Why would Republicans be paying more attention to the presidential election than Democrats at this stage of the game? That’s not very hard to answer.
The most obvious reason is that they don’t have the White House right now and they haven’t had it since January 20th, 2008, when George W. Bush left office. Democrats simply aren’t craving what they already have, and it’s going to take them a while to focus on what they might lose.
That’s a cyclically-dependent variable, but there are others that are persistent, and still others that seem specific to this particular season.
As the electorate has sorted, older voters have trended Republican and younger voters have trended Democratic. Older voters read more newspapers, watch more television news, engage in more political activity outside the home, and vote more often in all elections than young voters.
There has also been a big difference between the parties in the nominating contests. The Republicans had eleventy-billion candidates, no certainty or even much consensus about who the winner might be, and the highly unusual (and famous) Donald Trump adding an entertainment value that could be enjoyed by even the least politically minded people. The Democrats have had (really) only two candidates, much less overall media coverage, and a presumed nominee from beginning to end.
Now, it should be a worrying sign to the Democrats that Republican engagement has been higher, and we’ve seen this not just in survey results but in the ratings for debates and in the voter turnout numbers in the primaries and caucuses.
But, I’m willing to argue that this should probably be of more concern to the Republicans. Despite Trump trending up in the most recent polls, his overall prospects look dim. And where is the room for growth?
Consider that Gallup finds that about twice as many people over fifty years of age are following the election “very closely” as are people under thirty. That number will begin to close and it will continue to narrow straight on through to Election Day. Consider, also, that 45% of whites claim to be watching the presidential election carefully while only 27% of nonwhites say the same.
Gallup says a central challenge for Democrats is to fix this disparity in engagement, and that’s true. But, with two conventions in July, followed by four debates, and the fall campaign, voter interest will rise automatically, and the Democrats have a lot more disengaged voters who will be coming online without any effort by the DNC or the Clinton campaign.
There’s also a current advantage the Republicans are enjoying in that their nomination is now a settled matter, and they’re consolidating a little earlier than the Democrats. Bringing the Clinton and Sanders camps together will more difficult than usual and will probably be somewhat incomplete, but that schism is minor compared to the one on the Republican side where the Speaker of the House can’t even endorse his own party’s nominee.
So, while the Democrats would probably prefer to see numbers that showed more parity in interest, they shouldn’t be overly concerned about these survey results. The Republicans should be aware that the tide will come in and the shoreline will move against them.
The media obsession in the last fortnight has been the consideration of national GOP politicians if they will endorse Trump, pull the Hamlet routine as Speaker Ryan is doing, or maintain a Never Trump position.
It is viewed by the media as a given that if these GOP leaders coalesce around Trump, that they will have a better chance of winning in November. I think this is not only highly questionable, I think this is wrong.
What will it be like for GOP Congressmembers who endorse Trump when they are asked on a daily or weekly basis to support or condemn the latest outrageous statement from Donald? I’m not just thinking about the latest sexist or racist statement; while those are certain to continue at some level, it’s possible that Trump will tone down the frequency or intensity of those statements.
I’m also thinking about the utter political and policy illiteracy that the Donald brings to the table. Trump’s open willingness to entertain the possibility that the United States may default on its debts to creditors if he decides we should is one among many statements he has made just in the last two weeks which are outrageous in their irresponsibility. He likes opening his piehole and saying anything that comes to mind; statements such as these are even more certain to be in the news cycle regularly.
The GOP leaders who endorse him are going to continue to have to eat these statements. A recent example is the questions asked of Congressional leaders about Trump’s maintained position that he would deport 11 million people living in this country and their families:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/republicans-arent-excited-about-trumps-deportation-policy
“…”Logistically that is an impossibility,” Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC), who has endorsed Trump and is facing a primary challenge from her right in June, told TPM. “It would cost the taxpayers of America. We would never get there… It would be an endless pursuit.”
Ellmers point was echoed by many experts and commentators when Trump first introduced his plan last summer. How would a Trump administration track down millions of people who were in the country illegally? Where would the estimated billions it would cost to deport them come from? And who would be tasked with carrying out such a massive deportation? Not to mention the moral and legal questions.
Ellmers said she believes Trump is just trying to send a broader message. He is telling Republican primary voters what they want to hear: it’s time to make a change in immigration policy.
A lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill in interviews Wednesday said that Trump’s plan is pretty far out there.
“That’s not realistic. I think that most people who look at that issue want a solution. They want tougher border enforcement, and they want to make sure that the people who are here illegally — particularly those who are committing crimes and have law enforcement issues — get sent back, but as we look at these issues, you have to consider what is actually doable,” said Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
Thune said that a lot of Republicans have raised the issue with Trump that deporting 11 million immigrants living in the shadows is probably out of the question. And many, including Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), have pointed out Trump could soften the tone he is sending to the Hispanic community.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, says he plans to bring it up with Trump when he sees him for a meeting in the upcoming weeks.
