Barack Obama’s landslide victory last Tuesday was bad news for Republicans thinking about the next four to eight years, but the nature of the win may be even more troubling for the GOP looking further into the future. The McCain campaign made a concerted effort to appeal to the Republican “base,” but exit polls suggest that the “base” might not be enough anymore, even assuming it remains loyal enough in the face of Democratic courting of Religious voters. Barack Obama not only performed well with Democratic stalwarts in urban areas and in the Black and Jewish communities, but he also won by large margins in the fastest growing segments of the population. In the past, different segments of the Latino community have supported both Democratic and Republican candidates, but this November over two-thirds of Hispanic Americans voted for Obama. The younger the voter, the better Obama did, with two-thirds of 18-29 year-olds voting his way.
The country is experiencing growth in almost all the Democratic demographics, trending urban and towards minorities. Obama will likely pick up an electoral vote in Nebraska because of his popularity in Omaha. Decades ago most young people voted for Reagan, and as those voters grew up they continued to vote for the GOP, giving the party its many years of political dominance. If the young people voting Democratic today continue to vote the way they do, then the Democratic party may be able to turn the tables on the Republicans for the foreseeable future.
As Laurie Goodstein examines in her New York Times article, "Obama Made Gains Among Younger Evangelical Voters" Democrats not only used changing demographics to turn so many red states blue, but they also enjoyed unprecedented success in traditionally Republican religious segments of the population. Obama doubled Kerry’s showing among 18 to 29 year-old evangelicals, and over-performed Kerry by almost the same margin with evangelicals age 30 to 44. The Republican party has become dependent on the Religious Right, but if younger evangelicals fail to fall in line with their parents and go on to form the mythical “Religious Left,” the Republican party’s future is up in the air. If Republicans can stop the bleeding, the most they can hope for in 2010 or 2012 is to hold onto their respectable minorities, and if current trends continue, the Republican party of today will soon be obsolete. Republicans are smart enough to know that they need to change their tactics to appeal to new voters, and that all the Sarah Palins in the world working to “fire up the base” won’t help if the base is outnumbered and shrinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Perry, your post is especially interesting to me since I happen to be one of the young evangelical voters who went blue in the 2008 election. Now, I'm pretty liberal, so it's not too surprising that my vote went to Obama--it would have gone to whatever Democratic candidate was on the ticket. Still, I have encountered young evangelicals who, in spite of having social conservatism, voted for Obama. Obviously, his ability to inspire young adults was key in this election. However, I'm not so sure if the Republican's losses of the 2008 election can be directly tied to young evangelicals straying from the conservative ticket. I think, ultimately, for many Americans who may be more predisposed to the Republican party but voted for Obama, this election came down to the economy. Still, the fact that Obama did so well among Evangelicals may signify a new generation of Christian voters who, if they aren't necessarily comprising the Religious Left, are at least becoming more moderate then their parents were.
As the GOP is decreasing in voter popularity, it is interesting to look at why in regard to the recent election. First, are voters fully aware of the positions candidates have on issues? Second, are voters aware of the amount of debt each candidate would have added to the national debt? Finally, are voters aware that hope and change are arbitrary in reality? With those three questions, I find it interesting that this blog post compares younger voters of the past favoring Reagan, while younger voters of the present have favored Obama.
The GOP base is shrinking. That is for sure. But why? Is it because the leaders of the Republican Party are being realistic? I believe so. The Republican Party has realized that the socialist plans for healthcare and the increased amount of governmental intervention proposed by the Democratic Party and Obama will only move us away from the American dream and freedom. The free-markets will become even more regulated, insurance companies will likely lose investors as profits dive from socialized healthcare, yet hope and change will be there!
Maybe it's time for the younger generation of American voters to look at what is pragmatic, rather than what is compassionate. Obama will not be able to pull off all of his plans without bankrupting this nation even more than our current President Bush. But as long as hope and change are in the air, I suppose that will not matter to them. I guess no one ever said hope and change are positive terms.
