Lack of Enthusiasm Isn't Just a GOP Problem

· Friday, February 24, 2012

There's no disputing that Republicans are surly these days.

With the exception of South Carolina, turnout among GOP voters has been tepid. Hordes of commentators, me included, have argued at length that this apathetic grumpiness reflects a deep dissatisfaction with the Republican field.

Worse, many Republicans recognize that their cantankerousness over their choices makes things worse. It's a vicious cycle. As George Orwell once wrote: "A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks." A bad candidate can win with enthusiastic voters and a good candidate can lose with unenthusiastic ones. But a bad candidate with unenthusiastic voters is like a submarine with screen doors: a guaranteed wreck.

Without minimizing the plight of the Republicans, there may be a glimmer of hope in a single overlooked fact: Democrats may have the same problem.

Generally speaking, Americans of all political stripes hate politics and politicians right now. Republicans are merely the focus of everyone's attention because that's where the action is. Everyone knows who the Democratic nominee will be. This gives Barack Obama all sorts of advantages. He can seem presidential and above the fray, he can raise money for the general election without getting bloodied by a primary challenger, and he can spend his time and resources unifying his party.

But unity and enthusiasm are not the same thing. Everyone in the family can agree to eat Aunt Sally's leftover casserole, but that doesn't mean they're going to be excited about it.

Obama won in 2008 thanks to almost unprecedented voter enthusiasm, particularly among two key constituencies: young voters and black voters.

Take the youth vote. The whippersnappers cost John McCain the election. Obama won young voters by a 2-1 margin. If the voting age were 35, McCain would have won. Youth support was also a crucial source of energy for the Obama campaign, fueling all of the social-media buzz and burnishing Obama's image as a change candidate in what was the mother of all change elections.

Almost four years later, the young people are less excited about Obama, and about politics in general.

Why? Because the "Great Recession" under Obama has been disproportionately brutal for younger workers. Last summer was the worst job market for young people since 1948. In 2010, the unemployment rate for college graduates 24 and younger hit an all-time high.

The youth unemployment rate is improving, but the mood of young people isn't where Obama needs it. A recent Harvard survey found that a majority of 18- to 29-year-old voters believe the country is going in the wrong direction, and a plurality of young Americans believe Obama will lose.

For black Americans, the economy has been much worse. The unemployment rate for blacks is twice that of whites. While Obama's support among black voters remains in the stratosphere, the relevant issue isn't the approval rate in polls but the turnout rate in November, particularly in a string of crucial swing states where Obama remains unpopular. Obama's 2008 victories in the indispensible states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida were almost entirely attributable to massive increases in the number of black voters and young voters, as were his surprise wins in North Carolina and Virginia.

If young people don't turn out in lopsided numbers, or if Obama once again receives 95 percent of the black vote but the black share of the overall vote goes down, Obama's in grave trouble.

And it's hard to imagine many people will be more excited for Obama in 2012 than they were in 2008 -- a point even Obama concedes on the stump. It's not just the sour economy either. Americans who were exhausted with George W. Bush were open to Obama's rhetorical grandiosity in 2008. Now they know the man, and while they may still like him, far fewer people love him, which may help explain why Democrats are raising less money in 2012 than they were at this time in 2008.

Consider Obama's decision to endorse the very super PACs he not long ago denounced as a threat to democracy. GOP-aligned groups have been raising enormous sums. In January, a pro-Romney group called Restore Our Future raised $6.6 million. The pro-Newt Gingrich group Winning Our Future raised $11 million.

Over the same period, the pro-Obama Priorities USA raised $59,000.

Things are ugly for Republicans right now. But that might just be because things are ugly all over. And when it comes to enthusiasm, my hunch is that more people will be excited to vote against Obama than to vote for him.

(C) 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Jeremy

"...my hunch is that more people will be excited to vote against Obama than to vote for him."

Count me in.

Posted February 24, 2012 at 10:35:56 AM


Steve

Goldberg's analysis has some merit; obviously the "enthusiasm" of the uninformed ignorant voters who elected Ohdrama in the first place should be depressed by four more years of high unemployment and the "Great Recession" continuing... and Ohdrama's many unfulfilled promises. IMPOSSIBLE promises were of course, not ever possible.

Goldberg's point on the youth vote deserves some discussion. If the voting age were 35, says Goldberg, McCain would have won. As a citizen over 50, I would support a discussion and consideration of changing the minimum voting age to 25. After all, we require in the Constitution that Presidents be at least 35 and that US Senators be at least 30 and that US Reps be at least 25. The presumption of greater wisdom and knowledge is the purpose of that.

The original US Constitution leaves the definition of voter qualifications to the states because those State Constitutions already existed in 1787 and the Framers knew that ratification of the entire Constitution would be jeopardized (made more unlikely) by pressing for uniform qualifications.

Obviously, the larger problem is that we have WAY TOO MANY IGNORANT people voting (of all ages). The solution is to have states issue Voter Licenses only to voters who can demonstrate a minimum level of competence and understanding of civics (how our government is supposed to work).

If you don't know the Vice President's name, your two US senators, the name of your state's governor or your US Rep, then you are too ignorant to vote. Period. If you can't articulate the difference between the First Amendment and 2nd and 4th, then you shouldn't be voting. If you can't name the three branches of the federal government and their general purposes/powers, then you're too ignorant to vote.

Obviously, given the charged history of voting rights, the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments would have to be obeyed. This is not about race, or gender or age even. It's about RESPONSIBILITY.

We cannot separate RESPONSIBILTY from Liberty nor duty from rights. To have RIGHTS to Vote, you must perform your DUTY to be reasonably informed.

For public safety reasons, you cannot operate a motor vehicle in any state without a license. Likewise, for public safety and LIBERTY reasons, you should NOT be allowed to vote and inflict your ignorance on the rest of society. It is entirely proper. WHY should we allow demagogues and rogues to easily sway IGNORANT voters? Prevention!

For legal immigrants, we already require a minimum of English language and civics knowledge to become a US citizen with voting rights. Duh!! WHY don't we require native born citizens to demonstrate the same competence?

We don't need just higher participation in voting, what we truly need is more INFORMED voters exercising their RIGHTS based on first performing their DUTY to be informed. Barring IGNORANT voters is NOT a permanent bar. As long as a person has minimal intelligence, they can correct their ignorance with study, pass the test and earn the Right to a Voter License.

Posted February 24, 2012 at 12:14:13 PM


Sherry

The Republican Party needs to stop pretending they can ignore the only person who is generating the enthusiasm they lack and still contend for the presidency. The one who is generating the enthusiasm is the one they should be backing. As long as the powers that be ignore the one with the power to attract the people they will continue to lack the enthusiasm necessary to attract the voters they want.

Posted February 24, 2012 at 1:19:15 PM


Jim in WNC

I'm with Steve on this one. I might be tempted to add a few, such as proper voter identification and an ability to speak English. The political landscape would dramatically change. I also think some of the requirements he listed should apply to those running for office. No more "we have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it" bottom-feeder nonsense. Legislators would be required to personally read any bill they vote on.

Posted February 24, 2012 at 10:37:20 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund