Stephen T. Gheen: It Was . . . Was It?

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Stephen T. Gheen

A multitude of articles has appeared to explain the Democratic Party’s success in the 2006 mid term elections. From TPJ’s perspective, most of what is being written looks at a particular slice of the polling to reach overly broad conclusions. For example: the articles below, with their central thesis, have appeared:

Democratic gains may signal political shift. But to where? Despite the victory, voters aren't eager to align with either party, a poll suggests

In an Election Day survey, Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen found that 53 percent of voters said the Republicans didn't share their values, and 47 percent said the Democrats didn't share theirs. "There's a strong sense that the two parties are out of touch with the mainstream," Schoen said.

Thus the country enters the next two years with no dominant ideological or partisan consensus. How voters align for the next era could hinge first on how Democrats govern in Congress, and then on the 2008 presidential election.

Given the rapid changes under way in American society -- where party loyalty is a quaint notion for many, and large blocs such as independents and Hispanics swing from Republican to Democratic -- it's unlikely that either major party can build a durable majority simply with partisan appeals to its base supporters, as both have tried to do in the past.

Election Upheaval Led by Youth Vote

Democrats rode a nationwide wave of fervid rejection of the Bush-Cheney policies on Iraq, the economy, and the disastrous "war on terror" to a 29-seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and a 51-49 dominance of the U.S. Senate, as of Nov. 10. The electorate's anger was taken out nationally against Republicans, with nearly 79 million Americans voting—a 40.4 % turnout of eligible voters, the largest turnout in a midterm election in 24 years. This turnout was spearheaded by an increase of 2 million voters in the 18-29 age group—a bloc which is now poised to become the most important force in U.S. political life.

Upbeat Rove says GOP setback only temporary

The theory is this: The building's infrastructure is quite sound. It was bad luck and seasonal shifts in the winds — complacent candidates combined with an ill-timed Mark Foley page scandal — that blew out the walls. But the foundation is fine: "The Republican philosophy is alive and well and likely to re-emerge in the majority in 2008."

From CQ Weekly: Swing Voters Change Course

Far from flying a banner of a Liberal Restoration, the Democrats succeeded this year in what’s better described as the Push-back of the Pragmatists. They won their majorities by proving they can play in the middle of the political spectrum and the middle of the country.

If nothing else, they have successfully — if perhaps only temporarily — re-engineered the nation’s electoral paradigm by laying bare the tired and trite distinctions between Republican “red” and Democratic “blue.” This election turned, as will the next one in 2008, on self-described independent voters who predominate in “swing” districts and states. Last week, they turned away from President Bush and his GOP allies in Congress, in search of something else.

The beneficiaries of that turn this year are the Democrats. The question for both parties now is, what do these independent and generally moderate voters want from their government in Washington? The party that answers that question best will have a leg up on the 2008 election for president and future control of Congress.

What is one to believe? In our estimation, the best view of this election is to analyze the changes that occurred from the 2004 General Election. TPJ’s conclusion is that the 2006 election result was driven by several forces, both powerful and subtle.

The analysis below is taken from the 2004 and 2006 exit polls. The 2004 results appear in the left column and the 2006 exit poll results appear in the right column.

First, who voted?

The turnout was some 40%, generally 20%+ less than in the 2004 election, as would be expected. But, 40%+ represents some 79 Million American voters.

The political affiliation of those voting in 2006 was strikingly similar to 2004.

As noted in the days following the election, Independent voters increased their support of the Democratic Party by some +8%. It was a dramatic shift, representing some 1.58 Million Americans shifting their allegiance.

Yet, there are some subtle changes that represent important undercurrents. First, while the Democratic share of all voters remained at 38% from 2004 to 2006, Democrats picked up about 3%, 900,000, of self-identified Democrats. In short, some Democrats returned home to their party. Second, the pre-election discussion that Republicans may sit out the election was, to a minor extent, true. The Republican share of the electorate fell by some 2%, from 38% in 2004 to 36% in 2006.

While each Party generally held their base, the combined effect is that Democrats received some 2.4 Million more votes in 2006. In Districts that had been held by Republicans for a decade, the shift was obviously enough, in some cases just barely enough.

Second, who were these Independent voters who voted Democratic and the Democrats who returned home to their Party?

The exit polls suggest they were largely White Males. The gender breakdown was generally similar between both elections, but White Men increased by 3%; from 36% to 39%, of the voting universe. White Women and minorities comprised slightly less of the 2006 voting population than in 2004.

White Males who turned out in higher proportion in 2006, increased their support for the Democrats by +6%. White Women increased support by +4%. The effect cannot be underestimated. For example, assume that 79 Million voters voted in both 2004 and 2006. By Gender and Party support in 2004, Democrats would have received 25.39 Million White votes (men and women). In 2006, based upon Gender distribution and Party support, Democrats received 29.03 Million White votes, reflecting an increase in support of some 3.64 Million.

In contrast, assuming that 79 Million voted in both elections, the number of Non-White Men was virtually identical between the two elections, 5.37 Million in 2004 and 5.33 Million in 2006. Proportionally, there was a drop in Non-White Women from 2004 to 2006; 7.80 Million in 2004 and 6.77 Million in 2006. (Democrats should be asking what elections they could have won had non-White voters voted in the same numbers or above 2004 levels.)

Third, what “block” of largely White Men voted for the Democrats in 2006?

The truthful answer is that there is no clearly distinguishable “block,” at least not one identifiable from the portions of the exit polls that have been released. The exit poll results hint that Democrats attracted White Men across a wide range of ideologies and socio-economic groups.

