Harry Enten makes three important observations about the results in yesterday’s special election for Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District. Debbie Lesko, a Republican state senator, appears to have defeated Democrat Hiral Tipirneni, a physician, by five or six points. But it’s a district that preferred Mitt Romney to Barack Obama by twenty-five points and Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton by twenty-one points. Overall, AZ-08 is twenty-five points more Republican than the nation as a whole. This Republican underperformance isn’t new; it’s part of a pattern we’ve seen this year and last in special elections where the Democrats are consistently doing much better than they have in the recent past.
But Enten notes that the Republicans had legitimate reason to hope that last night’s special election would break the pattern or at least show less severe erosion. For one, the generic congressional ballot still shows a preference for the Democrats but it’s a weaker preference than was present for prior special elections. For another, there was no turnout differential, meaning that Republican registrants showed up at the same rate as Democratic registrants, and overall turnout was robust and nearly at the same level as the 2014 midterms. There was high interest on both sides and solid participation, which is unusual in special elections. These numbers were already evident in the early mail-in vote and they should have favored the Republican candidate in a heavily Republican district, but there was still a massive drop-off in the margin of victory. This takes away the two most commonly used excuses for Republican underperformance: low turnout and an enthusiasm gap.
The third excuse is candidate quality. In the senatorial special election in Alabama and the recent special election in Pennsylvania’s Eighteenth District, the Republican candidates were seen as somewhere between criminally reprehensible and outright lackluster. The Democratic candidates were seen as atypically talented. Enten thinks the Arizona matchup was a much more even fight.
Finally, Republicans had a good candidate in Lesko. She had no major scandals and raised plenty of money. One of the excuses in previous elections that Republicans lost like Alabama US Senate (with Republican Roy Moore) and Pennsylvania 18 (with Republican Rick Saccone) was that the Republican was either scandal plagued or didn’t know how to raise funds. Lesko wasn’t either of those, and there was still a significant shift to the left.
The main reason all of this matters is that there are reasons to doubt that the Democrats will do as well in the midterms next November as they’ve been doing in these specials, and the biggest doubts have to do with enthusiasm and turnout. The lower the overall participation, the greater the importance of enthusiasm. All votes count equally, whether they are cast with a smile or a grimace. If Republicans turn out in November it won’t matter that they aren’t skipping to the polls eager to mark their ballots for the GOP candidates. But if they stay home and the Democrats show up, then they may lose a lot of seats. That’s the theory, but the Arizona results show that the problem is different. A lot of registered Republicans are showing up and voting for the Democratic candidate.
Now, just yesterday the New York Times ran an article on a study purporting to find that Trump voters were motivated by their fear of losing their privileged position in American society rather than by economic anxieties. That’s a polite way of saying that racism played a bigger role than concerns about retirement security or economic opportunity. I’m all for studying the electorate, but the Arizona results should be considered here, too.
The Democratic candidate was born in Mumbai, India. She was running in a Sunbelt district known for its large population of white retirees. Because of the large and growing Latino population of Arizona, the politics there have a built-in racial character and Republicans see their advantages slipping away which causes them seek ways to maintain power by disenfranchising Latino voters. This district is almost ground zero for the type of status anxiety whites feel in the face of demographic change. An Indian-American immigrant running against a white woman presented a clear tribal choice for voters primarily motivated by this kind of anxiety. Nonetheless the results showed a massive crossover of Trump voters to the Democrat.
What the Democrats should start studying this morning are the causes of this crossover. What elements of it are durable? What themes are transferrable to other districts?
But they won’t even think to do that if they continue to believe that Trump’s voters are all deplorable lost causes who are too motivated by racism and protecting their privilege to be reachable by any messages.
`This district is almost ground zero for the type of status anxiety whites feel in the face of demographic change.’
Errrr. Ya.
And that makes them GD deplorable. Sure…go after them for short term political gain, but eventually you will be right back where we are now…in that they eventually go back to their roots, which is not `economic anxiety’, but a deep down hatred of those that don’t look like them. Their problem now is that they picked Trump, who is unable to consistently carry their `status anxiety’ banner, so they want off the train, otherwise their finely crafted inner image of themselves as fair minded `real’ Americans gets replaced by reality.
The solutions to what ails America, whether economic or racial, is not going to come from areas like AZ-08. As soon as a more effective and stable demagogue comes along, that same transplant from India will suddenly become the `other’.
