I was recently participating in a discussion forum on politics which included a comment by a member who is loyal to the Democratic Party. That person said the Republicans are the ones who are screwed. This is mainly talking electoral politics. Rather generally. Rather loosely. With much focus on the current year, 2020. And I disagree.
I decided to look at entrance and exit polls from presidential primaries with both 2016 and 2020.
The 2016 United States presidential election was a Republican pickup for Donald Trump. Here in 2020, there are not any entrance and exit polls in states, thus far played out, because Trump does not have viable primary challengers. As of Friday, March 6, 2020, Trump’s percentage of votes by participating primaries voters is at 93 percent. (Source: Wikipedia — “2020 Republican Party presidential primaries”.)
One way I can tell there is divide is with the margins spread between the two opposite-end voting-age demographics in entrance and exit polls.
The voting-age groups commonly get recorded as follows: 17–29 (in some primaries) or 18–29 (you have to be 18 on Election Day); 30–44; 45–64; and 65+.
The 65+ voting-age group is first carried by Republicans in general elections.
The 18–29 voting-age group is first carried by Democrats in general elections.
(The in-between voting-age groups, in general elections, are more likely to come closer to aligning with a given presidential election’s national outcome.)
The Democrats like to brag they won the U.S. Popular Vote, for U.S. President, in every election but 2004 between 1992 to 2016. Since this is true, it is also understandable. In 2004, losing nominee John Kerry carried only one voting-age group nationwide: 18–29 voters gave him a margin of +9 while he lost by –2.46. So, they gave him 11 to 12 points more support than what he received nationwide.
The 2008 losing Republican nominee was John McCain. His party was electorally brought down with the two-term presidency of George W. Bush. (Due to the Bush presidency, and a trajectory going against the incumbent party, the tide of history was against the GOP in that particular year.) 2008 Democratic presidential pickup winner Barack Obama nationally flipped the 30–44 and 45–64 voting-age groups while he overperformed those 18–29, up an additional 25 points and with a national margin of +34. For McCain, he held 65+ voters by +8, up from 2004 Bush’s margin of +5, and 15 to 16 points more support than what he received nationwide. (McCain went up, rather than down, partly because Kerry did better than Obama with 65+ voters in No. 2 populous state Texas.)
The 2016 Republican presidential primaries, up to this point in 2020 (that is, the four states from February and those from Super Tuesday the first week of March), were a lot healthier for eventual nominee Donald Trump.
I am referring to the margins spread between how a party’s eventual nominee performed with both opposite-end voting-age groups. (Think of it as: a uniter or a divider.)
Trump performed stronger with 65+ primaries voters in 9 out of 10 states in which there were entrance polls and exit polls of both 17–29 or 18–29 vs. 65+ voters.
Count a state, North Carolina, that was part of the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries on Super Tuesday, and Trump performed stronger in 10 out of 11 states with voters 65+.
On the Democratic side, the eventual 2016 presidential nominee was Hillary Clinton. She needed to perform better with 17–29 or 18–29 vs. 65+ voters. In 13 states in which the entrance and exit polls reports included both opposite-end voting-age groups, Clinton won the youngest age group better than the oldest age group in zero [0] states.
Here in 2020, with the Democratic presidential primaries still in progress, there have been 14 states in which entrance polls and exit polls reported 17–29 or 18–29 vs. 65+ voters. And, so far, we have a similar picture from four years ago. The perceived frontrunner, Joe Biden, performs better not with the youngest but the oldest voting-age group. He has performed better than Bernie Sanders with the youngest voters in zero [0] of the states. (There have been 16 states which have participated. Colorado and Oklahoma did not have exit polls apparently sufficient enough to report how the youngest age group voted.)
I went ahead and compared the margins spreads.
I first started with the winning political party from 2016.
2016 Republican Presidential Primaries—Donald Trump (pickup winner in the general election)
• Iowa (02.01.2016): 7 points between Trump’s margins spread—in a state won by Ted Cruz—with voters 65+ (a margin of –1) vs. 17–29 (a margin of –8)
• New Hampshire (02.09.2016): 9 points
• South Carolina (02.20.2016): 10 points
• Nevada (02.23.2016): 34 points
— Super Tuesday (03.01.2016) —
• Alabama: 13 points
• Alaska: —
• Arkansas: 1 point
• Colorado: —
• Georgia: 1 point
• Massachusetts: —
• Minnesota: —
• North Dakota: —
• Oklahoma: —
• Tennessee: 15 points
• Texas: 25 points (compared only to Ted Cruz, who won his home state; Trump who finished third with voters 18–29)
• Vermont: —
• Virginia: 13 points
• Wyoming: —
Math: 117 cumulative points, divided by 10 applicable states, with an average margins spread of 11.70 points.
Bonus: In 2020, the Democrats held contests in four states—California, Maine, North Carolina, and Utah—that were on Super Tuesday but not on that same day from 2016. There were exit polls in the Tar Heel State.
