Will a big fall in the unemployment rate get the Dems back lower income whites?

[Torie]

A better way to phrase the question (I don't have the space to do it on the poll question line), is whether or not the exit of lower middle and working class whites from the Dem party is primarily due to the economy, and if and when unemployment rates get down to 7% or something, the bulk of them will return who left, or whether the estrangement is more deep seated, and their more GOP orientation is going to have a considerably longer half life, as each of the party coalitions changes at the margins their respective "colorations," as it were.

And this most fascinating article will tell you why lower middle and working class whites might not be coming back in material numbers to the Dems anytime soon (with Axelrod sort of disagreeing). The issue is whether or not the shift of the white lower middle class and working class to a more GOP orientation is primarily driven by the economic doldrums, and they will come back if things substantially improve, or whether their estrangement from the Dems is more deep seated and permanent. What do you think?

Read the article first, and then vote, is my suggestion. We want to have informed voters don't we?

One thing I think is clear at this point. Wisconsin will give Obama a lower percentage of the vote in 2012, than Nevada and Colorado will. So Wisconsin becomes the critical state. (Crank the new electoral college numbers, and you will see.) Watch the candidates basically move into Milwaukee during the next General election.

And when you are mousing your little CD's on Dave Bradlee's software, you might bear this issue in mind. The past might not be precisely the future. Just a suggestion.

Oh, one other thing. The GOP did increase its share of the Hispanic vote this year as compared to 2008.  The Dem margin from 2008 dropped from 2-1, to 3-2, a swing of 7%, or about the size of the swing of the nation as a whole. Which given that blacks swung hardly at all, means that the swing to the GOP among Hispanics was probably larger than the swing of white voters as a whole (and approaching that of lower income whites), if these exit poll numbers are in the ball park as to accuracy. Do you see where I am going here?  That cannot be very reassuring to the Dems - at all. But it may be more likely that the Hispanic swing against the Dems was primarily driven by the economy.

[Sam Spade]

Don't be so certain that Colorado will be to the left of Wisconsin in 2012 (Nevada I agree).  The mistake that people make is that Buck was probably done in more by the rape thing than by social issue games, but the success that Bennet had in holding the whites mentioned in the article should not be ignored.

If UE is at 7% in 2012, it will only be because the % of the population employed has declined to unheard of levels (and probably unsustainable ones too, for the short and long-term).  Which is precisely what the household numbers showed today - lower U-3, higher U-6, lower total employed.  The trend has been heading that way for the last half-year, so this isn't just a monthly thing.

[Brittain33]

Not to be glib, but six years ago, it was the Republicans' winning 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the U.S. that was the portent of permanent Democratic minorities. No one's using that paradigm any more. Obama's coalition in 2008 was unsustainable because it was so big; the mid-term electorate is not going to resemble the next presidential electorate if for no other reason than that the white people who were motivated to turn out were disproportionately angry at the President. By no means do I minimize the importance of shifts in voting to Obama's immediate political prospects and those of Congressional candidates in 2012, but how much of this is a question of looking at two points and extrapolating a "trend" that may or may not be predictive outside of a few places (Arkansas, Appalachia) where we saw a further ratchet of a long-observed phenomenon?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that is precisely the question, isn't it Brittain33? Is it reasonable given the two data points (well 3, 2006, 2008 and 2010), to make such an extrapolation based on the underlying attitude of voters as to why they switched their partisan vote, or not? Do lower income whites think now rather deeply that the government is out to screw them, and their taxes are going to feather the nests of overpaid public servants who make more than they do, with the benefits going to those who don't work as hard as they do, or not, and so on?

[Torie]

Don't be so certain that Colorado will be to the left of Wisconsin in 2012 (Nevada I agree).  The mistake that people make is that Buck was probably done in more by the rape thing than by social issue games, but the success that Bennet had in holding the whites mentioned in the article should not be ignored.

If UE is at 7% in 2012, it will only be because the % of the population employed has declined to unheard of levels (and probably unsustainable ones too, for the short and long-term).  Which is precisely what the household numbers showed today - lower U-3, higher U-6, lower total employed.  The trend has been heading that way for the last half-year, so this isn't just a monthly thing.