Mulvaney said he never “believed we were going to deport 11 million people.”
“Don’t know how you would even go about doing it,” Mulvaney said. “I look forward to having that debate with our presumptive nominee once he comes to meet with us.”
Trump’s policy is even more precarious for congressmen and senators facing re-elections in swing states and swing districts.
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) says he won’t be supporting Trump at all in part because of his immigration policy.
“I called it a fraud from day one, from the day he announced it. It’s not a plan, alright, and it is unrealistic and it’s not a solution. It’s a good sound bite.”
Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark Kirk (R-IL), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — all running for re-election — flatly said they didn’t support Trump’s deportation policy, although no one was anxious to spend time Wednesday talking about why.
When asked if he supported the plan, McCain-who has worked extensively on immigration reform on the Hill and supports a path to citizenship said- “of course not, but I’m in a Trump-free zone.”
Others teetering on the edge of re-election played coy. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) paused for nearly 20 seconds before saying, “I have discussed my views on immigration pretty extensively and you can find that on my official website.”
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said he hadn’t seen Trump’s signature plan for deportation.
“I haven’t seen any plan to do that,” he said.
But one thing was clear, very few Republicans were ready to fully embrace their nominee’s plan to deport millions. (Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) was, but even he has not come out with a full endorsement for Trump.)
Most recognize that Trump could set the party back with the Latino community they have struggled to court. For more than a decade, Republicans have grappled with the policy and the politics of immigration, but most of the leaders working for reform imagined giving millions a path to citizenship, not deporting them.
In 2012, after Republican Mitt Romney won just 27 percent of the Latino vote, Republicans sought to find ways to do better with the Hispanic community.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) doesn’t support Trump’s plan. He said he’s confident that Trump’s idea is more talk than serious policy.
“He’s not gonna deport 11 million people,” Gardner said with a laugh.”
These leaders, and ultimately the Republican Party, will thoroughly and continually debase themselves if they have to respond to Trump’s preposterous proposals in this way. This will have electoral consequences in November.
That’s the crumbling effect.
I mentioned this to a right-wing family member, and she went off on a rant about how Obama deported 2.5 million actual people already, and that a quarter million American kids lost a parent to deportation, and the hypocritical libtards didn’t object to that, so why am I in a hissyfit about Trump’s mouthnoises?
I’ll admit I was left sorta pounding the table.
Obama has deported more people than any other President. Your right-wing kin has a point.
And quite honestly, deporting eleven million people is fiscally impossible. It’s just election year raw meat tossed out to the crowd.
I agree, to a degree, with your rightwing relative, but isn’t it special how she suddenly NOW knows about how many people Obama deported?? Seriously.
I do know that many libtards have protested Obama’s deportations, but such protests don’t make the nooz. And the D pols keep their lips zipped about it.
But your rightwing relative has most likely in the past whined and vetched – like my rightwing relatives have – about how cozy Obama is with the “illegals” and how Obama personally gives away all this “free stuff” to the “illegals” and so forth.
So now the right is using Obama’s deportation policies – which they studiously ignored up ’till now – as justification for why Trump’s egregious “policy” is all A-OK.
Sheesh. Just hadda rant. I have my share of rightwing relatives. I studiously avoid discussing anything political with them bc it’s pointless.
On even days, Obama is a deranged tyrant who is eroding away all of our freedoms.
On odd days, Obama is a weak-willed, non-leader apology monger.
On even days, Obama won the past two elections on the back of illegal immigrants voting thousands of times each all across the country with the backing of the UN, Agenda21, and latino preteens with calves the size of cantaloupes.
On odd days, Obama has deported the most latinos from the US in history, depriving good American-born children of their parents and increasing the burden on good, white, Christian taxpaying men.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
Except apparently one of those things is true. Perhaps I’m being silly, but that bothers me.
These two statements are not mutually exclusive. Not saying they’re true. Not saying they’re false. Just saying logically they are not mutually exclusive.
I think the Rs are planning to lose this round
I’d say that the numbers about non-whites (being low) is because they have already made up their minds. Don’t need to follow along if one is already decided.
I admit this is generally my process, though I do pay close attention to the horse race because I’m a political junkie. Little effect on my decision however.
Definitely some truth to this. Probably the same for female voters as well?
My wife, for example, will not be voting from Trump this fall and is pretty tuned out right now. But she will be voting.
“Where is the room for growth?” sounds awfully like “His ceiling is 35%.”
Boo, it’s January 20th, 2009, though for Republicans it probably does seem at least a year longer without the White House!
More wishful thinking disguised as punditry.
Sigh…
AG
There are only a few reasons why one would be engaged in paying attention to the US’s overly long election cycle six months before election day:
Now assign age groups and other demographics to those reasons.
#6
8. Your vote is immaterial, but other things besides horse race DO get discussed. I think this is different from #3–political wonk vs policy wonk.