Features > November 10, 2006 > Web Only

What Did the Voters Say?

Economic insecurity trumps the politics of fear

By David Moberg

Democratic supporters cheer during a rally outside the Capitol on November 9.

In the hours after the Democrats resoundingly won control of the House and, narrowly, the Senate, the great spin debate on the meaning of the election opened up. Did the Republicans fall because of the war in Iraq? Corruption? The economy? Bush? How about “all of the above”?

Understanding the voters’ motivations is critical for understanding how Democrats can build on this victory and what strategy they should adopt. Predictably, many conservatives are blaming the Republican Party, arguing that Americans rejected not conservatism but party politicians who acted corruptly and incompetently. And center-right Democrats are claiming the election is a mandate for center-right politics. Anti-war strategists read it as primarily a repudiation of the war. And AFL-CIO president John Sweeney opted for all of the above. “For working people, these are all different dimensions of a central reality,” he said, “a country that is being dragged hard in the wrong direction.”

Ultimately the election seems to represent a slim majority rejection of Republicans, not only for corruption and incompetence but also for their rigid ideology, a mistaken war and their neglect of—or harm to—the economic interests of most Americans. Voters may not have been clear about what the Democrats stood for, as a Democracy Corps/Campaign for America’s Future poll by Stanley Greenberg confirms, but they were nevertheless calling for Democrats to solve problems facing the majority of American working families.

In that sense, these results signal the beginning of a swing towards a pragmatic populist majority. Pragmatism does not mean thinking small or making mere symbolic political gestures. If Democrats embrace meaningful measures to solve basic problems of the majority of low and middle-income Americans, primarily related to economic security, opportunity and fairness, the pendulum can swing even further in a progressive direction.

To the consternation of Republicans, the election was largely shaped by national issues, not local ones. But there clearly were variations in the local importance of certain national issues, like corruption. And dissatisfaction with Bush among 57 percent of voters (plus disapproval of Congress by 61 percent), as well as similar sense that the country is headed in the wrong direction, framed the entire vote. It was a vote against Bush and the Republicans, more than a vote for the Democrats.

Democrats did have a minimal unified plan—including raising the minimum wage, rolling back oil company subsidies and negotiating better prices for drugs under the Medicare prescription plan—even if they did not share a clearly articulated program on many crucial issues, like Iraq. But that was enough for this election if not for future ones: Voters wanted a change, and on important broad issues, Republicans had lost their trust.

Most notably, the deterioration and prolonged duration of the war in Iraq undermined the president’s claim to be a protector of national security. Nearly three-fifths of voters in exit polls said that the war in Iraq had not improved security. They may have been divided over precisely how to proceed: Twenty-nine percent want to withdraw all troops and 26 percent want to withdraw some troops, with both groups voting heavily Democratic. But, if not the speed, the direction people want to go is clear: out.

Exit polls also showed that voters think Democrats would be only slightly less effective than Republicans in making the United States safer from terrorism, one of voters’ top issues, and the key to Bush’s victory in 2004. Yet even as discontent with the war in Iraq motivated many voters either to oppose or distrust Bush and the Republicans to provide adequate national security, it would be a mistake to see the election simply as a referendum on Iraq.

Economic issues carry the day

Both pre-election opinion polls and exit polls revealed great dissatisfaction with the economy. Adding in pocketbook issues that the exit polls did not address, such as health care and retirement security, it is clear that there is deep and pervasive anxiety among the majority of Americans about their economic security and the future of the country. Republicans had masked some of the political impact of that insecurity with the politics of the war on terrorism, but the fundamental fault lines underneath that Republican fog of fear reflect concerns about people’s livelihoods and economic stewardship of the nation.

There was a straightforward correlation between income and votes: the poorer people were, the more they voted Democratic. Likewise people with less education, who typically hold less secure or well-paid jobs, were more Democratic than any other group, with the striking exception of people with post-college education, who make up one of the strongest Democratic blocs. Indeed, one of the challenges for Democrats is figuring out how to serve the interests of its working class base as well as its more affluent (and ideologically liberal) base among professionals.