While there is some truth to Perry's post, I tend to fall more in line with Tyler's thinking. I believe that idealism played a huge role in this election. Obama's message was one of hope and change, which appeals to idealistic younger voters. Many college students are not yet completely independent—they receive some degree of financial support from their parents. In addition, many lack first-hand experience with the realistic issues facing our nation. Studies have historically shown that there is a correlation between age and political ideology: younger voters are more likely to be liberal but become more conservative with age. A large part of this phenomenon is indeed idealism and lack of real-world experience. Therefore, it is not surprising that Obama won the youth vote. It is notable that he won by such a significant margin and certainly a cause for concern for the GOP, but voters ages 18-29 usually do vote Democratic. I think a more appropriate concern is whether or not Obama will be able to live up to many of his idealistic promises. If he does not deliver adequate "hope" and "change," there could be an interesting shift among younger voters in 2012, voters who may have become disillusioned with their choice for president.
Just as nations and empires wax and wane, I believe that the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States rise and fall continuously as the political climate changes. Perry’s post raises the question of why younger evangelical voters supported Barack Obama and what this means for the future of the Republican Party. Although dissent within the traditionally Republican evangelical constituency might be interpreted as a sign of weakness in the Republican Party itself, I believe that it is merely a signal of evolution in politics. Obama’s election is a breath of fresh air in what many see as a stagnating political climate, however, change does not make a long-standing political party obsolete. Reagan proved that even the conservative party could pursue idealistic goals and appeal to the youth. The ability to adapt was one of the principles the American government was founded on, and I believe our political parties will continue changing and taking on new forms as necessary. I hope that the Republican Party will learn by Obama’s example and embrace the quintessential American ideal of political change.
Don't start thinking that Barack Obama has completely rewritten the electoral landscape.
I'll grant you that he managed to appeal to an unusually wide demographic group, but the credit for that is due largely to the environment, not the man himself.
John McCain ran in what could be considered the toughest race for a Republican ever in history (perhaps with the exception of the election after the Great Depression). The economy wasn't (well, still isn't) in good shape, we're facing constant threats of terrorism, and the Iraq war spending has reached an all-time high. The Democrats and Republicans in Congress can't cooperate, and everything is being blamed on Bush and the Republicans (but that is a subject for another time and place).
You can't start generalizing and proclaiming that the GOP base is "shrinking." Could it be? Sure, it's possible. But rarely has anything in politics been accomplished quickly, and given the fact that the GOP base was solidly intact for the past several elections, I highly doubt that Obama has suddenly swept the GOP base off its feet. It's not that pliable and it would be a mistake to think that any group-- whether they identify with Democrats or Republicans--could be won over by words so easily. If you want to talk about the shifting nature of the GOP base, show some statistics that prove that it's happened over time. And since there are no statistics to back that up, you may have to wait several election cycles to see if that claim has any weight.
By the way, I take issue with the statement that "If Republicans can stop the bleeding, the most they can hope for in 2010 or 2012 is to hold onto their respectable minorities." That's assuming that conditions stay exactly the same as they are now--and I assure you they won't. People may find that Obama's policies aren't quite what they expected and may let him know that (positively or negatively) in the midterm elections or even in the next presidential election (it's exhausting that we're already thinking about the next one!). The most important aspect of politics is that there is no such thing as a "done deal," and I worry that supporters of both parties have fallen into the trap of believing that there is.
Elizabeth brings up a lot of points I feel that I agree with. George W Bush was perhaps the most influential element of Barack Obama's campaign. It's easy to vote for change when the country is experiencing a war in Iraq, an economic depression, and a looming energy crisis. During the 2008 election, the Democratic and Republican bases were relatively strong; it was the undecided and independent voters who turned out in large numbers in support of change-- Obama.
However, I do agree with Perry that "the Republican party of today will soon be obsolete." A large, militaristic, neo-conservative government was relatively popular when Americans viewed the "War on Terror" as their number one threat. As this country enters its current financial crisis and is convinced the War in Iraq was a complete mistake, the policies and practices of the Bush Administration will not resonate with Americans' perceived notions of what type of leadership this nation needs. The Republicans will need to drastically change the face of their party if they ever hope to return to the White House.
Post a Comment