Framing the New Swing Demographic

Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers notes a fact that seems to elude most political pundits. Among Obama's three top demographics - African Americans, Latinos, Youth - there is a very large amount of overlap. These are not distinct constituencies, but are in fact overlapping groups that are increasing in size and influence as part of a massive demographic shift in America.

Mainly, however, I think there is a failure to recognize how most of the new demographic groups Obama and Democrats are using to win are closely connected to one another, and that these connections represent a new American majority. For example, newfound Democratic success with voters under 45 is closely connected to voters under 45 being far less white than voters over 45 (40% of voters between 18-44 are non-white, compared to 20% of voters over 45). The same can be said of LGBT voters, single women, and voters who do not self-identify as non-Christian. Most of these demographics--young voters, LGBT voters, non-Christians, Asians, African-Americans, single women, Latinos, low-income voters--heavily intermix with one another. The significant majority of people who fit into one of these eight demographic groups actually fit into two or more of these demographic groups. Democrats tend to perform well in each of these groups because they perform well in all of them. It is a trend toward Democrats that is reinforced, for most people, in multiple areas, and should not be understood as success for Obama and Democrats in a laundry list of isolated, ghettoized, discrete demographics. It is a rising pluralist majority, rather than successful politicking with individual groups.

Bower's concludes that because of the growing size and influence of these demographics, the GOP's Southern Strategy of appealing to conservative white voters is no longer operative, and Democrats can effectively ignore calls to court those voters (aka the elusive "Reagan Democrats").

There is simultaneously a recognition that Obama won without increased Democratic support among socially conservative voting groups, and a lack of recognition that this signals a major shift in the center of American political power. Democrats don't need Bubbas anymore, or at least they need Bubbas a lot less than they need young voters and racial minorities.

Bowers identifies these groups as the new "swing" voters in a reshaped/realigned electorate, and he's looking to find a way to properly frame them and their participation.

I would suggest, however, that such a frame already exists, and we don't need to outthink ourselves here in an attempt to reframe the debate. The majority of this demographic change is being driven by the Millennials, 40% of which belong to a racial/ethnic minority. As more Millennials age into the electorate over the next eight years, these trends are going to become more apparent and more influential in our elections. Thanks to the huge turnout in recent years, and the pivotal role of young voters in electing Obama, the political class is already accepting of the influence, activism, and diversity of Millennials. It's a positive brand that is already descriptive of all the trends laid out by Bowers in his piece. Rather than create a new term out of whole cloth, we should be organizing and messaging around this generational tag. Not only will that serve to move Democrats away from failed strategies of courting conservative white voters (those elusive "Reagan Democrats"), it will keep them focused on youth outreach, a necessary party-building/campaign activity that typically gets short shrift from the political class.

As we approach 2018, the oldest Millennials will be approaching their 40s and a new generation will begin to enter the electorate. By then, huge changes in our political system brought about by these demographic shifts will have had almost ten years to take effect and become conventional wisdom. At that time, it may be worthwhile to talk about a broader term that extends beyond a single generation, but that discussion would probably best be had in the future, when the political optics are more clear. For now, I think Millennials is a more than suitable term.