.
Thanks for your comment, but don’t the results from AZ-08 suggest that there’s the potential, in the short term, to peel off 5-10% of the electorate (aka, 10-20% of the Republican coalition)?
Sure.
.
The way things seem to be swinging back and forth, I have a harder and harder time believing that it has any root in policy at all but it’s all about personality. They’re just voting for the person they like the most and then rationalizing the decision afterwards
Except it sounds like Lesko was “likable enough”…and she still lost a significant chunk of the Republican base.
All elections are partly about the President. It’s “objectively” wrong but a lot of people seem to think the country has an elected monarch and voting is only for/against him and his policies. So Trump’s popularity is driving these results.
I’m saying that 15-20% swings can’t be rooted in policy but personality. Democrats haven’t changed policy recently, haven’t really been better at explaining policy. It just that with 2 people the person that “swing” voters like the most is likely to win.
Nobody has ever believed this. Trump’s margin of victory was the racists he activated, but they sure weren’t all of his voters. He’s still got the deplorables. He’s just losing everyone else.
`He’s just losing everyone else’.
If we assume for a minute the he `lost everyone else’ in AZ-08, and the democrat still lost by 6 points…..what do you think it would take to win this district?
Sure, it’s a bad example, being so red, and is probably unwinnable ….but even more marginal districts face to same question. What do you have to do to get that last 2%?
Remove the Indian American from the ballot, and replace her with a white male? Bring Bannon in to campaign for you?
.
A Republican. Just spitballing here….
This isn’t just a ‘red’ district, it’s one of the reddest in Arizona, domionated by the massive retirement community of Sun City.
Hiral pounded on the basic message: We the actual fucking people, not the corporate people, deserve to have a government that works for us, not against us.
It’s not a hard message to get across.
Also, 90% of the fight is just showing up No Democrat had contested that seat for over a decade.
I don’t believe this district is winnable unless 1) the less developed parts all become Hispanic and 2) it attracts more liberal retirees. I had family that lived there. Solidly conservative Republican.
Trump ran promising both to a Make American White Again! (Racial Resentment) AND that for his white base voters “It will be greater and cheaper! You’ll LOVE IT.” (Senior Class President, NO Homework and Free Ice Cream!).
Since taking office the Orange Shit Gibbon has betrayed everything falling into the latter category and Republicans just returned to pushing austerity and tax cuts.
We’ve see this before in Tea Party (TM) governors (and legislatures) 2010 to present who failed to get the voter suppression just right. They road into office cause the President was a well spoken black guy and the media made remade these Twice Bush voters into “humble, apolitical, heroes.”
Yet, when these heroes experienced “fiscal responsibility” from their Tea Party saviors it meant things like THEIR kids special education classes were cut and they’d have to pay for grandma’s home care nurse.
In places like the AZ-8, they turned because they weren’t supposed adversely affected by Republican policy. They deserve their checks, not THOSE people!
1. You say ‘”Deplorables” Crossed Over to the Dem’, but provide no evidence for this. (Necessary occasional reminder: “deplorables” has a very specific meaning in our current/recent politics. A specific meaning that bad actors and their propagandists have worked strenuously and dishonestly to disappear. Personally, I don’t think you should be assisting them with that.)
In place of such evidence, you state that
That at least is a reasonable inference from the prior election results you do cite.
But “Trump voters” ≠ “deplorables”. Many individuals obviously are both, but the terms are not interchangeable. As Clinton herownself took pains to make explicit in her original definition of “deplorables” (linked above).
So, yeah, it seems highly likely there was “a massive crossover of [some!] Trump voters to the Democrat”. But there’s no evidence any of these were from among “the deplorables”. Or at least you’ve provided no such evidence.
2. Can you say “Nikki Haley”? I knew you could. Exhibit A that “dot-no-feather” American-Indians are treated as a different “species” — i.e., essentially as fellow whites — by the rightwingers, including the Deep Southern variety, and including by the deplorables to at least some degree. I.e., they’re “the right sort” of brown people. Also true (again, to some degree, not claiming absolutely) of Asian ethnicity more generally. So not the greatest example of the Dem’s ethnicity being a major impediment to either “Trump voter” or even “deplorable” crossover.
I was going to write something on this but you beat me to it, and kudos on the retitle!
