trump off the ballot in Minnesota or Colorado or for Republicans trying to impeach Joe Biden.  For every political action there is an opposite reaction and for both parties what they might get is a backfire  that could do the opposite of what they want.

            Consider the state of contemporary politics.  It is a polarized winner-take-all-environment.  There are maybe five states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that are in play.  Within those states, only a handful of swing voters in a handful of swing precincts will decide the race to 270 electoral votes  to win the presidency.  The US House and Senate are closely divided, with  perhaps no more than 20 suburban House seats and six Senate seats in play that will determine partisan control. Trump and Biden are tied in the national polls. 

Nearly forty states have partisan trifectas, giving  one party complete control of the legislative process.  These trifectas show the importance of winner-take-all politics  versus split government gridlock.

Now consider the current strategies.  Democrats in Colorado and Minnesota and perhaps in other states want to use the insurrection clause of  Section Three of the  Fourteenth Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot in those states.  Using a clause designed to remedy post-Civil War concerns regarding the  1866 election to keep former Confederates from serving in office and of which many legal historians question its applicability today, the strategy is to have election officials or state courts declare Trump and insurrectionist and therefore ineligible to appear on the ballot.

Keeping Trump off the Ballot in Minnesota

            Let’s consider the possibility of this in a quadfecta  state such as Minnesota where Democrats control both houses of the legislature, the governorship, the state supreme court, and even the secretary of state as the top election official.

The attraction or lure is great.  Exclude Trump from the ballot in Minnesota and one is guaranteed ten electoral votes without much work.  The resources can then be shifted to Wisconsin or another swing state.  Never mind no Republican has won statewide office since 2006 and no Republican presidential candidate since 1972.

But there are powerful downsides to this strategy.  One, if there is not even the semblance of a competitive presidential race in  Minnesota, it may be hard to motivate Democrats to come out to vote. Trump draws out Democrats to vote.  Without a competitive presidential race, down ballot races may be impacted.

Two,  if a 6-1 Democratic Party majority on the Minnesota Supreme Court throws Trump off the ballot it will only further add fuel to  the national claim of rigged elections. Minnesota will become the rallying cry to motivate Republican voters to come out in record numbers to support their guy.

Three, even if the Minnesota Supreme Court does not remove Trump from the ballot, the damage may already be done.  Even the hint of doing this raises the  stolen election fear both in the state and nationally, thereby propelling Republicans to the ballot.

Finally, now  consider one more issue—abortion.  The US Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and abortion rights was a blessing for Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections.  It is still a salient issue. But in 2023 Democrats in Minnesota  went beyond codifying Roe, enacting legislation arguably going beyond what most of the state’s public opinion supports.  Republicans already plan to use the phrase “abortion on demand” to motivate their base in 2024, including a highly motivated pro-life anti-abortion constituency.

Rumor has it that the Democrats  want to go beyond codification of abortion rights and put it in a constitutional amendment and on the ballot in 2024.  In part the reasoning is to motivate their base.

Yet Democrats need to remember 2012 when a Republican legislature thought  a voter ID and marriage amendment would  juice up their base  and win them the elections. The result backfired and Democrats took over the legislature and single-party control of the state.

 

Impeaching Biden

            Biden enjoys tepid support among Democrats going into 2024.  He has low approval ratings among the general public and he does not garner enthusiasm among Democrats.  He is vulnerable in part because Democrats may not come out for him.

            The best thing Biden has going for him so far going into the 2024 election is Trump may be his opponent and that the House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans.  He gets to run against both next year.  But that still may not be enough to save him.

            Enter impeachment.

            The Republican House will likely impeach Biden later this year or in 2024.  The validity of the impeachment grounds do not matter.  Impeach Biden is meant to handicap him while running for re-election.  It is political tit-for-tat.  Trump was impeached, impeach Biden.  Trump has legal problems, divert attention from them and his trials by impeaching Biden and forcing a Senate trial on to television and into the social media.  It levels the legal playing field between Trump and Biden, and it serves as a way to motivate Republican donors and voters.

            Except perhaps not. There is no way a Democratic Party-controlled Senate will convict Biden.  There is even no guarantee it will hold a trial.  But much in the same way the Trump’s first impeachment motivated his voters  (and had it not been for Covid and his mishandling of it  he might have won him the 2020 election) after the 2018 midterm elections, a failed impeachment of Biden might simply be the thing Democrats need to rally their voters around Biden and bring them to the polls in 2024.

            The lesson is don’t wish for something because if you get it, it may backfire on you.

The Democratic Party’s Missing Electoral College Game Plan

Rule number one of politics:  The first step in exercising political power is to get elected.  Somewhere along the line the Democratic Party has forgotten this.  Why this is important is that right now it looks that Democrats are on the road to another 2020 presidential popular vote victory and a loss in the electoral college.  Simply put, the Democrats have no electoral college victory plan.

            The reality is that  the only number that matters in US presidential politics is 270.  That is the number of electoral votes you need to  win.  US presidential elections are not really national popular votes; they are 50 separate state elections plus the  District of Columbia where in 49 instances the winner of the state’s popular vote nets the candidate the entire trove of its electoral votes.  The combination of  the electoral college and this winner-take-all structure means that effectively in 40 states the 2020 presidential election is over.  How New York, California, Massachusetts, Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma will vote is not in doubt.  The presidential candidates know this too.  The race for the White House comes down to a handful of swing states, prominent among them are Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  As Trump demonstrated in his 2016 Midwest strategy, winning them was key to his victory and had less than 90,000 votes flipped in them, Hillary Clinton would have won the electoral college victory and not simply the popular vote.

            Political coalitions, like fences, are only as strong as the weakest link.  Democrats need a strategy to hold all the states they won in 2016 and then how to pick up Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.  Yes, they could try to flip Arizona, Georgia, or Texas as some pipedreams hope for, but the reality is winning them is distant and difficult.  They key is flipping critical swing states.

            What is interesting about these swing states is that their electorates are generally to the left of recent Republican Party presidential candidates and to the right of Democratic Party candidates.  In many ways they are states more centrist than the non-swing states, and certainly more in the middle compared to the overall Democratic Party base.

            There are two way to flip these  swing states.  One option is to move swing voters back to the Democrats.  But here what we know is that who is a swing voter is less and less likely to be someone who moves back and forth between voting Democratic or Republican and more so whether they swing into or out of voting.  Democrats did badly in 2016 because swing voters, especially suburban  females, stayed home or did not vote for them.  In 2018, those suburban females came out for Democrats.  Winning in 2020 is getting these women to vote.  What we know about these voters is that they are socially moderate to liberal but are not left of center.  This is a more centrist strategy.

            Option two is moving voters who do not normally vote to show up.  Presumably these voters are more liberal as they constitute younger people, perhaps people of color.  These are the people who perhaps resonate with issues such mandatory Medicare for all.  These individuals are hard to motivate to vote and they may be a smaller percentage of the potential electorate in swing as opposed to non-swing states.

            The point here is that a viable strategy for the Democrats to win the 2020 election relies upon them winning critical swing states, whether it is running more to the center or to the left.

Unfortunately, the debates so far, the 2020 primary and caucus schedule, and the candidate messages are setting the Democrats  up to fail.  Consider first recent polling data.  In critical states such as Michigan ,  Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin  mandatory Medicare for all is unpopular (or is divisive at best) despite the fact that nationally a majority of Democrats support it.  Nationally, only 41% support eliminating private insurance for a mandatory Medicare plan for all.   A pledge by Warren or Sanders to push for this as an issue may not play well in the swing states.

Two, the current so-called debate structure does not favor or emphasize winnability of Democrats in critical swing states.  Instead, its combination of popularity in national opinion polls and national fundraising keeps potential popular vote candidates alive but does little to winnow candidates to those who are viable in swing states.

Three, consider the primary and caucus schedule.  While arguably Iowa (February 3, caucus) and New Hampshire (February 11, primary) are swing states, the critical states of Michigan (March 10, )  Wisconsin (April 7), and Pennsylvania (April 28) come after the March 3, Super Tuesday which features 14 states and includes California and Texas.  Super Tuesday could well filter out candidates who could run well in swing states because of either the costs or ideological orientation of these 14.  Of these 14 states, arguably only Minnesota and Virginia are swing.  Running and winning the gauntlet of Super Tuesday does not mean one is prepared to win in the swing states that will decide the road to 270.

Perhaps the electoral college is unfair and needs to be eliminated or reformed.  But it is a reality at least for next year.  Democrats need a process that vets candidates and strategy to win the electoral college in 2020.  They do not have it.

Swing Counties and Why Clinton Really Lost? It Wasn't Sanders Fault...It was Hers

So why did Hillary Clinton lose to Donald Trump?  For many this is now a “Who cares?” and it is time to “move forward” as Bernie Sanders said Thursday on The Late Show.  Yet Clinton cannot.  In her forthcoming book she describes the attacks on her by Sanders as causing “lasting damage” damage to her campaign.  No doubt, Clinton’s new book will seek the causes of her defeat in outside forces–the Russians and Sanders for example–but the roots of her defeat also lie within her own control.  Much could be written about how all the mistakes she made and how she failed to learn from them eight years later.  Yet perhaps one way to capture her mistakes is simply to look at her general election campaign, especially in terms of where she campaigned and how often.
I am in the process of doing a second edition of Presidential Swing States.  In editing that book with Stacy Hunter Hecht I realized it is not simply swing states that make the difference in presidential elections, it is the swing voters within the swing counties in the swing states that are critical.  In this second edition I am doing a chapter on the swing counties.  Looking at county campaign activity tells one a lot about the mistakes made by Clinton in the 2016 general election.
There are 3,142 counties, parishes, or boroughs in the United States.  During the 2016 general election, Clinton/Kaine made a total of 152 campaign visits to 75 counties located in 14 different states.  Trump/Pence made a total of 248 campaign visits to 142 counties in 25 states.  Total, they  made 400 campaign visits to 167 counties located in 26 states.   Between the two campaigns, they only campaigned in 5.3% of the US counties.  For Clinton it was only 2.4% of all counties, for Trump it was 4.5%.  Trump/Pence not only made nearly 60% more campaign visits than Clinton/Kaine, but they visited nearly 90% more counties.  Simply put, they made more visits to more locations than Clinton/Kaine.  Alone that tells one something about why Clinton lost–she did not campaign as much or broadly as Trump–he simply out-hustled her on the campaign trail.
But what is also interesting to consider is where the Clinton and Trump campaigns chose to  visit.
Clinton and Trump demonstrated different tactics in terms of the counties they chose to visit. For Clinton, her most frequent visits were to Democratic Party strongholds located in big urban areas such as Philadelphia, Fort Lauderdale, and Detroit.  For Trump,   the focus seemed less on big Republican strongholds and more on visiting swing areas or counties such as Hillsborough County in New Hampshire or Mecklenberg County in North Carolina.
These contrasting strategies suggest  that Clinton’s focus was either on shoring up her party base or simply trying to maximize her turnout among the Democrats.  For Trump, the focus seemed more on swing voters, perhaps reflecting the fact that either he was sure he had his base or that he was trying to expand or shift it.  All these are possible scenarios.  Yet I would also argue that what the Trump campaign did was more strategic and realistic.  His campaign understood that the key to winning an election is not just holding and mobilizing a base, but it is also going after the s wing voters in swing areas who control the balance of power in presidential elections.
Yes it is possible that Clinton had to campaign in the Democratic Party strongholds to overcome the attacks inflicted upon her by Sanders.  But a stronger argument can be made is that she simply failed to make enough campaign visits in the critical swing countries among swing voters to ask them for their vote.  If that is the case, she violated a cardinal rule of politics once enunciated by Tip O’Neill–never take a vote for granted and always ask for it.  It appears Clinton just did not ask the swing voters in the swing states for their votes, and that is why is lost.


