Vic Fingerhut Campaigns

 

 

A “Transformative” Election?  

By Vic Fingerhut 

 

The journalistic coverage of past days has been flooded with commentary describing the 2008 presidential election as “transformative.” 

The meaning attributed to that term has been varied, and quite frankly, often obscure and garbled. Most widely, the “transformative” aspect has been interpreted to underline the historical uniqueness, indeed, significance, of the first election of an African-American president. 

And no one can take issue with that. 

But — beyond that — what does a “transformative” election really mean in terms of the enduring frame and structure of American politics? 

 

To begin, this isn’t the former Yugoslavia. 

And, while much of the world will see this election in largely ethnic (i.e.) racial terms, the fact is that (largely traditional) party identification — not race — is the driving force in the votes of 90 percent of White voters.   When all the votes are counted, it appears that Obama will get over nine-in-ten self-identified Democrats, and McCain will get almost nine-in-ten self-identified Republicans.  

Ethnicity, while very important, has not been the exclusive point of division in American politics, even in this election.  

The two largest demographic voting groups in America — White Protestants and White Catholics– were both divided this year along lines not very different from their normal ranges…and clearly within the ranges found in past years — whether they were very good election years for the Republicans (Ike in 1952 and 1956, or Reagan in 1980 or 1984), or good years for Democrats (like LBJ in 1964). 

Obama, of course, will receive the overwhelming majority of the African-American vote, but that is nothing new for a Democratic presidential candidate…and there is little reason to believe that Hillary Clinton (or John Edwards) would not have received nearly similar percentages — although the African-American turnout undoubtedly would not have been nearly as large (nor as enthusiastic) as it is for Obama. 

And this is clearly a great year for the Democrats at other levels as well, not unlike the first post-Watergate election of 1974 (or like 1994 for the Republicans), with the victorious party rolling up new margins…particularly in the lower House. 

 

This is all very significant, but not necessarily “transformative.” 

The key question for a “transformative” election is whether the election represents a dramatic and significant shift in the party identifications and long-time partisan loyalties of Americans. 

This has clearly not yet occurred. 

Such a transformation, if it occurs, will be the result — not the fact — of an Obama election. 

It will be seen in whether an Obama Administration (or Administrations) will increase the percentage of Democrats in the electorate…and re-shape the distribution of relative party strength in the nation…and, by so doing, re-shape the nation’s politics. 

“Transformative” elections do occur — such as FDR’s — which transformed a nation that had been largely Republican since the end of the Civil War (only two Democratic presidents – Cleveland and Wilson) into a predominantly Democratic nation – in which the Democrats would win control of the House of Representatives for 29 of the next 31 elections and thus control the House for 58 of the 62 years between 1932 to 1994. 

It is easy to forget that fundamentally “transformative” elections have been widely (and falsely) trumpeted in many elections of the recent past, whether it was Peggy Noonan’s “Reagan Revolution” or the “transformation” of American politics widely proclaimed in the late ’sixties and early ’seventies, linking the rhetoric and early political successes of the “new politics” of (Eugene) McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern. More recently, and even more dramatically, was the similar hailing of Bill Clinton’s election (in 1992) being “transformative,” indeed, the very basis of a “new Democratic coalition.” The “new Democratic coalition” proclaimed on the immediate heels of Bill Clinton’s 1992 election was a particularly strange (but amazingly widespread) interpretation and analysis based, as it was, on Clinton’s mere 43 percent share of the vote.  

In fact, contrary to the widespread consensus of the time, the Clinton years actually proved to be a negative for Democratic strength.  The Republicans had not won two successive House elections since the (pre-Depression) elections of 1926 and 1928, but beginning in 1994 — the first off-year congressional elections held after Clinton became president — the Republicans won and the Democrats lost — no less than five successive House elections (1994-2004)! Some enlarged Democratic coalition… This is not to say that Obama’s election will not ultimately emerge as a “transformative”
one — one that will indeed build a new, enlarged Democratic Party ID advantage inthe electorate. 

It’s just important to point out that if it happens, it will happen in the coming few years…it hasn’thappened yet. 

 

 

And the elements for such a transformation under an Obama presidency are there. 

As in 1932, today’s economic situation (though not yet as serious as the early 1930s) has significantly weakened the GOP brand – opening up new party building opportunities forthe Democrats. 

Additionally, the flow of young voters is often a key source (and indicator) of new party strength,  and Obama has certainly shown his muscle in this area (much as Reagan’s strength among young voters in the early 1980s created a significant number of long-term GOP identifiers among voters who entered the electorate in that decade). 

Whether Obama’s personal popularity will be transferred into enduring loyalties to the Democratic Party (as FDR’s was) remains to be seen. 

 

While American history has had only few examples of fundamentally transformative elections producing major shifts in party identification (the most dramatic one of the 20^th century being the Roosevelt revolution), what evidence we have suggests that such transformations involve not just the temporary or even the enduring (like Ike’s) popularity of a national leader, but actions that affect the day-to-day lives of millions of persons. 

Ending slavery and the war to save the Union (for Lincoln) created the GOP dominance of the 1860-1930 period…and the vast changes of the New Deal generated the 15-point Democratic margin in party identification that underwrote the long-term Democratic dominance of 20^th century American politics. 

The historical evidence thus strongly suggests that dramatic and widely-felt action in such critical areas as health care or jobs, for example, by an Obama presidency — rather than his election in itself — will be the determining factor of whether the 2008 presidential election is truly a “transformative” election in the enduring and serious meaning of the term. 

(Updated May 2008) 

Don’t Ignore Democratic strengths, particularly among the swing voters you need to win in 2008.

While so much of the attention of Democrats in Congress (and elsewhere) is focused (rightly or wrongly) on the War in Iraq, the simple fact of the matter is that the critical swing voters we need to win (in both 2007 and 2008) have a considerably more pro-Democratic valence on a variety of other issues!!

While there is a widespread view that the war in Iraq has been a big mistake — among almost all Democrats, many Independents, and some Republicans — there is less clarity, particularly among swing voters, about which party is the most capable of ending the war in the best way possible.

(If there is a moral imperative to do the most effective thing possible to end the war, then there is an associated moral imperative to do the most effective things possible to elect a Democratic President and Congress in 2008.)

And to do this we must avoid the mistake (that is in the process of being made) of overlooking the issues that have the most pro-Democratic valence among the critical swing voters in almost every constituency throughout the country, including urban, suburban and rural; blue collar industrial and service…and white collar professional, and so on.

And the data is remarkably consistent (and clear) here about what those issue complexes are.

They include (but are not limited to):

– dealing with health care issues in a way that helps regular working and middle-income families — and not the giant drug companies,

– protecting social security and Medicare for our parents and grandparents,

– standing up for American jobs against the big multi-national corporations who want to outsource our jobs to low wage workers overseas and then bring in those products from abroad — and take more jobs from American working families,

– standing up for us — and our loved ones — at the workplace.

 You should make sure to include the words: “working people or working families” in almost everything you say, every press release, every TV or radio spot.

 Failing to do that gives away 25-30  points (unnecessarily) in believability to your Republican opponent.

 For example, when asked “which party is best for handling the economy?”, swing voters say the “Democrats” — but by only a modest 3-5 point margin.

 When you ask the same voters, “which  party is best for handling the economy in a way that helps ordinary working families?” the Democratic margin jumps to 30 points — a gain of 25 points.

 Think about that when you design your radio or TV spots….

 You can also call Vic for a free half hour consultation when thinking about your media campaign and how you are going to frame your overall campaign message(s).

 Vic can be reached at 202 276 0858, or leave a note on the website.

 Good luck!!