Demography is destiny
The Brookings Institute November 8 hosted a discussion of the 2018 midterm election results. The panel consisted of Elaine Kamarck, founding director of the Center for Effective Public Management, William A. Galston, Ezra K. Zilkha Chair of Governance Studies, Molly E. Reynolds, Fellow of Governance Studies, and Vanessa Williamson, Fellow of Governance Studies. Panelists discussed voter demographics driving the election, with particular attention to motives, identity, and demographic divides.
Voter turnout in 2018 was unusual for a midterm election: 113 million Americans showed up, turnout of approximately 49%. This was the largest percentage for a midterm election since 1966; the all-time record set in 1914 was 51%. Midterms generally feature low voter turnout. It was 36% in 2014. Public interest and mobilization have clearly increased.
Galston cautioned that increased turnout was not the result of a predicted Blue Wave. The case of Florida demonstrates this. In 2014, 5.9 million Floridians turned out for the gubernatorial election, leading to Republican Governor Scott’s victory by less than 1%. This year, 8.1 million turned out, with Republican Ron DeSantis apparently winning the governorship by less than 1%. We are witnessing dramatic mobilization on both sides of the aisle. Reynolds pointed out that typically lagging Democratic turnout is explained by demographics (e.g., young vs. old voters).
Was this a referendum on Donald Trump? Were people voting for or against the President’s administration or policy issues? Williamson highlighted that partisan identification is a stronger predictor of voter choice now than in the past. This year’s race was about mobilization more than persuasion. This is why the country is witnessing a strong fight over the rules of the game. Battles over the democratic process were seen in Georgia, Texas, and particularly Florida, which in a referendum restored felons’ voting rights. Who is eligible and allowed to vote is critical. Passage of Florida’s Amendment 4 will significantly impact future elections, as one in five African American Floridians was previously disenfranchised.
Midterm elections often serve as a rebuke to the party in the White House, a well-studied phenomenon that many scholars view as favoring increased bipartisanship in the federal government. Kamarck saw this election as an vote for division, rather than bipartisanship. She cited differences in the Presidential and Congressional press conferences following the election. While lip service was paid in both to bipartisanship, main points of common ground were limited to “meat and potato” issues such as infrastructure and drug pricing regulation. Even so, the President threatened the prospects of bipartisan infrastructure legislation if the Democrats continue the Mueller investigation and pursue other oversight.
Galston agreed, noting that the Republicans gained seats in the Senate. That gives Majority Leader McConnell a cushion to act on his agenda of approving Republican appointments to executive and judicial positions rather than passing legislation. House Minority Leader Pelosi does not favor impeachment, but Reynolds saw House oversight as a dominating theme moving forward. She argued that Democrats will focus on the President’s tax returns, foreign governments paying to stay at Trump hotels, conflicts of interest among Cabinet Secretaries, and the recent family separation crisis at the border .
Healthcare was the most prominent policy issue in the election, featured in nearly 50% of all campaign ads and 60% of pro-Democratic ads. Democrats emphasized the failed Republican repeal of Obamacare. Pelosi believes coverage for pre-existing conditions handed Democrats victory in the House. Republican governors campaigned on preserving protections for patients with pre-existing conditions, even in states where the Attorneys General joined the lawsuit to overturn the ACA. Galston pointed to exit polls, in which 41% of voters chose healthcare as the single most important issue, trailed by immigration at approximately 30%.
Healthcare was the most prominent campaign issue, featured in nearly 50% of all campaign ads and 60% of pro-Democrat ads.
Reynolds added that different policy issues have differing significance among various demographics. Immigration remains one of the most important issues to white voters. Galston focused on young voters, whose turnout increased by 75% compared to four years ago. Gun control was a critical issue within this demographic. This is due to the role of formative generational experiences as a young adult on lifelong political views. For millennials, mass shootings, many of which have taken place on school campuses, are a defining generational experience. Since young voters are the least likely to turn out, Galston predicts that this issue will only truly head the agenda as millennials enter adulthood.
Millennials were not the only emergent demographic in the election. Kamarck noted that this election featured resurgence in women’s political participation. An overwhelming number of women candidates ran for office and won. The substantial partisan gap among white women is one important explanation for Democratic gains in suburban districts across the nation. The #MeToo Movement provided the context for these gains. Kamarck cautioned that these women are more Independents than Democrats. Reynolds attributed Democratic victories in the suburbs to the role of white, college-educated women, who are firmly entrenched in the Democratic camp. Galston recalled that the partisan gap between white, college-educated men and women is 24 points. Panelists also noted the urban vs. rural gap as one to watch, likely to be important in future elections.
The gender gap between white, college-educated men and women is a significant 24 points.
The panel ended with discussion on the future of the Democratic Party. There was no real Blue Wave, as progressives Andrew Gillum in Florida and Beto O’Rourke in Texas lost. Some “meat and potato” Democrats made gains in the Midwest, winning governorships in Wisconsin and Michigan. Galston added that Republicans did not make major gains in districts that voted for Clinton in 2016. If Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were to return to the the Democratic fold, they could regain the White House in 2020. As Galston put it, the Midwest is the cake, Florida is the frosting, and Georgia and Texas are dreams. In 2016, Clinton spent time in Arizona and Georgia. Galston speculated that the election could have turned out differently if that time and money had been spent in the upper Midwest. Democrats will only win in 2020 if they nominate a candidate fit to carry those states.
RSS - Posts