Clinton Campaign Visits
State County Visits
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 8
Florida Broward 7
Florida Miami-Dade 7
Nevada Clark 6
Michigan Wayne 6
Ohio Cuyhoga 6
Pennsylvania Allegheny 5
North Carolina Wake 4
Iowa Polk 4
Florida Orange 3
Florida Palm Beach 3
Ohio Franklin 3
New Hampshire Hillsborough 3



Trump Campaign Visits
State County Visits
New Hampshire Hillsborough 7
Colorado El Paso 6
New Hampshire Rockingham 6
Nevada Clark 5
North Carolina Mecklenberg 5
Florida Miami-Dade 5
Nevada Washoe 5
North Carolina New Hanover 4
Arizona Maricopa 4
Ohio Cuyhoga 4

As Scranton Goes So Goes the Nation: or Why Nineteen Counties Will Decide the 2016 Presidential Race

Today's blog appeared originally in the Philadelphia Inquirer under the title of   As Scranton Goes So

Goes the Nation: or Why Nineteen Counties Will Decide the 2016 Presidential Race




It’s not simply a handful of swing states that will decide the 2016 presidential election.  The swing voters in the swing counties of the swing states will decide it.  And if my calculations are correct, it is perhaps no more than 19 counties in 11 states–less than 500,000 voters–who truly matter.  That’s why Scranton, Pennsylvania seems to be so important this year.
From 1988 to 2012 the balance of power in US presidential races has centered on ten states.  Republicans were likely to win 23 states totally 191 electoral votes and  the Democrats winning 18 states and the District of Columbia totally 232 electoral votes.  Then there are ten swing states–Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin–totaling 115 electoral votes.  As I described in  my Presidential Swing States: Why Ten Only Matter, these are the states where the presidential candidates campaign and visit after the conventions.  They are the bellwether states, the battleground states, they are those most likely to flip from one party to another, and the margin of election victory in each state is generally close, but with some, such as Florida and Ohio, even more decisive than others in terms of their presidential selection influence.
These are still the crucial swing states in the 2016 election.  Trump’s candidacy, both its strengths in appealing to white working class voters which may open up Pennsylvania  as a swing state, or its weaknesses such as its racial overtures in possibly making Utah and Georgia possible Democrat pickups, might change the electoral map slightly.  But the Electoral College and the way states allocate their electoral votes, along with the rise of political polarization and the declining number of swing voters to perhaps 5% of the electorate,  mean that even this year  in approximately 40 states the presidential race is largely already over.
But while pundits write about the swing states, more fascinating is how within them there are only a handful of counties that are decisive.  They are the swing counties where the candidates actually campaign and where if they can win them they win the state.   Since  1988 there have been a handful of swing counties.  In Colorado it is Jefferson County that is key to winning that state.   For  New Hampshire, it is Hillsborough County, North Carolina it is Wake County, Virginia it is Prince William.  In Florida it is Hillsborough, and in Ohio it is Hamilton County.   Win Hamilton you win Ohio, win Ohio you win the presidency.
In 2012 there were 15 counties in the ten swing states that were critical to Obama’s victory.  There were a total of 3,883,000 votes cast and Obama won 53.2%.  He out-polled Romney by less  than 350,000 votes.  It is not clear whether Romney could have persuaded them to switch and vote for him or whether he needed to mobilize other voters, but the reality is that across those 15 counties in ten states, a switch of 350,000 or so votes would now have Mitt Romney running for his second term.
Assume these are the same swing counties and states in 2016.   Perhaps now the number of swing voters in these states is up to 500,000 with population growths. Now add to that Pennsylvania, a state that has voted solidly for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1988.  Trump needs to flip it to win.  There are four counties in there–Bucks, Chester, Luzerne, and Lackawanna–that  may be key to the state.  Lackawanna County–where Scranton is located–seems to be the center of  Pennsylvania’s political universe this year.  Both Trump and Clinton have made recent visits there, expect more by November.  In 2012 almost 97,000 voted in Lackawanna Country with Obama winning nearly 63%.  Flipping that country seems like a tall order.  Yet these four counties had a total of 790,000 voters in 2012, and Obama won them with less than 52%–about a 26,000 spread.  Conceivably Trump could flip them but given that Obama won the state by more than 300,000 votes in 2012, Pennsylvania is a long shot.
Even with Pennsylvania thrown in, there are only about 19 swing counties in this year’s presidential contest that seem to matter.  The number of swing voters there may be less than 500,000.  The key to the 2016 election is moving these few swing voters in these swing counties in the swing states.  The rest of us should vote, but the reality is that the next president will be selected by these few voters in a few counties.

