Why the Democrats' turnout problem is worst in North Carolina
Published April 29, 2014
by Nate Cohn, The Upshot, New York Times, April 28, 2014.
Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina seems as if she should be part of the firewall in the Democrats’ bid to retain the Senate, considering that incumbents tend to win re-election in states that are competitive in presidential elections.
But Ms. Hagan is far more vulnerable than she appears at first glance. North Carolina might be the state where Democrats suffer the most from low midterm turnout. The state is divided between older, culturally Southern and conservative voters, and younger, more diverse and more liberal voters, especially around the Research Triangle and Charlotte.
In presidential elections, those two groups fight nearly to a draw. In midterm elections, when older voters turn out at much higher rates than younger ones, the Republicans have a big advantage.
If Ms. Hagan cannot broaden her political appeal, it is not clear she can win a midterm election in North Carolina.
The gap between North Carolina’s younger (under 30) and older voters (over 65) is among the most pronounced in the country. In 2012, North Carolina’s seniors voted for Mitt Romney by 29 points, more than twice his 12-point advantage nationally among older voters, according to exit polls. By contrast, President Obama won North Carolina’s young voters by a 35-point margin, better than the 24-point margin he won nationally. This 64-point gap between young and old North Carolinians was nearly twice as large as it was nationally. Lower youth turnout, then, is twice as damaging to Democrats in North Carolina than it is nationally.
North Carolina’s generation gap is a reflection of the profound demographic changes that have transformed the state. Many of the state’s young voters are the children of Northern-born professionals who flocked to jobs in technology, higher education, banking and health care over the last two decades. Others, including students and graduates of the state’s prestigious research universities, are Northern expats themselves.
When young voters stay home, the state reverts to its Republican past and the more conservative bent of the South. And judging from the last midterm election, the plunge in youth turnout could be huge. Eighteen- to 25-year-olds accounted for a mere 3.9 percent of voters in 2010, down from 10.4 percent of voters in 2008, according to the secretary of state’s office. Older voters jumped from 17.5 to 26.1 percent of those turning out.
Granted, 2010 was probably a worst-case picture for youth turnout; there wasn’t a competitive statewide contest and it was a bad year for Democrats. But nonwhite turnout also dropped, even beyond that caused by lower youth turnout. Combined, the consequences are potentially devastating for Democrats. Mitt Romney’s modest victory margin of 2 percentage points would have turned into a 10-point rout if the 2012 electorate had been as old and white as it was in 2010.
That’s a big problem for Ms. Hagan. She originally won her seat in 2008, when she won by a decisive 8 points. But her entire margin of victory came from voters under 30, who gave her a staggering 71 percent of their votes and represented about 17 percent of the electorate. If the voting public had been as old and white as it was in the 2010 midterms, Ms. Hagan’s share of the vote would have fallen beneath 50 percent; she still would have won, helped by a libertarian candidate, Chris Cole, who appeared to erode the vote for her Republican opponent.
To win such an old electorate in 2014, Ms. Hagan would need to retain nearly all of her support from six years ago. There are plenty of reasons to doubt her ability to do so. The 2008 election was extraordinary for Democrats, particularly among young voters. Between 2008 and 2012, President Obama lost more ground among younger voters than any other age group. Likewise, it seems hard to imagine that Ms. Hagan could hold 71 percent of young voters in 2014.
Ms. Hagan also outperformed President Obama among older, conservative white voters, many of whom are registered Democrats. She will certainly outperform Mr. Obama among older white voters once again. But they might be less likely to vote for federal Democrats with Mr. Obama in the White House. And Ms. Hagan might not benefit from a strong libertarian candidate this time.
Just one factor has turned in Ms. Hagan’s favor since 2008: She is now the incumbent. But there isn’t much evidence that Ms. Hagan is benefiting from incumbency. Her name recognition is low, and her job approval ratings are abysmal. Last week’s Upshot NYT/Kaiser Family Foundation polls showed Ms. Hagan with a 44 percent approval rating and just 42 percent of the vote in a head-to-head matchup with her likely Republican challenger, Thom Tillis. But these polls are of registered voters and assume a younger and more diverse electorate than the one Ms. Hagan will face in November. Ms. Hagan’s 2-point lead turned into a 3-point deficit among voters who said they would definitely vote.
Mr. Tillis might bail out Ms. Hagan by running a weak campaign. It wouldn’t be the first time that Republicans squandered an excellent opportunity against a vulnerable Democratic senator. But so far this cycle, off-year turnout and the president’s sagging ratings have prevented Democrats from matching Mr. Obama’s performance in 2012, even when Democrats have strong candidates, like Alex Sink (who lost a bid for a House seat in Florida), or weak opponents, like Ken Cuccinelli (who narrowly lost the governor’s race in Virginia).