What would be more interesting is to look at the aggregate vote for House candidates in WI as compared to CO, Sam. The data in the article is mostly based on votes for House candidates. Anyway, that would largely eliminate the Buck effect, if there was one. Do you have that data on your spread sheet Sam? I think you were keeping score of the aggregate House vote were you not?  It might also be interesting to look at PA, OH and MI.

[opebo]

Even a small fall will entirely change the tone of the simple hive-mind of this group.

[anvi]

After every election, the winning party likes to look for permanent trends in voting patterns and explain the results by saying the populous just loves their policies as opposed to the policies of the opposition.  And in the run of time, everyone usually turns out to be wrong.

These exits were conducted of voters in a year when, compared to 2008, total eligible voter turnout was down from 61% in 2008 to 38% in November.  Dem turnout was down from 40% of the voting population to 36% and GOP turnout was up from 33 to 36%.  In 2010, 18-24 year old participation fell from 10% in 2008 to 5% (and the youth vote that showed up still voted for Democrats by a margin of 58-39).  So, the first qualification in this analysis is that there were fewer Dem supporters out there, and certainly fewer white Dem supporters, to be asked questions in the exits.  

Furthermore, the Hispanic vote dropped 40% in 2010 from 2008, and despite the enthusiastic Cuban-American support for Rubio in Florida (pretty expectable), Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates in California, Arizona and Nevada.

Again, not speaking about permanent shifts overall, but in 2008, Obama only got 43% of the white vote, and Kerry only got 41% of it in 2004, so again, I'm not sure how much of a party shift among white voters we're talking about here.  If I were a GOP backer, I think I would be less excited about how much of the white vote the party was retaining nationally and more concerned about making only minor inroads into minority and youth vote demographics.

So, in answer to the question above, I voted "I don't know."  I don't think we have enough data to work with to make a conclusion, and only time will tell what happens with these white votes when the economy improves.  

I do think there is one area that Democrats do have to be seriously worried about, especially insofar as more independent voters lean right than left; there was a 26 point swing of independent voters from backing Dems in 2008 to backing Pubbies in 2010, and in total Indies make up in the neighborhood of 30% of the total electorate (at least as they self-report, not necessarily how they do or can register).  Whether their allegiances have been switched long-term in the course of the last two years is a question I can't answer, because lots of pollsters think that large blocks of this group sway with the economy, but the Dems have reason to worry about it.

[Sam Spade]

Don't be so certain that Colorado will be to the left of Wisconsin in 2012 (Nevada I agree).  The mistake that people make is that Buck was probably done in more by the rape thing than by social issue games, but the success that Bennet had in holding the whites mentioned in the article should not be ignored.

If UE is at 7% in 2012, it will only be because the % of the population employed has declined to unheard of levels (and probably unsustainable ones too, for the short and long-term).  Which is precisely what the household numbers showed today - lower U-3, higher U-6, lower total employed.  The trend has been heading that way for the last half-year, so this isn't just a monthly thing.

What would be more interesting is to look at the aggregate vote for House candidates in WI as compared to CO, Sam. The data in the article is mostly based on votes for House candidates. Anyway, that would largely eliminate the Buck effect, if there was one. Do you have that data on your spread sheet Sam? I think you were keeping score of the aggregate House vote were you not?  It might also be interesting to look at PA, OH and MI.

I have it at home - will get it when I go there, though it is far from perfect.  I am almost certain that in 2010, WI was more GOP in House races than CO (even though Polis really dragged as a candidate).  But it may be that way in 2008 also.

[Brittain33]

If UE is at 7% in 2012, it will only be because the % of the population employed has declined to unheard of levels (and probably unsustainable ones too, for the short and long-term).  Which is precisely what the household numbers showed today - lower U-3, higher U-6, lower total employed.  The trend has been heading that way for the last half-year, so this isn't just a monthly thing.

Yes, that fall to 9.4% on sub-par job growth was shocking, wasn't it?

[Sbane]

Repeating the performance of 2008 in Wisconsin, Michigan or Indiana is going to be pretty hard to do for the Dems. On the other hand, in states like OH and PA where the lower income whites never warmed up to them, the drop isn't going to be as severe. Those two states should barely trend R, perhaps even D in PA's case.