Throughout the campaign, Republicans wrung their hands about the obtuseness of American voters, who couldn’t understand what a wonderful economy they were enjoying. But for most Americans, wages have stagnated, health costs are skyrocketing, jobs in both manufacturing and high-tech sectors are moving overseas, debt is soaring, and economic insecurity is increasing. Half of voters thought the economy was either not good or poor. While the quarter of voters who saw their family financial situation getting worse voted heavily Democratic, the big group in the middle—roughly half of voters who said they had just enough to get along—also voted strongly for Democrats. A plurality of voters—40 percent—think that life will be worse for the next generation, and two-thirds of them voted for Democrats.

Raising the minimum wage—overwhelmingly favored in polls—became a real and symbolic centerpiece of many Democratic campaigns. And in six quite varied states—Montana, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada—voters strongly favored higher minimum wages, in some cases with built-in cost-of-living adjustments each year. Religious leaders, including the Let Justice Roll campaign, made raising the minimum wage a moral values issue.

The working class tilt to the Democrats was reinforced by the labor movement’s most ambitious mid-term political campaign in recent history. According to a Hart Research poll for the AFL-CIO, union members voted for Democrats over Republicans 74 to 26 percent (a bit higher than the preference by union members for Democrats shown in exit polls of 68 to 30 percent). Among union members, the top issue was the war in Iraq (41 percent), but the next three issues they cited as one of their top two issues were the economy and jobs (32 percent), health care (26 percent) and retirement (26 percent)—all issues of economic security. Union voters with these top concerns voted 70 percentage points more for Democrats than Republicans.

These issues, linked to the experiences of working class voters, and labor’s mobilization efforts were decisive. Compared with all voters, union members were more Democratic by 48 percentage points, but even among groups that on average went for Republicans—such as weekly churchgoers, rural voters and married women—voters who belonged to a union voted strongly Democratic. For example, white born-again Christians voted for Republicans by a margin of 41 percentage points, but born-again union members voted Democratic by a 15- percentage point margin. AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman argues that Democrats beat Republicans by a cumulative total of 6.8 million votes nationwide, and union families provided 5.6 million of those votes, or 82 percent of the Democrats’ margin of victory.

Democratic candidates, even many who are conservative on some social issues, recognized the power of economic populist messages. The Campaign for America’s Future analyzed television advertising in 11 key contests and found that “the largest sums of campaign advertising were spent on economic ads that featured remarkably populist messages.” Trade agreements as such were not at the top of voters’ concerns, though they may have been part of general concerns about the economy. Global Trade Watch reports that 115 different campaigns used trade and offshoring issues and claims that in all the Democratic victories for previously Republican-held seats, fair trade advocates replaced free traders.

If the war and economic populism worked well for Democrats, two of the Republican magic bullets missed their mark. Voters ranked both terrorism and illegal immigration nearly as high as the issues that worked well for Democrats. But Republicans no longer have such a firm grip on voters’ confidence in their ability to keep America safe. And in nearly all the high-profile races, hard-line, anti-immigrant Republicans lost to Democrats who favored some comprehensive plan involving enforcement and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Although 29 percent of voters said that illegal immigration was very important, 46 percent of them voted for Democrats, and only 52 percent for Republicans.

The tough line on immigration many Republicans favored seemed to have backfired for the party as a whole: While exit polls showed Bush winning 42 percent of the Latino vote two years ago, in this election Latino voters favored Democrats 73 to 26 percent. That bodes well for the Democrats’ future.

This election clearly set back the Republican dream of single party dominance of American politics. But the country is still remarkably evenly divided in political power, partly because of Republican biases built into our current electoral system due to gerrymandering. Democrats can consolidate and expand their power, but they will need to dramatically turn around the American course in Iraq—no simple task in any case, but particularly with Bush still commander-in-chief—and begin to deliver real, large-scale solutions for the economic insecurity and decline faced by the majority of Americans.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Well written article. If the Democrats can steer a politically centered course, keep taxes low and manage to accomplish something useful in the next two years they can win the presidency.  But the Democrats will do well until they raise taxes and veer somewhere left of Stalin. Its inevitable. They just can’t help it. Why not a legitimate third party that takes the best ideas from both. The Republicrats or the Democans?