• North Carolina: 22 points.
Another Round of Math: 139 cumulative points, divided by 11 applicable combined states, with an average margins spread of 12.63 points.
2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries—Hillary Clinton (general-election nominee vs. runner-up Bernie Sanders)
• Iowa (02.01.2016): 113 points between Clinton (having won voters 65+ by +50 percentage points) vs. Sanders (having won voters 17–29 by +68 percentage points)
• New Hampshire (02.09.2016): 76 points
• Nevada (02.20.2016): 118 points
• South Carolina (02.27.2016): 85 points
— Super Tuesday (03.01.2016) —
• Alabama: 60 points
• Arkansas: 81 points
• Colorado: —
• Georgia: 69 points
• Massachusetts: 50 points
• Minnesota: —
• Oklahoma: 82 points
• Tennessee: 86 points
• Texas: 94 points
• Vermont: 36 points
• Virginia: 109 points
Math: 1,059 cumulative points, divided by 13 applicable states, with an average margins spread of 81.46 points.
Bonus: In 2020, the Democrats held contests in four states—California, Maine, North Carolina, and Utah—that were on Super Tuesday but not on that same day from 2016. There were exit polls in the Tar Heel State.
• North Carolina: 83 points.
Another Round of Math: 1,142 cumulative points, divided by 14 applicable combined states, with an average margins spread of 81.57 points.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primaries—Pending (65+-preferred Joe Biden vs. 17–29/18–29-preferred Bernie Sanders)
• Iowa (02.03.2020): 74 points
• New Hampshire (02.11.2020): 59 points
• Nevada (02.22.2020): 72 points
• South Carolina (02.29.2020): 70 points
— Super Tuesday (03.03.2020) —
• Alabama: 88 points
• California: 74 points
• Colorado: —
• Maine: 86 points
• Massachusetts: 61 points
• North Carolina: 83 points
• Oklahoma: —
• Tennessee: 86 points
• Texas: 72 points
• Utah: —
• Vermont: 58 points
• Virginia: 98 points
Math: 1,074 cumulative points, divided by 14 applicable states, with an average margins spread of 76.71 points.
A difference between 2016 and 2020 is that the Democrats had more than two people affecting the overall numbers in the February 2020 contests. Four years earlier, it was an immediate two-person race. But, overall, a similar picture.
The level of the margins spread—between voters in the youngest and the oldest voting-age groups—is striking.
Republicans, in 2016, and they don’t have to worry here in 2020, were and are not divided.
Democrats, from 2016, and again so far here in 2020, are divided.
This deserves a follow-up question.
Which of these two major political parties is likely to win at the presidential level here in 2020?
If one wants to get an early-enough start, I would place my bet on Team Red.
Summary: There is an ideological divide in the Democratic Party. The opposite-end voting-age groups do not agree on what and who they want for leadership. This is not favorable for the party’s hopes, and whatever efforts, to win back the presidency of the United States here in 2020.
Looking Toward the Future: The 2020 Democratic presidential nomination looks better for Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders. Just as it was the case in 2016 with Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. But, a political party cannot continue having these types of election cycles with respect for their primaries unless there becomes a realignment. That the 65+ voters become the Democrats’ No. 1 voting-age base in general elections. To pull that off, that would require the Republicans to counter-realign their political party and see 17–29 (primaries) or 18–29 become their No. 1 voting-age base in general elections.
Conclusion: The Democrats will—as was the line in the 2011 Oscar-nominated film Moneyball—“Adapt or die.” This means, while the current battle between the opposite-end voting-age groups is being won by voters 65+, natural order will also show they will be the ones who will be sooner dying off. (Think, after Elections 2008 and 2012, how Democrats were loving the racial demographics showing Whites nationally in decline with their size of the vote, for the U.S. Popular Vote, in presidential elections. In 2004, they were 77 percent. In 2008, they were 74 percent. In 2012, they were 72 percent. In 2016, they were 70 percent. In 2020, they may reduce down to 69 percent.) Well, both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden may be good, thanks to 65+ for preventing Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, but the trajectory has it the 65+ voters will die off while those 29 or younger in 2016, then 2020, will continue to emerge in 2024. They are not getting more conservative. Those 65+—a coalition which was there for Bill Clinton having unseated George Bush in 1992 (when they were 36 or 37 or older)—is not going to prevent the historic tide of history. Those 29 and younger, who will vote in the general election on November 3, 2020, were born late-1990 and afterward. A good number—in the millions—were born after Election 1992. (That will be the case with all 29 and younger in 2024.) Thanks to the reality of their lives, which are very different from the 1992 Clinton coalition, they have developed differently in their overall viewpoints. Their experience is much different. They are much more on the left. They are not into the Clinton vision of the Democratic Party. So, the “Democratic Party” will change if they are wanting to not become the 21st-century version of the Whig Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment