Sifting through more data from the 2022 midterms, there was one indicator that surprised and concerned me, so I wrote about it at New York:
As analysts pick over the results of the 2022 midterm elections, there have been a lot of mixed messages for Democrats. Yes, they performed better than you might have expected for the party controlling the White House, especially considering the president has underwater job-approval ratings. And yes, Democrats benefited from an unusually robust performance among young voters, who often don’t participate in midterm elections. But at the same time, Democrats didn’t significantly improve their performance among other key demographics, notably Black, Asian American, and Latino voters. As my colleague Eric Levitz observed, Democrats remain dangerously dependent on white college-educated voters who remain sympathetic to Republican economic messages.
Worse yet for Democrats, there is growing evidence that their single most loyal demographic group, African Americans, was underenthused in 2022. The New York Times’ Nate Cohn looked at the preliminary numbers and sounded the alarm:
“Georgia and North Carolina are two of the states where voters indicate their race when they register to vote, offering an unusually clear look at the racial composition of the electorate. In both states — along with Louisiana — the Black share of the electorate fell to its lowest levels since 2006.
“In all three states, the turnout rate among Black voters was far lower than among white voters. In North Carolina, for example, 43 percent of Black registered voters turned out, compared with 59 percent of white registered voters — roughly doubling the difference from 2018 and tripling the racial turnout gap from 2014.
“While similarly conclusive data is not available elsewhere so far, the turnout by county suggests that a relatively weak Black turnout was a national phenomenon.”
Low Black turnout in Georgia and North Carolina is especially significant because Black candidates (Senate candidate Cheri Beasley in North Carolina and Senate Democratic candidate Raphael Warnock and gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams in Georgia) headed up the Democratic tickets in both states. It’s not like the old days when Black voters were being urged to support white conservative Democrats to thwart even more conservative Republicans.
If the signs of relatively low Black turnout in 2022 are accurate and representative, what do they mean? Cohn offers some possible explanations:
“Still, relatively low Black turnout is becoming an unmistakable trend in the post-Obama era, raising important — if yet unanswered — questions about how Democrats can revitalize the enthusiasm of their strongest group of supporters.
“Is it simply a return to the pre-Obama norm? Is it yet another symptom of eroding Democratic strength among working-class voters of all races and ethnicities? Or is it a byproduct of something more specific to Black voters, like the rise of a more progressive, activist — and pessimistic — Black left that doubts whether the Democratic Party can combat white supremacy?”
It’s possible to overinterpret Black voter trends. According to exit polls, the Democratic share of Black voters dropped from 90 percent in 2018 to 87 percent in 2020 and 86 percent in 2022 — not exactly a deep plunge. And some of the negative turnout trends may be attributable to voter-suppression efforts in Republican-controlled states rather than Black voter disaffection with Democrats. In Georgia, moreover, there are encouraging signs about Black early voting turnout in the U.S. Senate general election runoff contest between Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker.
But any way you cut it, Democrats have both a practical and a moral responsibility to boost Black voter participation in elections going forward. In particular, President Joe Biden, whose nomination and election in 2020 depended heavily on Black support, should devote a lot of attention to rekindling the fires of affection in this critical segment of the electorate.
Christopher B- What you said! Ruy, help us out. The state by state numbers and the “battleground” subsamples of national polls seem unreconcilable. Which should we believe and why? Which have the greater MOE? And what could account for the discrepancy (which seems too consistent to be due to sampling error)? I realize, only a week and three days until we find out anyway, but I need my piece of mind!
brp
Apparently the Bush campaign is now putting an ad implying that Kerry is hopeless on security, “Wolves”, which sounds pretty powerful.
I really wish the Kerry campaign would counter with a pack of hyenas representing the entire Bush crew.
Just a loopy thought, at a particularly loopy time at the end of a very long campaign year, but they are mimicking the Reagan “Bear” ad and I do think Kerry needs to counter with exactly how dangerous this bunch is, and what a disaster they are for our national security.
Last night on the Aaron Brown program on CNN they had a segment on how dangerous Iraq is to reporters trying to film the story there. They had some magnificent photographs of the ruin so many places in that country are in, and the desperation of the people there. I remember right before we invaded, there were some articles in one of the major papers here on Baghdad, with photos, and what an impressive city it was. The story that is not getting told here, that reminds me so much of the ruination in Vietnam, is what we have done to the daily lives of these people. It sounds terrifying to be there.
We need a change, but there is something essentially wrong with a country with our level of wealth and comfort, so terrified, so bullying, so immune to the needs of the rest of the world, and to our own citizens’.
Go Kerry.
Mady
Saw an interesting theory on one of the blogs regarding the much discussed “undecided” rule. In this election, if one is living in a “swing” state, support for Bush is understood to be intellectually indefensible by Bush leaners. They thus declare themselves as “undecided” to their reality based friends, or simply remain quiet. They are, however, solidly for Bush. They then cast their Bush ballot and, if asked, declare they voted for Kerry. I have read (probably on this site) that the undecided rule is foolproof and of virtual universal applicability, but admit to concern because Bush is such a “unique” candidate.
I am somewhat perplexed by the comprehensive battleground polls that have consistently shown a Kerry edge, which is now quite large. Yet, in most polls of specific battleground states, Kerry does not seem to have anywhere near the same cumulative advantage. How many states are being included in the battleground polls.