The Democratic advantage also crossed ideological lines as the chart immediately below depicts. Dems were up +4% among Liberals, +4% among moderates and even + 3% among conservatives.

Progressives who claim that they won the victory are right. Democrats picked up +4% in Liberals from 2004 to 2006. Karl Rove is right, to an extent. Republicans held their conservative base, but it sustained a dent. Conservatives turned out at decreased levels in 2006 and Democrats gained +3% among Conservative voters who did turn out. Time Magazine, who published an article attributing the Democratic victory to Moderate voters who left their propensity in the last decade to vote for Republicans, is right. Moderates were not only a larger share of all voters, but Democrats performed +4% better in 2006 compared to 2004.

The electorate in 2006 trended to older Americans compared to 2004. Note should be given to the fact that the percentage of voters 44 or under dropped by -9% from 2004 while voters over 44 years increased by a generally corresponding +8%. The trend towards the Democratic Party extended across all age groups as the chart below depicts. Democrats won every age group in 2006. In 2004, Democrats won only one age group and tied in one grouping.

Democrats won voters in all but one class of education, tying in College Graduates. The dichotomy exemplified is fascinating. Democrats dramatically increased their percentage of vote among the least education voters and the most educated voters; No High School +15%, H.S. Graduate +6% and Postgrad Study +6% compared to those with Some College +4% and College Graduate +3%.

Democrats scored gains in all income groups, but there are significant differences from 2004. In 2004 Democrats held majorities in the three lowest wage stratas; not winning any group above $50,000 a year. In 2006, Democrats won all wage groups up to those earning $100,000 a year. Within the stratas, the percentage increase in Democratic Party performance between 2004 and 2006 rises as income increased. While Democrats did not win a majority in any strata above $100,000, Democrats improved their percentage particularly among the richest, +9%.

Fourth, where did the Democratic vote increase originate?

The geographic patterns of voting in 2004 and 2006 were virtually identical. It is perhaps simple logic that where Democrats turned out in greater numbers, they had more Congressional victories. Carefully note that Democrats were up +6% in the Northeast, where Democrats picked up seats throughout the region.

Democrats gained voters in every geographic community setting, as the chart below demonstrates, particularly urban areas; + 6%, but the rural areas were not far behind, +4%.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, why did voters peel away from Republicans and vote Democratic?

The short answer is; it was everything.

The war in Iraq was a central issue, but not the leading issue. While the exit poll asked a slightly different question in 2004 as compared to 2006, the chart below demonstrates that public support for the war has fallen rather dramatically in the past two years. Approval of the decision to go to war in 2004 was 52%, in 2006 only 42% approved of the war. While the percentage of Democrats and Republicans who support the war roughly remained the same, the fact that the war became unpopular among a majority of Americans was devastating to Republican support.

DECISION TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ 2004				U.S. WAR IN IRAQ 2006
TOTAL	Dem	Rep		TOTAL	Dem	Rep
Strongly Approve (29%)	10%	89%		Strongly Approve (19%)	12%	87%
Somewhat Approve (23%)	31%	68%		Somewhat Approve (23%)	23%	75%
Somewhat Disapprove (15%)	70%	28%		Somewhat Disapprove (16%)	62%	36%
Strongly Disapprove (32%)	88%	9%		Strongly Disapprove (39%)	87%	11%

Some 67% percent of those who voted felt the war was extremely or very important. Only 10% thought the war was not important at all.

The percentage of voters who no longer believed the Republican mantra that the war in Iraq was making America safer expanded by some +7% from 2004 to 2006.

It was a myriad of other issues as well, but the economy and corruption issues stand out. These issues were tested in the 2006 exit poll, but no matching question in 2004. If 67% believed the war was extremely or very important, the economy was at the top of the list with 82% who believe that issue to be extremely or very important. The next highest issue was corruption issues, 74%; then terrorism; 72%, the war in Iraq; 67%, illegal immigration; 62%, values issues; 57% and the trial of Saddam; 31%.

The importance of the economy as a driving force in the ultimate result should not be underestimated. One question asked in 2006, but not in 2004, is telling. The vast majority of Americans feel they are economically treading water or are falling behind.

What it was; a rejection of conservative leaders, principles and policies.

All of these issues created a perception among a growing block of Americans that their future and that of America is in jeopardy. This question demonstrates the point. A full 68%, nearly identical to the view of the family financial situation, believe that life for the next generation will not improve or will be worse than today.

With a dour outlook for their personal situation, opposed to the war in large measure, watching a Republican Party growingly increasingly corrupt and losing hope for the future, a sizeable block of voters were dissatisfied with Republican leadership. Bush’s favorable ratings fell from 53% to 39% in a mere two years.

Bush’s job approval ratings were equally depressed.

The perception of Republican Congressional leaders was even less:

Bush’s projection of conservative principles and policies, particularly the failing occupation of Iraq, were viewed as failing. After some six years of Bush and Republicans promising victory in Iraq, better economic days for Americans and principled leadership, the voting public came to the conclusion that conservative leadership and polices had failed and the outlook for the future was not bright.

That dire global view drove the change to Democrats. In TPJ’s estimation, it explains why small groups of conservatives, larger groups of moderate independents and Democrats who returned to their Party all voted Democratic. The White Males, largely older, educated and financially secure, who had been one of the backbones of the Republican Party broke towards the Democrats.

It created the political tsunami that changed the balance of power in the Senate, the US House, governorships and in many legislative bodies across the United States. In governing, Democrats would do well to remember what brought them to power.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Stephen T. Gheen is the publisher of ThePoliticalJunkies.net.