Hispanics/Latino

Column: Thoughts on the New Democratic Coalition (esp Hispanics/Millennials)

“Monday Musings” is a new column looking at the 2016 elections published most Mondays. You can find previous editions here.

2016 Overview – Using our regular polling aggregator, Clinton leads this week 46/42. The race is clearly tightening, both across the country and in the 13 battleground states. This of course was to be suspected. Trump had been struggling for months to consolidate the Republican electorate, and is slowly, slowly doing so now. One should expect him to continue to do so until he is regularly polling at 45%. The question begs – can Clinton answer, regain some of the standing she’s lost in recent weeks, and put the race away?

To do so Clinton is now functionally running against three candidates – Trump, Johnson and Stein. Simply, if Clinton performs well at the debates, spends her time, particularly in the 1st debate, making her case, laying out her plans, conveying her optimism and can do spirit, she should be able to pull voters who’ve wandered over to Johnson and Stein. But the campaign would be wise now to start kicking around ways to create more excitement about this race for Democratic voters – inspirational videos, more Michelle Obama and Cory Booker, things that provide a lift and resist the deeply negative environment that I worry is indirectly suppressing our voters. We need more “for” to complement the very well articulated with hundreds of millions of dollars of the “against.” And count me in on the idea of having aging politicians lecturing voters why the vote for a Clinton alternative is “youthful” or a “waste” is itself a waste of time. Time now to focus on making our case. And as I wrote last week, we have a compelling case to make indeed.

On the new Democratic Coalition and turnout – In the last week we’ve seen a stream of stories about how Democratic voters are less enthusiastic about voting than Republicans, and emerging weaknesses with two of the pillars of the muscular new Democratic coalition, Hispanics and Millennials. Whether this is true or not is a bit hard to tell, but that is in some ways the point. Given how important this new electorate is to 2016 and the future of the Democratic Party, there shouldn’t be any confusion about what is going on with these voters at this point in the election cycle.

A decade ago NDN was among a handful of organizations and researchers who pointed out that American politics was in the process of going through a huge demographic transformation, one driven by the explosion of two emergent groups, Hispanics and Millennials. Perhaps more than any other organization in American politics NDN focused on these two groups in particular, capped by the major magazine piece Pete Leyden and I penned for Mother Jones in 2007 (yes prior to Obama winning in 2008). In our piece, and in the hundreds of presentations we’ve done on the subject, we argued that these demographic changes represented a big “opportunity” for Democrats if their politics could adapt to the sensibilities and the far different media consumption habits of these new potential voters. We do not and have never believed demography was destiny. It was an opportunity to be seized, and never guaranteed (Bush showed us this in 2000 and 2004).

In the last few elections we’ve seen the opportunity this emerging electorate offers, and the perils for Democrats in not getting it right. In part by surfing this demographic wave, Barack Obama received 53 and 51 percent of the vote in his two elections, the best showing for Democrats in back to back elections since 1940 and 1944. But at the same time, during this same period of historic success, we had two disastrous midterm elections. In a series of essays (here and here) and a major poll we did in the spring of 2010, NDN warned that these new voters were far less committed to voting in mid-terms and that left unaddressed we could see a very bad election ahead. My own view since 2010 has been simple: as Tip O’Neill said, we cannot expect someone’s vote unless we ask for it, and we just weren’t asking for the votes of this new electorate with the money and strategic intent we were with the rest of the electorate. This was a bit of an “old dogs new tricks problem,” and as Harry Reid says in today’s Washington Post, it is also expensive (and I would add hard, complicated and requiring the reinvention of the traditional 20th century campaign model).

So heading into 2016 it was conventional wisdom that a great deal of the Democratic Party’s success would ride on the ability to get this new Democratic Coalition (it is not Obama’s coalition, and I will leave that for another day) to be actively engaged in the election. This was particularly important, for given the growth of both Hispanics and Millennials, the electorate this year was projected to be about 2 percentage points more favorable to the Democratic nominee. Getting this part right, holding all other things equal, would make success far more likely.

Which was why I became loudly opposed to the Democratic debate schedule when it was first announced last summer. It was in many ways it was the exact opposite of what was required by the Party to address this strategic opportunity/challenge. Nothing was built in to appeal to Millennials, the Hispanic/Spanish part was TBD, and the choice of old school broadcast networks on the weekends was seemingly designed to create as few impressions with all voters as possible. Given the success of the Party and its 26 debates and highly competitive primary in 2008, it was hard to justify a big change in the debate strategy; it was impossible to justify the schedule the DNC committed to last summer. Look at the results: the GOP’s debates were seen by over 100m more people than the Democrats, an impression gap worth literally hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. And we did nothing to address this core strategic challenge that we need to design and learn new ways to reach new audiences that are far more open to hearing from us than them.