A Close Clinton-Trump Race? Sometimes the polls are correct

What do presidential polls today tell us about the race in the fall and the final results come November 8?  This is a matter of academic and of course media debate, especially with the latter spending incessant time parsing the latest polls.  The simple answer is that there is a lot of confusion surrounding polling but that when done correctly they do give us some insights into the fall race. Having said that, a probable Trump-Clinton contest looks closer than many think.
First, it is true that surveys or polls are merely snapshots in time.  Depending on the wording they tell us what a sample thinks about some issue (such as their presidential preference) at a point in time and they are not always predictive of the future, especially in the future is distant and when we can assume that voters are undecided or are uninformed now and are likely to gather new information and change their minds more in the future.
At one time one could assume that presidential voting preferences were like a funnel.  By that, the further out from an election the more undecided voters there were and as they became more informed there were fewer and fewer undecided.  Thus the funnel shape.  Such a model also assumed voters were less well informed about candidates the further the election was away, that candidates were not as well known to voters the further an election was away, and that partisan preferences were not as fixed or that there were many undecided voters who could actually swing in their preferences.
So many of these assumption many no longer be true.  Political science literature points to the reality that partisan preferences have hardened and that there are fewer and fewer swing voters, if in fact many really do swing at all (besides swinging in or out from voting).  In 2016 it also appears that the penetration of the social media may be changing the knowledge that voters have about candidates such that they are better informed or at least now more about the candidates than may have been true in the past.  Finally, assuming a Clinton-Trump race, these are two candidates who are perhaps better known than any other two candidates in recent American presidential politics.
The point is that a lot of polling regarding these two candidates may be more accurate than we think.  Most if not all voters know who these two candidates are and they have already arrived at their views regarding what they think about them.  The only issue may be among a small handful of voters–perhaps no more than 10% of the electorate in a few states–is how they view Trump versus Clinton and who is the lesser of two evils given that both have high disapprovals.  Clinton’s collapse in polls vis-a-vis Sanders, conversely, may actually represent somewhat a more traditional model where her poll numbers have changed as voters acquire information about the relatively unknown candidate Sanders, or that the polls simply miss likely Sanders’ voters because they are not among the traditional group of people likely to vote in primaries or attend caucuses.
What this all suggests is that current polls that test Clinton against Trump may have more accuracy than one thinks and that they might be good predictors or what might happen in November. What does that mean?  More clarification of the polls is in order.
First, most national polls suggest Clinton has a really large lead over Trump in aggregate  public opinion polls and therefore Democrats are salivating over the prospects of a Clinton rout.  Think again.  Remember that presidents are not elected by direct public opinion or national popular vote but by the Electoral College.  Remember Gore winning the popular vote to Bush in 2000 but losing the electoral vote.  Clinton probably does have a huge popular vote advantage, no doubt reflected by larger Democratic majorities in places such as New York, California, and other states where she will do well.  But remember that the presidential election is fought in 50 separate states (plus the District of Columbia) and in many ways it is down to about a dozen or so swing states where the battle will be won.  Here the recent Quinnipiac poll suggesting closer races in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are important.  Clinton and Trump are essentially tied here.  Other polls suggest some non-swing states may be close, perhaps suggesting good news for Clinton.  That may be the case but the point is that one should ignore national aggregate polls and look instead to state by state polling for something more accurate.
The one issue where the polls are perhaps not accurate at this point is in terms of party support for Trump and Clinton.   The conventions have not occurred and neither of the candidates have firmly consolidated support among their party bases.  We hear more about that with Trump and the GOP but Clinton faces a similar problem.  But there are signs this week that Trump is beginning to consolidate support.  Contrary to news reports, Republicans may still prefer Trump to Clinton and will vote against her or for him.  The same may be true for Clinton and Democrats.  The upshot is that it is still possible for this election to turn into one where Trump and Clinton consolidate partisan base support and fight over a few swing voters in a few swing states.  Yes, this is a unique election in many respects but it is still more than two months before the convention and there are many reasons to think that many political trends will stabilize such that the current polling in the swing states will represent an accurate picture of what might happen this fall.
The moral of the story is that there are many reasons to think that the closeness of state polling in critical swing states might actually portend a very close election where turnout is key and wooing the few swing voters in those states is determinative of who wins.

Final Note: Since last November 2015 I have given several talks arguing that the winning presidential candidate this year will need to raise $1.5 billion.  This week the NY Times ran a piece were Trump estimated that he needed to raise $1.5 billion for his campaign.

The P—ed Off Voter: Trump, Sanders, and the Failures of the Mainstream Republican and Democratic Parties

Two interesting pieces in the New York Times on December 31, point to important role of the p---ed off or disaffected voter and the mainstream Republican and Democratic voters in the 2016 presidential election.