  Posted by texasindependent on Nov 10, 2006 at 9:03 PM

  My goodness…

  in the midst of the shift of American power, and the global prognostications, and Reichter scale type media silliness, and the anxious miasma that surrounds much of our day to day dealings…

  I still want to thank Mr Vonnegut for his struggles with defining sanity, and his writings, and ongoing efforts to remind people about our potential for peace.

  What a beautiful writer, such a humane philosopher.

  Happy Birthday Mr Vonnegut

  Posted by minerva_jones on Nov 11, 2006 at 5:37 AM

  Oh, look at that, it appears that terrorism wasn’t a figment of George Bush’s imagination afterall!

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/ts_nm/security_britain_dc

  Tolerant old Britain, tracking at least 30 jihadist plots on their own soil, that religion of peace is hard at work indeed.  But, but you’ll stammer, “George Bush made the terrorists angry!” Well, not only are they angry now, but they’re real damn happy that the democrats are in power.

  http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=200 06-11-10T140135Z_01_L10266591_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-ELECTIONS-IRAN.xml&src=rss&am mp;rpc=22

  http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/topstories_story_314120450.html

  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

  So, when will Jimmah Carter head to the ME to negotiate our surrender?  When will that tub of traitorous lard Murtha “redeploy” us to Okinawa and give this scum exactly what they want.  I suppose we’ll abandon the vast majority of the Iraqi population to a fate at the hands of a brutal minority.  I guess that what ‘liberal’ humanitarianism has come to these days, as practiced by the Dhimminicrats.

  Iran couldn’t love this disaster anymore.  They thought they were seeing appeasement from the Euros and Condi, well they haven’t seen nothin’ yet!  “But, but we should just TALK to them!”, the rejoinder around here will be.  Well, Carter tried that and we had some hostages taken.  They’ve sponsor terror attacks on our troops and Iraqis daily, so why the HELL would they help us succeed in Iraq?  They KNOW it is there end if Iraq succeeds.

  Thanks moonbats!

  Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 11, 2006 at 9:53 AM

  Oh, Dems - Muqtada Al Sadr doesn’t want you to forget your campaign promises to pull us out of Iraq!

  “The vote shows the Iraqi and American people are of one mind about withdrawing U.S. troops. ... We hope the Democrats don’t forget their campaign promises.’” “If they don’t, we will deal with them in a brotherly way once the last American soldier pulls out from Iraq.”

  HELLO?!  THIS IS THE SAME PERSON RUNNING SHIA DEATH SQUADS!

  How did it come to be that the Dem message is also the hope and dream of jihadis everywhere?

  I think we all know the answer to that one, although many here will never admit it.

  Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 11, 2006 at 12:31 PM

  Harm to the economic interests of most Americans?!  What kind of crack is the author of this article smoking?  What the hell is 4.4% unemployment?!  Doesn’t that mean the vast majority of people have jobs?!  DOW over 12,000, the “little people’s” (your elitist view of individuals) 401ks and S&Ps;booming!  Corporate profits being re-invested in more job creation.  The “workin’ man” (only seems to apply to unionites in your parlance) is fat, happy and lazy as ever.

  I just cannot believe the propaganda you people try to sell everyone else and yourselves.  The tax cuts were instrumental in maintaining this level of economic activity, and the Dems want to throw’em out.  It actually reminds me of the Libs fleeing the high taxes of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts going to NH, only to elect Libs who promise more of what they fled.  When will you people learn?!

  Posted by Hyjinx22 on Nov 11, 2006 at 12:36 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 84 posts.

Member Login

Also by David Moberg

• Back for the Future
  Progressives at the Democratic National Convention look to FDR as a model for an Obama presidency
• Dixie Turning Blue
  
• Moving Obama Left
  
• Let Them Eat Free Markets
  How deregulation fuels the global food crisis
• Our Imperfect Unions
  
• Dismantling the Myth of McCain
  How the Republican senator's maverick image is a sham