PIVOTAL ELECTIONS AND RECENT TRANSFORMATIONS Theda Skocpol USW 31, October 1, 2014

Electoral Swings and Their Causes – especially 2008 and 2010  2012 a confirming election, less pronounced version of 2008  2008 and 2010 – agenda-setting elections with sharply different patterns of participation as well as opposed partisan outcomes.

ELECTORAL MILESTONES IN 2008 (from Center for the Study of the American Electorate, and a commentary on “Demography and Destiny” by Ronald Brownstein, National Journal 1/10/09.)  Turnout rose to 63% of eligible voters, highest percent since  Democratic turnout (for House candidates) rose to the highest share since Democrats gained in every region.  Youth turnout (18-24) increased by one percent over 2004, and activism grew among college students (especially important in “providing sinew for Obama’s extensive grassroots organization”).  Obama’s win was driven by rising black and Latino turnout as well as gains among non-elderly voters across the board. If demographic group participation had remained as it was in 1992, McCain would have edged Obama. McCain did best among “culturally conservative working-class whites.”

How would the 2008 election have turned out if only rich, only middle- income, or only poor voters had decided the presidency? (Red=McCain; Blue=Obama) Rich = over $150K Middle income = $40-$75K Poor = $0-$20K Source: Andrew Gelman, “How Did the Rich (and the Poor) Vote in 2008?,” post at FiveThirtyEight.com, March 3, 2009.

Source: Andrew Gelman, “Religion, Income, and Voting,” post at Fivethirtyeight.com, February 27, 2009.

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE 2008 OBAMA CAMPAIGN  Obama campaign invested to build volunteer networks in most states, using centralized frameworks, online tools, and local team- building. Organizers initially focused on recruiting other organizers.  Fundraising for Obama recruited large and small donors, but “because of the way he organized his campaign, Obama was able to go back to the same supporters over and over again for both volunteer assistance and repeat contributions.” Many small contributors became cumulative “mid-range repeaters” as “Obama was able to attract donors “who have not been part of the traditional large-dollar, reception-attending fundraising crowd.” (quotes from “Reality Check,” by the Campaign Finance Institute 11/24/08)  Obama himself did not have to spend as much time as usual courting big donors or attending fundraisers. Time allocation may be the biggest impact of fundraising demands.

Historic GOP Sweep and Democratic Reverses in 2010 Midterms Democrats had a net loss of 64 seats in the House of Representatives; 52 incumbents were defeated, and the new 242 member GOP majority is the largest in 64 years. GOP gains were national, reversing its reduction to a regional party in Republicans gained a net of six seats in the Senate, winning one-third of the Democratic seats at stake. New Senate was 53 D to 47 R. Republicans gained a net of six governors, and held 29 governorships, including in major states such as PA, MI, FL, and OH. Republicans gained c. 700 state legislator seats, largest gain since GOP held the governorship and both houses in 20 states.

Why did the anti-Democratic Wave Happen? Sluggish economy; recovery policies thought to be unsuccessful; and sense the country was headed in the wrong direction. Obama approval under 50%. Major laws or votes in 111 th Congress were controversial and vilified (Affordable Care Act; Cap and Trade bill in House). Republicans more enthusiastic about voting than in 2008, and much more so than Democrats. Tea Party mobilization MOST IMPORTANT: Size and composition of the electorate changed.

What role did the Tea Party play in the 2010 election – and after?

What Can We Expect in November 2014?