Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brooklynite

(94,571 posts)
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 02:27 PM Jun 2017

Why Obama Voters Defected

Slate:

It has been more than seven months since less than a plurality of Americans put Donald Trump into the White House, and we are still grappling with how it happened.* How should we understand the forces that gave Trump the election? A new data set moves us closer to an answer: in particular how to understand the voters who supported Barack Obama in 2012 only to back Trump in 2016. Its lessons have far-ranging implications not only for diagnosing Trump’s specific appeal but for whether such an appeal would hold in 2020.

Two reports from the Voter Study Group, which conducted the survey, give a detailed look at these vote switchers. (You can learn more about the nonprofit survey here—what’s key is that its longitudinal nature allows researchers to draw deeper conclusions on the issues that motivated voters.) One, from George Washington University political scientist John Sides, looks at racial, religious, and cultural divides and how they shaped the 2016 election. The other, from political scientist Lee Drutman, takes a detailed look at those divides and places them in the context of the Democratic and Republican parties. Starting in different places, both Sides and Drutman conclude that questions of race, religion, and American identity were critical to the 2016 outcome, especially among Obama-to-Trump voters. That’s no surprise. What’s interesting is what the importance of identity says about Donald Trump’s campaign. Put simply, we tend to think that Trump succeeded despite his disorganized and haphazard campaign. But the Voter Study results indicate that Trump was a canny entrepreneur who perceived a need in the political marketplace and met it.

Whether or not they identified with a party, most people who voted in the 2016 election were partisans. “Approximately 83 percent of voters were ‘consistent partisans,’ ” writes Sides. In other words, they voted for the same major party in both 2012 and 2016. This is the typical case. But about 9 percent of Donald Trump’s voters had backed Obama in the previous election, equivalent to roughly 4 percent of the electorate. Why? The popular answer, or at least the current conventional wisdom, is economic dislocation. But Sides is skeptical. He concludes that economic issues mattered, but no more or less than they did in the 2012 election. The same goes for views on entitlement programs, on trade, and on the state of the economy in general. The weight of those issues on vote choice was constant between the two election years.

What changed was the importance of identity. Attitudes toward immigration, toward black Americans, and toward Muslims were more correlated with voting Republican in 2016 than in 2012. Put a little differently, Barack Obama won re-election with the support of voters who held negative views toward blacks, Muslims, and immigrants. Sides notes that “37 percent of white Obama voters had a less favorable attitude toward Muslims” while 33 percent said “illegal immigrants” were “mostly a drain.” A separate analysis made late last year by political scientist Michael Tesler (and unrelated to the Voter Study Group) finds that 20 to 25 percent of white Obama voters opposed interracial dating, a decent enough proxy for racial prejudice. Not all of this occurred during the 2016 campaign—a number of white Obama voters shifted to the GOP in the years following his re-election. Nonetheless, writes Sides, “the political consequences in 2016 were the same: a segment of white Democrats with less favorable attitudes toward these ethnic and religious minorities were potential or actual Trump voters.”
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

brooklynite

(94,571 posts)
11. They didn't vote in 2008 or 2012...
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 05:02 PM
Jun 2017

...while finding a way to encourage more people to vote tomorrow is worthwhile in the abstract, we HAVE an electorate which shows up and votes today, and in the past voted for our candidates. The FIRST question is why have they changed their minds?

still_one

(92,190 posts)
12. I understand your point Brooklyn, my argument is more people would have voted if the media had didn'
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 05:33 PM
Jun 2017

cover this election with such a double standard circus like atmosphere

Just my perspective

underpants

(182,803 posts)
3. Interesting. Bookmarking
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 03:13 PM
Jun 2017

If it's just about those who flipped (not media, suppression, Russians, & Comey/Chaffetz) my guess would be the 25 year campaign against Hillary and that being the first woman POTUS was going to be hard but even harder being the first woman after the first black POTUS- too much change for some people.

MichMan

(11,929 posts)
4. Very seldom does the same party three peat
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 03:29 PM
Jun 2017

Do you think it might be as simple as those non political independents voting for a new regime after eight years?

There is a reason that the same party has won three elections in a row only once in my lifetime. (1988)

JHan

(10,173 posts)
6. that was probably a factor.
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 03:39 PM
Jun 2017

Some people just want a "change" but the zeitgeist last year was hard to ignore - people willingly signed up for it for various reasons. In some of the numerous articles profiling Trump voters , reasons stated for the switch to Trump: "why should my son be forced to get healthcare?" , "I want the government out of my business" "illegals are ruining the country" .. "I don't want sharia law."

 

Awsi Dooger

(14,565 posts)
9. Democratic fatigue was definitely part of it
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 04:28 PM
Jun 2017

Situational impact is always criminally underreported if not ignored completely. As soon as I saw the header of this thread I knew what the analysis would look like, and that there would be zero mention of how dramatically a third straight term differs from an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. Obama was in the most favorable situation in American politics in 2012. Trump will be there in 2020, assuming he is the nominee. I believe he will be.

Obama would have lost a chunk of those white voters in 2016 if he had another campaign against a standard Republican like McCain or Romney. Versus Trump obviously there are shifts all over the place and Obama would have won handily, which would have largely camouflaged our growing problem with that block of white voters who turned against Obama after 2012.

The major flaw in the article is that it breaks down blocks like liberal/conservative/libertarian/populist based on how they respond to issue questioning. That could not be more irrelevant. I've seen the ignorance repeated on countless progressive sites and programs. It's one of the reasons I have zero respect for Rachel Maddow. She constantly refers to ideological percentages based on issue response, some question that can be framed countless different ways and posed at times of varied political climate. You can fool yourself silly if you rely on that crap.

How do you self-identify -- as liberal, conservative or moderate? That is the key variable and nothing else is remotely close. That category predicts and explains one outcome after another, in state after state and cycle after cycle. People vote based on how they self identify. They'll answer issue questions based too often on how they want to come across. I have been a successful political bettor since 1996 by isolating that ideology category along with studying how polling tends to err from state to state. Too many people take polling at face value.

Hillary gaffed by pursuing states with impenetrable number of self-identified conservatives, like North Carolina at 43%. The promising state, as I've mentioned a few times, was Arizona at 27% liberals. That is an astounding number, higher than the national mark of 26%. Arizona is much tighter to true swing state status that somewhere like Georgia, which is always falsely touted.

Ohio is probably gone for the foreseeable. I wouldn't waste time there. Too many conservatives and not enough minority blocks to overcome the loss of white working class voters. Ohio has roughly 90% whites in the electorate, which is the same as the national percentage when Reagan ran in 1980 and 1984.

YCHDT

(962 posts)
7. " white Democrats with less favorable attitudes toward these ethnic and religious minorities" voted
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 03:40 PM
Jun 2017

.. trump

dawg

(10,624 posts)
8. It's not that they were more economically troubled in 2016 ...
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 03:42 PM
Jun 2017

it's that they were less so.

With jobs more plentiful and the economy in a slow, steady recovery, they felt more free to base their votes on things like race, immigration, guns & religion.

 

FenwayDonkey

(68 posts)
13. The Party's belief in unfettered immigration is the problem.
Wed Jun 21, 2017, 05:44 PM
Jun 2017

Sorry if that offends people but that issue is killing Democrats.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Obama Voters Defected