. . . when I wrote this, marduk beat me to essentially the same point, and also managed it far more succinctly.
`American-Indian’ is different than `Indian-American’, at least to me.
.
. . . but now that you got me to double-check, I see I was wrong about that.
Your distinction makes sense to me (i.e., Haley’s Indian-American, Chief Dan George was American-Indian, right?) Honestly don’t know how widely recognized/accepted it is, though.
Actually, Chief Dan George is from Canada, so he’s First Nations, not Native American.
As an “Indian-American” it is always confusing to have to distinguish from “American-Indians”.
(Sidebar – if Queen Isabella sent Columbus to look for spices, among other riches, to India or Far East, how come Spanish food today is practically devoid of spices other than paprika and saffron?)
But in my personal experience (since 1980) I have not found that whites with racist views to discriminate people from India. In 1980 I first heard a passing truck full of people tell me “Go back to Iran”.
Many Sikhs have been in danger because people think of them as Muslims.
It is true the Indian diaspora have high median incomes because most in this country are professionals – doctors, engineers, scientists. In UK, by contrast, a large proportion of the South Asian population (one can use that geographical metric instead of Indian even for US) are service sector workers. If you land in Heathrow and take a cab into London, you will see what I mean. Then again if you go to Silicon Valley, you will see the sharper contrast. (In 2004 we went to a Thai restaurant in San Jose, and for the 2+ hours we were there – we were a large group of college classmates – all the patrons in that restaurant were of Indian origin).
So I don’t think those with racist mentality would necessarily say that a Democratic candidate of Indian-American origin would be better than “other” candidates of color. I might be wrong if there is a direct comparison with African-American or Hispanic origin candidate, but till there is such a direct comparison, this is my belief borne out of experience.
. . . American or Hispanic origin candidate” is more or less exactly what I had in mind. The point was always intended to be relative [hence the hedging language “to at least some degree” and “true (again, to some degree, not claiming absolutely)” qualifying the generalization]. I do still think more of ‘those with racist mentality would . . . say that a Democratic candidate of Indian-American origin would be better than “other” candidates of color’, though, so I agree with your statement with that “necessarily” hedge you put in there. Certainly I’m aware of incidents of racism against south Asians.
That said, points well taken, and I very much appreciate your personal-experience-based perspective on this.
cough Uh, maybe in some places, and by some people, “dot-not-feather” “American-Indians” are being treated as “fellow whites”. But lemme tellya — not everywhere. Sikhs are being targeted for violence and murder. Myself, I think Nikki and Bobby are just the latest version of Ben Carson and Herman Cain. They’re tokens, and as long as they stand for all the policies of the GrOPers, they’ll be “accepted”. Step out of line, and they’re persona non grata.
I’m an Indian-American myself (came here age 4). And I’ve seen lots and lots of racism over the years. Also though, literally within the last two years, I’ve seen a person I know very well experience two different incidents of racism. In one of them, a law enforcement officer demanded this person’s proof of citizenship, in a state where that was not allowed. This person is an American citizen, and has been for decades, btw. When she challenged him, offering to get a lawyer on the phone to discuss, the officer made himself scarce very, very quickly.
Sure, high-status & wealthy Indian-Americans get treated well by GrOPers. Hell, so does Kanye West. Doesn’t mean much more than that.
booman, your link on turnout goes nowhere for me. You state that there was no turnout differential because Republican and Democratic turnout were comparable. Comparable in absolute terms or as a percentage of registered voters in each party? Since this district presumably skews heavily Republican, an equal turnout of both parties would indeed mean a much higher turnout rate among Democrats. It would also call into question the degree to which Republicans actually crossed over, given that they did still win. So is which sense was turnout equal? Was the turnout equally split between the parties, more or less, or was it that each party turned out a comparable percentage of its voters?
Turnout among registered Dems was about the same as turnout among registered Republicans. Meaning, the surge was not based on depressed or differential turnout. The votes came from Republicans voting for the Democrat.
From the actual link-“(CNN)The special election train pulls into Arizona on Tuesday, when the votes will be counted from the state’s 8th Congressional District.”
I dont’t know where you are getting the turnout numbers, because Enten wrote that article on MONDAY. He was only writing aboout the early voting at that point on Monday afternoon. You didn’t provide the actual turnout numbers of the special election, yet you still want to use it to f’ that chicken. Bravo on getting ahead of the actual numbers to push your pet peeve!