The burden of re-inventing the 20th century broadcast model of American politics falls far more heavily on the Democrats, as our coalition is younger and has far more rapidly left the reach of a traditional 30 second spot. The DNC should have used these debates to have experimented with the model, bringing in new partners and models, showcased younger more diverse leaders, etc. Lots of things could have been tried, but instead we relied on media partners from the predigital age (incl PBS!!!!!!!!!!!) of media and few people watched. No Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, Snapchat, Twitch, Vice. Our clear message to this emerging electorate who remain episodic voters – our party is not speaking to you. It was one of the greatest mistakes by a major American political party in my lifetime.

Given the fear Democrats should have had about this new coalition not adequately showing up in 2016 literally everything the Party should have done these past two years should have been designed to engage these new audiences in new ways. And that’s why reading these articles – Spanish language ads starting 10 days ago (In May in 2012, March in 2004), the Millennial effort beginning today, no clear evidence of major Hispanic strategy at the DSCC – you just have to sit back and say WTF guys. Given both the promise and very real challenges of engaging the new electorate the only justifiable strategy would have been to spend more money and to have created more impressions (asking for their vote) than ever before.There is no strategic logic for less, particularly when there are as many as 20 million more Millennials and 4m more Hispanics in the electorate than in 2012.

In my mind, the Democratic Party had one truly significant strategic challenge this cycle – to have ensured that we had a tested, true and funded national strategy to ensure this emerging electorate did not underperform again. Sitting where I sit today, it is clear that we are not there yet. Democrats are still likely to win this year but man is it long past time for there to be a big national conversation about how are going to finally once and for all become the party of the digital age and this new electorate that offers us so much promise and opportunity. 

P.S. Simon wrote about these matters extensively in his 2014 post-election memo, "A Wake Up Call For Democrats".

Debate liveblogging......Cuba first

Amazingly Cuba leads the debate. Obama restates his support of a position NDN staked out in 2006 - start with loosening travel and remittances so as not to punish the Cuban people and Cuban families here in the US for the Castro era itself. While at the same time working with the new Cuban government to help them begin to open up their closed society and make the transition to a 21st century modern state.

On the economy Clinton does a much better job connecting with the struggle of every day people. Obama is a little flat. Tired. A little sick perhaps.

Immigration. I am so proud of CNN for working with Univision on this debate. Jorge Ramos is one of my personal heros, and it is great to see him here on national English television tonight. It is not sufficient penance, however, for their promotion of crazy Lou Dobbs and even crazier Glenn Beck.

Clinton just committed to introducing Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the first 100 days of her Presidency. Of course NDN is for that. Good for you Senator Clinton. Senator Obama, by talking about clearing the backlog, just raised the bar on what has been a very wonderful back and forth on immigration.

For more on NDN's efforts to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform click here. Good for both Senator Obama and Clinton for holding firm on this tough issue.

Update: Obama is gaining steam after a slow start.

I worked with Jon King closely in the 1992 NH primary when he was the AP reporter covering the Clinton campaign. He has been the star reporter of this election season, offering better analysis than just about any other reporter in the business. He has done a great job tonight, and this team of Campbell Brown, Jon King and Jorge Ramos is the best we've seen in this debate season. Perhaps with the exception of Charlie Gibson who did a great job in his double debate night.

This debate has been so interesting because the reporters have gotten out of the way, tossed out the silly requirement to speak in 60 second bites and let these important folks speak their minds.....

Barack just had a big big moment. When he is good he is very very good. Inspiring even. He is beginning to take control of the debate in a way I've never seen before.

Update 2: They are mixing it up now. I have to say that I am with Obama on this health care issue, and interestingly, the organization that has done more to fight for universal health care than any other, SEIU, agrees. His plan is real and so is hers. And of course whatever they propose will get altered in the Congress next year any way. I have always felt that Senator Clinton's focus on the differences in their health care plans was a little, let us say, political.

Update 3: Senator Clinton has had a very good night. It has been perhaps her best debate - though I haven't seen all 19!

Senator Obama has also been better tonight than I have ever seen in these debates. It has been a good night for both of them.

But ending with Iraq is not a great way to end for Senator Clinton. And Barack is doing a very good job here....and has done an incredible job in this last riff on costs of the war.

Update 4: Oops. Another 30 minutes. Here we go. Senator Clinton ducked the superdelegate question well. Barack did a very a good job connecting the need to let voters pick the nominee to the necessity of a having a people oriented government next year.

Hillary's close was excellent. Her best moment of the whole night.

A good night all the way around.

Syndicate content