New Democrat Update - January 2009
2008 ELECTION REFLECTIONS
As the historic inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama rapidly approaches, Democrats should think long and hard why the 2008 election moved so decisively in our party’s favor. After all, successful governing requires understanding why one was victorious in the first place. Building on the analysis from last month’s New Democrat Update, here are some other factors that should be considered.
First, the conventional wisdom should be challenged. While much discussed in the media during the campaign, the exit polls indicate that there was no huge decisive leap in voting among either African-American or young voters.
Black voters increased their share of the electorate from 11 percent in 2004 to 13 percent four years later. Among them, Obama got a higher percentage but not enough to matter much in the overall margin. Similarly, 18 to 29-year-olds made up 17 percent of the electorate in 2004 and 18 percent four years later. Once again, Obama outperformed Sen. John Kerry but that margin only accounted for a point or two in the total.
Most important of all, moderates proved to be the difference for Obama, winning them by nearly 2 to 1, a 21-point advantage. An additional 1.5 percent of Obama's total vote came from deeper inroads with conservatives than Kerry (20 percent of self-described conservatives versus 15 percent). By contrast, the level of liberal support was about the same for the two candidates. To keep that coalition behind him in what might be often tough times, governing from the center and avoiding the mistakes of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush will be key.
Democrats in 1993 showed that a center-left coalition can disintegrate rapidly if the party’s policies are perceived as being out of the mainstream. Clinton’s tough start was largely due to an early emphasis on lifting the ban on gays in the military and, later, the collapse of his health care proposal. In only two years, his approval ratings plummeted to just 35 percent favorable and 65 percent said they would never vote for him again.
If those mistakes are repeated, the fate of Obama's Democrats could be very similar to Clinton's in 1994. As the National Journal's Jonathan Rauch has written, "Sky-high expectations for a new era would be followed by disappointment as reality sinks in, followed by a political backlash against what the public regards as our party's ineffectiveness and extremism. In a year or two, Obama and Democrats would be as despised as the Republicans are today."
In 2000, President Bush won the election as a center-right candidate - "a uniter not a divider" - on the theme of "compassionate conservatism" and later, on national security in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. His political support also fell quickly because he forgot about the compassionate part, governed as if Democrats did not exist, mismanaged the Iraq war, botched the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort, and stuck much too long to ineffective economic policies.
How the country feels about the party in power always matters - a lot. Psychologist, neuroscientist and noted national Democratic political advisor Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," has scientifically concluded that 80 percent of a person's vote is based on how that person feels about the political parties.
The public’s disgust with Bush and its negative impact on the Republican brand cannot be overestimated. More than seven in 10 voters said that they disapproved of the job Bush was doing; not surprisingly, Obama won that group decisively, 67 percent to 31 percent. Of the 51 percent who strongly disapproved of Bush, Obama beat McCain, 82 percent to 16 percent. Among the 75 percent of voters who said that the country was "seriously off on the wrong track," Obama won them by 26 points.
Despite all that, Obama and his party (see below) nonetheless realize that 47 percent of Americans did not vote for our presidential candidate. The key to our success moving forward is staying on the path where we are now - governing all 50 states, and in Colorado's case, all 64 counties.
Of course, this approach will not always go well with some parts of the Democratic base. Many of them - out of the White House for eight years and enduring two years where a Democratic majority in Congress could not get much done with Bush in power - may not be inclined toward patient coalition-building and healing partisan divisions.
Thus, the challenge for Obama and other Democrats will be, at times, to say no to some in this center-left coalition. Getting those calls right will require deft political judgment on an ongoing, case-by-case basis.
The best predictor of which path an Obama administration will take is the nature of who he selects to be on his team (as the adage goes, “personnel is policy”). Princeton history and public affairs professor Julian E. Zelizer wrote on CNN.com, “The most striking characteristic of the current lineup is how the personalities reflect the centrist vision of the Democratic Party promoted by Bill Clinton and his colleagues at the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1990s.”
OBAMA’S “NEW DEMOCRAT” ADMINISTRATION
That conclusion is hard to dispute. A very brief look at some of the President-elect’s appointments establishes the DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), as the “governing wing” of the Democratic Party.
Senator Ken Salazar, who will be the country’s next Interior Secretary, has a long history with the organization as co-chair of the Colorado DLC since 2001 and as co-host of the DLC's 2006 National Conversation in Denver. Of course, his fellow Senator and Secretary of State nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton headed the DLC's American Dream Initiative and presented its findings at that conference.
Vice President-elect Joe Biden has been a strong supporter, praising the PPI’s report Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy as “further proof that Democrats are not only extremely concerned about the direction of American foreign policy but they have creative and commonsense ideas that can appeal to the American people and put us in a much better circumstance around the world” and “a comprehensive strategy to make us all more secure, consistent with our values and with this country's extraordinary potential.”
Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has been a member of the New Democrat Coalition since being elected to Congress. He chaired the DLC’s recent Bi-Partisan Congressional Debate Series and co-authored the book The Plan: Big Ideas for America with national DLC President Bruce Reed.
Former Senator Tom Daschle, once chairman of the PPI’s New Economy Task Force, will be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Former National DLC Chair and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has been nominated Secretary of the Agriculture while Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, chair of the 2004 National Conversation, will be in charge of the Department of Homeland Security. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, soon to be in charge of the Commerce Department, was the keynote speaker at the DLC's 2003 National Conversation.
Future prospects for free trade brightened when Obama selected former Dallas Texas Mayor Ron Kirk as U.S. Trade Representative. Kirk was part of the DLC‘s successful efforts to get approval for permanent normal trade relations with China. National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers cited the DLC and PPI for providing “an intellectual underpinning for so much of what all of us in the government do.” Key Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee was an economist to both organizations.
Clearly, these appointments represent a great start for the Obama administration and significant progress for the New Democrat movement.