The first article examines who are the Trump voters, finding many to be individuals–mainly but not exclusively white male, low income, no college–who still consider themselves Democrats but recently vote Republican.  They are the voters Democrats lost when the party embraced civil rights–as told by Mary and Thomas Edsell in Chain Reaction–and they became the Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, when they vote.  But many do not vote.  They are the ones who have lost out in the nearly two generation economic grind that has produced the economic inequalities that we now see in our society.  They see Democrats as having abandoned them as many of their candidates have walked away from talking about economics and class and instead turned into the party of people of color. When they do vote they support Republicans, but there too they see a party that no longer speaks to them. Trump’s message does (even if his solutions will do little to help them too).

The other article is how the battle for New Hampshire is about capturing the 40%+ independent voter in that state who could vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary.  Trump and Sanders are fighting for these voters, as are of course the other candidates.  This article too speaks to the voter who no longer feels that the two mainstream parties generally represent them, and instead their decision to vote and for whom is really up for grabs.  With it high percentage of these independent voters New Hampshire is typical of many of the swing states examined in my book.

We hear terms to describe these voters as swing or independent.  I think the best term is actually the p---ed off or disaffected voters.  There is little evidence that many voters actually swing in terms of switching to voter for candidates across parties.  Instead, they make a decision to vote or not.  Swing might more aptly describe swinging in or out of electoral politics.

The disaffected voter is central to the 2016 election prospects for Trump, Sanders, and the two parties.  There is evidence that the two parties do not adequately capture or speak to the interests of many voters.  This is the reason explaining why there is a strong force behind Sanders and against Clinton, and the same with the support for Trump and against Bush, for example. Robert Michael’s Political Parties well describes the tendency of parties to become less democratic and open over time.  One result might now be that the Republican and Democrat parties no longer resonate with many voters–young (especially Millennials), the poor, many people of color, and low income white males without college degrees. And in some cases women.  These are people who the political economic system has ignored, and whom the political parties too seem to have left behind or fail to give voice to.

The two NY Times pieces speak to a society where there is a disjuncture between the political and economic systems, where the leadership and mainstream of the two parties fails to capture the political frustrations and interests of many people in the US.  If that is the case t hen perhaps 2016 is  the basis of what political scientists call a critical election or realignment.  Such an election or alignment would produce a new political alignment and set of policy positions among the parties, or  new parties might emerge.  There is no guarantee that this will occur here.  Many thought that 2008 would produce a critical alignment and it did in some ways, one that seemed to benefit Republicans  more than Democrats, at least for now.  Longer term though the generational changes in the US that will see the Silent and Baby Boomers exit politically to be replaced by Gen Xers, Millennials, and post-Millennials (the Digitals) will reveal something that may not benefit either of the two major parties as they now stand.  Instead, the voters of these generation may be driving political changes because they are part of a large cohort of disaffected or p---ed off voters not happy with the status quo.

The Road to the White House: How Obama could lose it

From a political science perspective Obama is strategically positioned to win the presidency on November 6.  If all the polls are correct Obama has well positioned himself to win the critical 270 Electoral Votes to win the presidency, even if he were to lose the popular vote.  This split in the Electoral Vote and popular vote is a real possibility, but there are so many signs pointing to an Obama victory. He has a better ground game than Romney, he has registered more voters, delivered more early voters to the polls.  He has the demographic advantage with women and people of color.  All of this points to an Obama victory.

Yet for months I have said that Obama should not even be in this race.  The economy should have doomed him already.  Unemployment has ticked down, the GDP is up slightly, durable goods sales are better as is true also with home sales.  But unemployment is still high and past history suggests presidency almost always lose with numbers like this.  If this coming jobs report is bad–or at least spun as bad–Obama is in real trouble because he will not be able to explain away the economy over the last weekend where the news will key in on that.

Additionally, Obama’s major failure all along has been the missing narrative.  Obama has not had a rationale for reelection since at least back to 2010.  The Democrats were trounced in 2010 because they lacked a narrative and even today Obama too still lacks one.  “Forward” is meaningless.  Presidents needs to make the case for why they deserve four more years and Romney has correctly hammered Obama for a failure to articulate a vision for the future.

 A weak economy and no vision–this is a recipe to lose.  All that has kept Obama in the race is that Romney is a weak candidate.  The mistake of the first debate was that Obama made Romney look like a viable alternative.

But there is something else going on right now that is less political science and more intuition and observational.  Obama does have a lead in the critical swing states but that support may be soft and eroding.

Consider for example the October 28, 2012 Star Tribune poll that gives Obama merely a three point lead in the state.   Minnesota should never be a swing state and if it is Obama is in danger.  There are some reasons to thing the poll is accurate.  The Democratic-Republican makeup of the poll is 38%-33%, just about what I think it is in the state.  This should be cause for Obama to worry.  But the land line-cellphone split of 80%-20% probably under samples those who would support Obama.  And the news of the president consolidating support among independents also suggests that the president is doing well in the state.  Yet in a state where the Marriage amendment might pass, many if not most of those who support it might also vote for Romney, Obama might want to consider one more visit to the state before election day.

But nationally there are also worries for Obama.  The Washington Post reports the largest racial divide in the electorate since 1988.  Obama should worry.  Political scientists Charles Tien, Richard Nadeau, and Michael Lewis-Beck concluded that Obama lost five percentage points of the popular vote due to his race.  This time around that see him losing about 3 points.  They may be wrong.  Many working class whites voted for Obama begrudgingly in 2008 because of the economy.  Obama has had a hard time sealing the deal with them this time around.  It is possible that at the last minute that do not go for him.   Here is also some evidence that the waitress moms–working class moms without college degrees, are not as strong supporters this time around and may waiver.