Diving into the 2 Enten articles, it is very confusing. He is comparing apples and oranges in too many instances. Registration, early voting, and previous elections are all thrown in to comparisons, which make it worthless as analysis.
I would estimate that a typical special election would have the Republican affiliation over 50% and the Democratic around 22-24% perhaps as low as 20%. Typically special elections have lower turnout that even midterm elections, especially in terms of Democratic participation.
The Republican turnout in terms of party affiliation was slightly lower than the 2014 election and 2pts. higher than 2016. The Democratic turnout in terms of party affiliation was about 2.6 pts higher than the 2014 election and roughly 1.2pts higher than 2016. However, there is no explanation of how the independent voters broke. So, there is no way to tell if there was a sizable pick up of Republican voters, or many of the independents broke for the Democrat in this race compared to previous ones. In addition, you offer no evidence that it was the “deplorable” quadrant of the Republican voters that switched their votes.
As I already linked, the AZ SecState page does not include data from which “turnout in terms of party affiliation” can be derived. Did you find an exit poll somewhere? Since nobody has so far cited any, I’d been assuming this election didn’t get exit-polled.
. . . based on. The AZ SecState’s page gives overall election turnout and results, but not broken down by party registration. What’s your basis for that assertion?
Are the numbers there final or are votes still being counted?
Because if they are final, it was in votes the worst election for both parties in the last decade in that district. Including the 2012 special election to replace Gabrielle Giffords.
Reporting: 100%”. I suppose there could still be canvassing of absentee/mail-in/provisional ballots to complete, but usually that would not be sufficient to reverse a 5-percentage point lead.
Then I second the wish to see more data to support the notion that the Democrats gained Republican voters. I think a simpler explanation is that both parties had problems turning out their voters. Not that both can’t happen at the same time.
. . . questioned in this subthread. Rather, it’s the notion that Dem and Repub turnout (i.e., percentage of registered voters who voted) were similar.
“ow, just yesterday the New York Times ran an article on a study purporting to find that Trump voters were motivated by their fear of losing their privileged position in American society rather than by economic anxieties. That’s a polite way of saying that racism played a bigger role than concerns about retirement security or economic opportunity. I’m all for studying the electorate, but the Arizona results should be considered here, too.”
These ideas aren’t in opposition to each other. Conservatism is fundamentally reactionary. Racism is part of that, and a huge part of Trumpism. But there are ideas about temperance, good governance, etc. that are also cherished by some conservatives. Trump is the opposite of that. His government is fundamentally radical in nature, and despite his teetotaling, his outward venality and corruption is impossible to ignore. All that scares people. And it’s not the deplorables who are jumping off the boat.
I don’t think it has anything to do with the deplorables. Trump’s racism appeals to the deplorables and the deplorables are still solidly on the Trump train.
I think Arizona has everything to do with educated Republicans. They are conservative and well off and they do not like the idea of sharing. That is why they voted Republican despite the dog whistle racism in the GOP. Maybe they held their noses when Trump made the racism explicit but they still went along. Maybe they are racist. No matter, race or no race, Trump is losing them, even the older Republicans who have a degree.
Educated Republicans are finding it harder and harder to fool themselves. They can see the corruption and they can see the incompetence and they can’t tolerate either. They do not feel comfortable with a President who is woefully ignorant, determined to learn nothing and who governs by the seat of his pants. They are embarassed by the gibberish he spouts. They can recognize a laughing-stock on the world stage when they see one. They think there is something wrong when they know they are smarter than the president.
They are voting against Trump.
They will vote Democrat as long as the Republicans are tied to Trump, constant chaos, corruption, incompetence and scandal. I do not know whether these voters can be held post Trump but I’d guess that it depends more on where the Republicans go post Trump than what Democrats do. Maybe those who recognize the existential threat Trump’s Republican party represents will stay as Democrats.
I think the pitch to these voters – everywhere – in the near term:
Think 2006 on steroids.
I would think that the threats to Medicare and Social Security from massive GOP budget deficits would be a big issue with older voters.
I saw an estimate that 15% of habitual GOP voters voted Democrat. I am going to take a SWAG that without Trumpism maybe 10% revert to GOP and 5% permanently lost. If that comes to pass the GOP will be in deep doo-doo.