Ms. Hagan’s road to victory is even more challenging. She’s far more dependent on young voters, and, unlike Florida’s 13th Congressional District or Virginia, North Carolina voted for Romney.
April 29, 2014 at 10:12 am
Norm Kellly says:
Isn't this story running a little early in the election cycle? Aren't stories like this printed in liberal rags in an effort to stir up the liberal base? If so, then closer to the actual election is a more appropriate time to run this. I know the N&D has it's cadre of staff readying stories to stir the liberal base/the young inexperienced/idealistic. Stories like this are meant to get the libs out to vote even though they don't like the candidate on the ballot.
What's been the difference between liberal voters and Republican voters? When a RINO runs, Republican voters either stay home or vote for the libertarian candidate. When a lib runs that doesn't stir the lib voter, the lib voters typically come out anyway because they have the mindset that any lib is better than any Republican. No matter how much the lib voters dislike the lib candidate, the lib voters tend to hold their collective noses and vote just to prevent the Republican from winning. And I purposely used 'collective noses' in that sentence because libs tend to be more interested in the 'collective' than anything else. Until it comes to how negatively the environmentalist wackos affect the 'collective', then the collective gets dropped like a hot potato!
And can anyone explain why libs have soured so much on both the White House occupier and K? Aren't both of them implementing policies desired by young, inexperience, idealistic voters? You know, free stuff from the government, help with paying bills cuz mom & dad don't do it anymore so someone has to. Young, inexperienced, idealistic (and typical lib voters) believe that if it comes from the central planners, it didn't really cost anyone anything. It just comes from the central planners out of thin air. And besides, aren't these young, inexperienced, idealistic, selfish lib voters ENTITLED to something from the central planners for nothing? Isn't it the responsibility of the 'older' generation to give stuff to the younger generation, just because? Seems there are 2 reasons the occupier won and why libs continued to hold the Senate, why K won in the first place. First, the occupier won because he's a (mostly) black man, so it was historic to be able to say you voted for him. Second, because he promised free stuff from the central planners. You remember, fundamentally transform the country? The same type of stuff K ran on, but his coattails helped her also. If party-ticket voting is no longer allowed, chances are K wouldn't have won the first time around, and won't win again.
Unless the Republican candidate screws up big time, K has one major item against her. Her Record! A careful review of her record will show that she has supported the party first, socialism second, and maybe the citizens that elected her show up on the list somewhere, but probably NOT in the top 10. How did K respond when the central planners sued Boeing, trying to prevent a private company from opening a business where they wanted, hiring people to actually work instead of collecting government subsistence or working on a government make-work project? Did she do anything to stop the NLRB from targeting Boeing? How did K respond when the IRS targeted conservative/TEA groups? How has K responded to so many federal employees and administration nominees are tax cheats? How has K responded to the unconstitutional behavior of the occupier? How did K respond to the Wall Street occupiers? Did she support them like so many other libs in Washington? What has she said/written about TEA people? What exactly is her record that warrants re-election? Perhaps the young/inexperienced/idealistic voters of NC have realized that their dreams of electing K are unfulfilled and therefore won't be voting for her again.
Obviously I am extremely conservative when it comes to my political believes. Most of that is due to the fact that I support/endorse/believe in the US Constitution. I have raised 2 kids into adulthood with the correct interpretation of our country. They are both conservative in their politics. Not because I forced them into it, but because we had discussion around the dinner table concerning earning a living versus having someone give you stuff. They both realized before they moved out on their own, that when someone is given something by the central planners, it first must have been taken away from someone else. The someone it was given to most likely did NOT earn it. The one it was taken from DEFINITELY DID earn it. They understand that just because it's the central planners doing the stealing does not make it right. Just because someone left a country where they can't support their family does not mean that breaking our immigration laws is acceptable. Instead of breaking our laws, how about you stay in your country and work to make things better! My kids have been raised to understand personal responsibility, and expect others also understand this concept. When they run across someone who expects something for nothing, they are more polite about their response than I am, but they are firm in their stand and their explanation to the idealistic, foolish person. You can tell from my posts that I have very little patience with those who expect something for nothing, those who don't understand that giving to someone means taking from someone else (boy that's an understatement!), but both my kids are more kind than I am but still do a good job of explaining.
Thankfully, both my boys understand to support the conservative candidate only when they are truly conservative. Any candidate that supports/defends the US Constitution is worth supporting, regardless of how much the lame-stream media bashes us, how much the Demon party leadership (think Harry!) in Washington berates us. It is our RESPONSIBILITY to do the right thing regardless of who doesn't like it.
Hopefully, enough libs will be disappointed in their choices, disillusioned, and enough conservatives will see the light that regardless of who the Republican is, K will be the loser. And the country and state will be the winners!