So much of Obama’s 2012 strategy (as I have noted before) is reminiscent of the 1980 Carter strategy to make Reagan look like a nut.  Yet in the last 96 hours of the election the race went from a tie to a Reagan blowout as millions of voters changed their minds.  Reagan’s “Are you better off” question resonated, as did the reality of the continued Iranian hostage crisis pointed to a presidency that appeared to  lack leadership.  Voters liked Reagan as a person and the disgust with the status quo was so powerful that they opted for change over status quo.

There is no Iranian hostage crisis today.  People like Obama better as a person.  Much early voting has taken place.  But there are still 5% undecided voters in the swing states.  Hurricane Sandy if badly handled by the president could further dent his leadership and competency image.  And the economy and race are still factors.

Pure political science suggests today an Obama victory.  Political intuition tempers that.

Soccer Moms and Swing State Politics: The Missing Narratives

On the eve of the final presidential debate the race has come down to three predictable points–developing a compelling narrative to move soccer moms in the swing states to vote for Romney or Obama.  None of this should come as a surprise.

           

Politics is about the power of telling a compelling narrative about yourself, why you are running for office, what you hope to accomplish, and what you think the world looks like. It is your vision of yourself and the world that you seek to sell to others.

Everyone loves a good story or narrative. We all love a good movie, television show, joke, and perhaps a book if it has a good plot and story.

Politics is no different. To be successful in politics, candidates need a narrative.  For most candidates, simply explaining why they are running for office is not enough. A good political narrative has several components: (1) it explains why the candidate is running for us; (2) it is a narrative describing who the candidate is; (3) it must describe the candidate(s vision of the world; and (4) it must describe what the candidate wants to accomplish if elected(it is their platform.

Narratives are important. Back in 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush cast off the importance of narratives by stating that he did not need the (vision thing( to get reelected. He may not have had an explicit vision, but he certainly had a narrative. He had a narrative about winning the Cold War, creating a kinder and gentler society; one guided by a thousand points of light. Bush successfully convinced many Americans about a way to think about the world and him; they believed that by voting for him, they would get a particular type of government that would secure a specific view of the world without new taxes. Unfortunately for him, he did raise taxes. His story turned out to be a lie for some, and he lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton.

In 2008 Obama ran with a powerful narrative–change.  Change is a compelling  narrative, especially when you are the opposition. Gerald Pomper, one of my former political science professors at Rutgers University, once pointed out that Obama’s use of change as a slogan was similar to those of Eisenhower and Kennedy. Change seems to be the narrative to use when wanting to out incumbents or when voters are weary of the status quo.

      

The generational narrative of 2008 about change, then, captured age, technology, being cool, and being connected to Americans. Obama and the Democrats had a great narrative, but then 2010 happened. In a year where the economy still stunk, how did Obama defend his stimulus bill, financial reform, and health care changes? The situation was clear: they had no good narrative. I could not find a single compelling narrative for the Democrats in 2010 to defend what they had done.

But then a new narrative emerged–“It could have been worse” (had we not acted). This narrative grew out of comments from Obama and Tim Geithner, who talked about all the things they had done, such as bailing out the banks, GM, and so on. Had these steps not been taken, said Obama and Geithner, things would have been worse. I do not know about you, but for me “It could have been worse” hardly inspires voters or wins over swing voters. Still, that was their narrative, and Democrats lost big when Republicans ran on the narrative change in 2010.   

The basic problem Obama has had in this campaign is finding a narrative, vision, or argument for four more years. Romney is correctly criticizing Obama for his lack of vision for the future.  Obama‘s “forward” does not offer it, and throughout the debates and even his speech at the DNC one is still looking to hear the argument of Obama’s for why he deserves four more years and what he hopes to do.  Simply saying “I am not Romney” may not be enough.  What the 2012 campaign is offering is one candidate lacking a narrative versus another whose narrative of change is vacuous, disingenuous, or simply flawed.  However, the power of Romney’s narrative is identical to Reagan’s “Are you better off now” and Obama seems unable to articulate a Reaganesque “Morning in America” response. 

The missing narrative gets to the second factor dominating the closing days of the presidential election–appealing to soccer moms.  I have consistently argued for years that soccer moms are the single most influential swing voter in American politics.  Women are the majority of the electorate now and vote in greater percentages than men.  Women are more likely to be Democrats than men. Many former GOP women have left that party because of the issues the Republicans push now.  These women are not yet willing to call themselves Democrats and thus they are swing voters who  vote on issues different from men. Women were a critical constituency to Obama’s 2008 win but they stayed home in 2010.  How they vote will be critical in 2012.

While Democrats have enjoyed a gender gap for years, this year Obama appeared to be opening up a huge lead among women.  But then it began to shrink.  This is the main reason for the tightening in the polls since the first debate.  Soccer moms are shifting–not in large numbers, but enough to make a difference.  This is why Democrats are seizing on Romney’s “Binders of women” slip.  It is an effort to portray Romney as out of touch with women.  The reality is that the “binders” comment was probably simply a miss-statement that means nothing.   Yet Romney seemed like he did not get it when it comes to gender discrimination issues.  That was the real gaffe.  He failed to understand women still face workplace discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, being paid 76% that of men, glass ceilings, and other problems of being single parents or double standards.  Yet the problem for Obama is that he too has failed to describe an agenda appealing to women, and his failure to craft a narrative about the economy, student loans, education, and a host of other matters means that some soccer moms are unsure about who to vote for.