[Sam Spade]

If UE is at 7% in 2012, it will only be because the % of the population employed has declined to unheard of levels (and probably unsustainable ones too, for the short and long-term).  Which is precisely what the household numbers showed today - lower U-3, higher U-6, lower total employed.  The trend has been heading that way for the last half-year, so this isn't just a monthly thing.

Yes, that fall to 9.4% on sub-par job growth was shocking, wasn't it?

That's what happens when you have people leaving the labor force.  It was a bit more pronounced b/c there was a jump in people entering last month without real job growth.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Year     Month          C.N.P.       C.L.F.         L.F.P.R.        E.L.

2008    December   235,035     154,349         65.7%       143,350
2010    December   238,889     153,156         64.1          139,159

C.N.P.    Civilian noninstitutional population
C.L.F.     Civilian Labor Force
L.F.P.R.  Labor Force Participation rates
E.L.         Employment level

C.N.P., C.L.F. AND E.L. in thousands

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Without playing games with the numbers, the economy needs to net add approximately 100,000 jobs in a typical month to keep the unemployment level unchanged.

To decrease the unemployment level on tenth of one per cent (without playing games with the numbers) the economy needs to net add approximately 250,000 jobs in a typical month.

Over the past two years, the economy has lost approximately 4,191,000 jobs!

Oh, the particpation rate decreased from last month (as did the civilian labor force), if we believe the BLS.

Gallup has some rather different numbers (remember BLS is using surveys for their data).

[Brittain33]

Over the past two years, the economy has lost approximately 4,191,000 jobs!

CARL, how many of those jobs were lost in the first three months of that two year period: December '08, January '09, and February '09?

I'll put the answer below, in really small type.

2.05 million.

How about in the two months following that, March and April 2009? Still the very first months of Obama's presidency, before policies had much chance to have an impact... Number below. Again, really small, so no spoilers.

1.17 million

How many jobs in that two-year period were lost in May 2009 and afterward?

Here's a great link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_losses_caused_by_the_late-2000s_recession

[Sam Spade]

For Torie...

2010
CO
R% 50.14
D% 45.42
O% 4.44

WI
R% 54.51
D% 43.89
O% 2.60

2008
CO
R% 43.38
D% 55.16
O% 1.46

WI (WI-4 (D) and WI-5 (R) only contested by 3rd parties)
R% 46.02
D% 49.94
O% 4.04

2006
CO (CO-1 (D) only contested by 3rd parties)
R% 40.53
D% 54.12
O% 5.35

WI (WI-6 (R) uncontested)
R% 50.52
D% 48.73
O% 1.55

2004
CO
R% 48.64
D% 48.81
O% 3.55

WI (WI-7 (D) only contested by 3rd parties)
R% 48.98
D% 48.55
O% 3.57

2002
CO
R% 53.90
D% 42.19
O% 3.91

WI (WI-4 (D) and WI-5 (R) only contested by 3rd parties, WI-6 (R) uncontested)
R% 54.47
D% 41.47
O% 4.06

[memphis]

Depends what is meant by "get." They certainly will not be backing Obama in 2012. Who's the last Dem candidate to win a majority of their votes? Carter '76 maybe?

[Torie]

I think Sam's numbers suggest the answer. Wisconsin is on the GOP side of the PVI ledger now it looks like, and CO on the Dem side. It is called trading places baby. MI might also be grim for Obama in the PVI department, except that he bailed out Government Motors, and that might help him do better than otherwise there. And I agree with Sbane about PA. PA has surburban Philly in it, and suburban Philly is a lot different than suburban Milwaukee. It is illegal to be a latte liberal in suburban Milwaukee, unless you live in one of about four very small north shore and quite wealthy Milwaukee suburbs, and even there the action is rather modest for the Dems.

So it will be a dogfight for Wisconsin, and perhaps NH it seems to me (unless the NH message to Obama in 2010 has staying power, which perhaps is less clear than in Wisconsin). I think the GOP needs to win NH to get to 270, if it wins Wisconsin, but drops Iowa, Nevada and Colorado and New Mexico. I should check that, but I think that is the case.

I suppose one could compare the PVI's of NH and CO, to try to find the ultimate tipping point, but NH is kind of an odd duck, so that might not be worthwhile. Obviously CO will be a regular pit stop for the candidates too; Denver to Milwaukee to Manchester, and back again.

Oh, and thanks Sam for the numbers. I appreciate it very much.