‘Permanent’ political control is an illusion for both parties

THROUGHOUT the Obama presidency, many Democrats assumed their control of the White House was virtually locked in for a generation and control of Congress within their grasp thanks to demographic changes. It was argued increasing numbers of minorities, millennials, college graduates, professionals, single women and infrequent church attenders would boost Democratic support in elections and swamp Republican-leaning constituencies.

Donald Trump’s victory disrupted that narrative, but many Democrats view his election as an aberration. They believe demographic fundamentals still favor them in future elections.

But a new report from Third Way, a centrist think tank, warns Democrats that demographic trends alone won’t create electoral success.

In “Why Demography Does Not Equal Destiny,” researchers Lanae Erickson Hatalsky and Jim Kessler conclude the “demographics is destiny” model “has failed, both at the state and local level and in the most recent presidential contest,” noting Republican victories nationwide.

And they warn Democrats that things aren’t likely to change dramatically even as the aforementioned demographic groups continue to increase in number. For one thing, they write, “Demographic change is not evenly dispersed in states and voting districts throughout the country.” That fact became all too apparent in 2016 as Trump won a solid Electoral College victory and Republicans easily held their House majority, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Clinton’s popular-vote margin was thanks largely to a few Democratic-dominated states like California.

But Hatalsky and Kessler note other problems. For one thing, “Voting behavior is not static. Voters more readily change which party they support than the demography-is-destiny models anticipated.”

Furthermore, despite “the large change in the demographic composition of the electorate, most voters still do not self-identify as liberals. In fact, liberals remain bronze medalists in the ideological breakdown of the electorate — ever since the question was first asked decades ago.”

This last point undermines Democratic hopes that demographic changes would not only “guarantee Democratic wins, but that the Party could appeal only to its base, impose ideological litmus tests, and still prevail.”

In reality, the authors note, liberals don’t constitute a majority even in the Democratic coalition.

“To regain majorities, Democrats will need to lay out new paths to building a fulsome and ideologically diverse coalition,” Hatalsky and Kessler conclude, pointedly noting this will likely require “winning more white voters.”

Republicans may be tempted to view Hatalsky and Kessler’s research as evidence that the GOP now has a virtual lock on congressional control and perhaps even the presidency. But that would be as mistaken as Democratic belief in demographics as destiny.

In the 1980s, some argued Republicans had an electoral lock on the presidency. Bill Clinton proved otherwise in two elections in the 1990s. When George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, along with Republican congressional majorities, there was talk of a “permanent” GOP majority. Instead, the next two election cycles saw Democrats seize control of Congress and then the White House.

In politics, there are no permanent victories or certainties. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.