Finally, the problem of narratives and appealing to soccer moms comes down yet again to the swing states.  As it had been for the last several election cycles, the entire race comes down to about ten states that are swing and which will determine who gets to 270 electoral votes.  Thus, the race is simple–finding a narrative to move a handful of swing soccer moms in a handful of swing states.

Neither candidate seems overly appealing to the soccer mom. Neither offers a narrative or message that addresses their concerns or needs.  Despite the fact that women are the majority of the electorate American politics seems fixed in a masculine voice telling a story that is either absent or unappealing.

Reviewing the DNC: Obama’s Missed Opportunity and the Road Ahead

The two national conventions for the Republicans and Democrats are over.  Who had the better show and benefited the most form their rival performances?  The simple answer is that Obama came out better, but it was because of him.

The RNC and DNC were theaters in contrast that bore powerful similarities.  The RNC seemed less about Romney and more about its future stars Rubio, Christie, and Ryan.  The best night for the RNC was Wednesday with the VP nominee Ryan speaking.  Romney gave his best speech in a long time but it was still was far from a home run.  He ended his speech with the Reaganesque challenger of asking if we are better off now than four yers ago, forcing Obama and the Democrats to have to respond to it. 

Did Romney get a post-convention bump?  All indications are that there was little bump.  Polls suggested at most a one or so point bump.  Perhaps this was due to the fact that so few watched the convention.  Those who watched were the hardcore, those whose minds were probably already made up.  It is doubtful the undecided watched since there was little news or theater here. In fact, surveys suggest less that 5% of the public is undecided at this point, again showing that there was little potential for much bump.

The DNC had two great nights.  Ms. Obama and Mayor Castro were greater speakers for the president and for why the election mattered.  Ms. Obama did what Ms. Romney failed to do–put a more human face on her husband.  Castro rocked, clearly setting himself up for the future.  It was like watching a young Obama again.

Night two was Bill Clinton.  It was an amazing speech, even if long (as expected).  He made the clearest case again Romney and the Republicans and also seemed to give credit to his wife and perhaps help position here for 2016 should she decide to run.

Obama thus entered the third night after two previous evenings of great performances.  He merely needed to give his usual great speech to follow up and it would have been a hat trick for the DNC.  Obama failed.   The speech, in the words of Tom Brokaw, was “workmanlike.”  It was competently given but uninspiring.  Obama failed to do what he needed to do–to inspire and make the case for four more years.  He and the other Democrats made the case for why the Republicans should not be given a chance, but like the GOP and Romney, the case for electing him was not given.  Biden too was similarly flat.

Obama should thank Clinton, Castro, and his wife. Were it not for their strong performances the convention would not have helped him.  There are some indications of a small post-convention bump and some signs that his approval rating went up.  Whether this is real or merely temporary, and how the Friday unemployment numbers stunt the bump is yet to been seen.

Bottom line–the two conventions really did not change much.  Romney still has a personalty problem and Obama has a problem making the case for four more years.  Neither candidate is as inspiring as their future leaders seem to be, and both will get their bases out but not in an enthusiastic way.  Both candidates need narratives and reasons for their candidacies.  It is unlikely that either much moved swing voters.

Looking to the future, the DNC and RNC need to change to be relevant.  No one watches and they are not interesting.

Looking to the future, the number of swing states is shrinking.  Polls suggest Pennsylvania is out of reach for Romney and he seems to be pulling out his ads from there.  Ohio seems to be solid for now for Obama and this is really the state where the presidential fight is all about.  If we look at the approximately eight or so swing states in play, the two campaigns are looking to move a  few million (maybe five million or less voters).

A Reagan Redux Election?
One thing is clear about this election–it is a tale of two Reagans.  Romney is running Reagan’s 1980 campaign against Jimmy Carter–asking if we are better off now than four years ago.

Conversely, Obama is or needs to run Reagan’s 1984 campaign for re-election-declaring it’s morning in America.  He needs to look to the future and convince the voters that he has turned things around and that the country is moving in the right direction.  Given the cloudy economic news and uncertainty, this may be difficult to do.  However, “Morning in America “ is certainly a better message than “Foreward.”

And the Winner Is....Predicting the 2012 Presidential Election

Note: Several months ago I published an article predicting the 2012 presidential race.  On July 26, 2012 I was the keynote speaker at the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities Summer Conference/Annual Awards Dinner where I updated my prediction.  Here is a summary of my talk and prediction.

    Presidential public opinion polls are perplexing. Some polls put Obama ahead of Romney, some say the race is tightening. Others find Obama ahead in critical swing states while others describe swing voters as perhaps moving toward Romney. 

    Ignore all of these polls.  The only three numbers I think that are important are these:  10/10/270.   Let me explain.

    You should ignore the polls first because they are snapshots in time, more than almost four months before the November elections.  Too many things can happen–a collapsing economy, war in Syria, gas prices, campaign gaffes–which can impact the race in the next few months.  Ignore the polls also because they are national opinion polls reflecting aggregate opinion across the county.  As Florida in the 2000 presidential election taught us, one can win the popular vote in a presidential election (as Al Gore did) but still lose the presidency in the Electoral College.  What matters most is winning 270 electoral votes.  The presidency is a battle not across 50 states but in 50 states.  In contrast to the Republican presidential contest that has turned less from winning individual states than to amassing delegates, the general election in November is really one of winning enough electoral votes to reach 270–a majority of the 538 electoral votes at stake.

    What complicates the race to 270 is that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the remaining 48 states plus the District of Columbia award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis.  Whichever candidate wins a plurality of the popular vote in a particular state wins all of its electoral votes.  Thus the general election is both about winning states and amassing delegates.

    Why is all of this important?  Simply the presidential race is over in 40 states.  There are some states that are reliably Democratic or Republican.  No one seriously thinks a Republican is going to win New York and even though Mitt Romney is its former governor, neither he nor any other Republican has a prayer to win Massachusetts.  Conversely, even though Romney’s recent bad news was that he could not prevail in Alabama and Mississippi, the good news for him and Republicans is that no Democrat is going to win there.  The race for the presidency is simply over in these states and Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California might as well do something else besides casting presidential votes in November.

    Barack Obama is reasonably assured of winning California (55 electoral votes), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29),  Oregon (7),  Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington state (12) and Washington, D.C. (3).  And despite protests from Republicans that Minnesota (10) is competitive, that is a fairy tale. If Minnesota is a swing state then it is truly over for Obama. Don’t look for the candidates or TV ads to be here come October. Thus, Obama starts with 15 states (plus D.C.) and 196 electoral votes.

    Conversely, Mitt Romney or any other Republican nominee is reasonably assured of winning Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3).  Moreover, it was luck in 2008 that Obama won Indiana (11) and that is not in the cards this year.  This is a total of 21 states and 170 electoral votes. 

    Initially, this means a total of 14 states, with 172 electoral votes, are potentially in play. These swing states will determine the outcome of the election and within them, swing voters–roughly 10-15% of the voters–will make the difference.  Thus, the battle for the presidency is really over what a handful of swing voters do in 14 swing states.  These states are:  Arizona (11), Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15) Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10).

    Now some of the states are debatable as swing.  It is a long shot for Democrats to win Arizona even with a strong Hispanic turnout.  In hopes of winning North Carolina Democrats are holding their convention in Charlotte.  But there is no evidence that there is a convention bump; look to the Republican National Convention in Minnesota in 2008 as rendering North Carolina a long shot.  Similarly, Republicans consistently see Pennsylvania as one that they can win, but the Keystone State, as well as Michigan, remain more Democratic than Republican.  The last time the GOP won Pennsylvania was in 1984 with Ronald Reagan. In the case of Michigan, Republicans running against the auto bailout seem to be a losing strategy.  Thus, the original 14 state list could be reduced to ten, leaving Obama with 232 electoral votes, and a Republican nominee with 196.  This leaves 110 electoral votes in contest.

    These states are: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10).

    If pressed I could even make the argument that it is over in Wisconsin (Obama) and Missouri (Romney) but will not.

    In these swing states the percentage of undecideds ranges from 10% in Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Iowa, and Missouri, to about 7 percent in Nevada, with the overall undecideds in the country at 10%. Thus this is how I arrive at 10/10/270–Ten percent of the voters in ten states determine who gets to 270.

    Now the question is who the undecideds are and what will move them. Politics is about moving marginals (swing voters) (politics as a bar fight) Consider who these voters are and the issues that concern them. 

    First they are the unemployed, struggling middle class affected by the economy gas prices, and unemployment. These are the white working class. Bad news for Obama is that he does not connect with them. Good news for Obama, they also do not connect with Romney.

    The second group of swing voters include moderate women concerned by recent debates over reproductive rights, birth control, and family issues. These are the soccer moms. The swing to the right has alienated many of these women from the GOP and Obama and the Democrats seem to be enjoying an unusually large gender gap this year.

    The third group of swing voters are young people under thirty. It is odd to call them swing voters especially since four years ago they came out strong for Obama. This time around they are nowhere near as excited by him as they were in 2008, mostly because of economic issues and the failure of Obama really to connect with them.. These voters should be part of Obama’s base but because of their unpredictable turnout it is apt to call them swing voters.  If they do show up they will vote for Obama.

    Potentially these three groups and issues overlap; making it difficult to decide which is the most important or will tip the balance in the election.  But assume for minute that this presidential election is similar to many others in that it is a economic referendum on the incumbent–then it is the economy that is the main issue.  How is the economy doing in these swing states?  It is a mixed bag, with unemployment levels stagnating along with economic growth.  Moreover, neither candidate seems to be doing a good job coming up with an election narrative except for saying “I’m not Obama” or “I’m not Romney.”

    Having said all that, here is how I think the remaining states are tipping now.

    Add to Obama’s 232 the following states: Colorado (9), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), and Wisconsin (10).  This is 34 more electoral votes that gets him to 268, two short of the necessary 270.

    Add to Romney’s 196 :  Missouri (10), Virginia (13).  This is 23 more electoral votes and gets him to 219,still 51 short.

    Three states, Florida (29), Iowa (6), Ohio (18), total 53 electoral votes, and they are too close to call at this time. Romney needs all three states to win, Obama one state to win.

    Unless this election is a replay of 1980 where disgust for the status quo and Carter was so strong that it tipped millions of swing voters in the last 72 hours to vote for Reagan, I do not see Romney presenting winning all three of these states.  Obama wins at least one of these states, thereby ensuring his re-election.  Obama wins with 274-321 electoral votes.