Greater Potential For Democratic/Liberal Domination in Delaware
A cursory look at the voting numbers in Delaware suggest plenty of room for growth for the DelDem party and the liberal movement. But, if they got their act together again, Republicans are not out of the picture. It is a function of who mobilizes unregistered and non-participating voters to capitalize on this opportunity.
As of 2012, I estimate that there were 870,000 Delawarians age-eligible to vote but with only about 627,000 of them registered. Adjusting for around 15,000 ineligible felons, this leaves about 225,000 ripe for registration. Does the Democratic Party mount significant registration campaigns of this scale? Anybody?
In 2012, Dems pulled about 300,000 votes. I roughly estimate this is of approximately 397,000 potential Dem votes. There’s quite a dropoff for Obama, who got 243,000 votes in 2012. he should have gotten about 335,000. Governor Markell bested Obama by about 34,000 votes; Carper, 23,000, Carney 7,500. This is strange in my experience because the top of the ticket (President) usually does better than down ballot in many other states. Wonder what this means?
When you combine the approximately 80,000 registered missed potential 2012 Democrat votes and let’s say 48% Democrat potential registrations of the 138,000 unregistered, or about 66,000, Democrats/Liberals have nearly 150,000 untapped potential votes to secure their position against crazy teabaggers and Republicans.
OK, here’s my weasel on this. I am not a statistician, which may be obvious to some. These are ballpark, rounded, approximations. But, this is an attempt to explore potential for our side. The Democratic Party has the primary voting demographics available that can give a targeting strategy of the groups/areas with the highest potential to mobilize. Hope they’ll be looking at this with a sharp eye and stout heart.
Tags: Featured
Democrats control both houses of the General Assembly and all Executive Department offices except State Auditor (which may change this year).
Democrats control Wilmington and NCC Councils and their leadership positions.
Exactly what’s left for Democrats to dominate?
“Governor Markell bested Obama by about 34,000 votes; Carper, 23,000, Carney 7,500. ”
Perhaps these are voters who prefer Democrats but simply will not vote for a black man
“Exactly what’s left for Democrats to dominate?”
The biggest threat to the Delaware center-left is not Republicans but right wing Democrats.
And the facts that the party has a healthy registration margin over the GOP and is controlled by center/right Democrats provides a strong disincentive for the perpetuators of the status quo to recruit/energize/mobilize new voters who might tend to lean leftward. Progressivism is not only the enemy of conservatism, but it is also the enemy of the status quo, and the entrenched Delaware Democratic leadership knows this very well.
Oh, joy, more Democrats in power in Delaware. And what are the prospects for more real progressives gaining power in Delaware? You know, because by now we should have learned that in Delaware “Democrat” more likely means “not a registered Republican” than “progressive.”
What if all social movement – good and bad – is the result of getting the non-voting members of society in the game? Big, loud appeals to “progress” or racism, or “________” you name it.
Democrats/Liberals have nearly 150,000 untapped potential votes to secure their position against crazy teabaggers and Republicans.
These non-voters would have to be provided something to vote FOR. I don’t see the Democratic Party providing that something.
Exactly what’s left for Democrats to dominate?
Democratic ideas, really. The numbers aren’t really the issue, it is the unnecessary crouching conservatism (or just plan cravenness) of the ones who are elected that is the problem.
How do you estimate that a state of 915,000 has 870,000 voting age residents? The census (google “pop of Delaware”) says the under 18 population is 23 percent.
Which means there’s only 706000 people 18 and over.
Your numbers are fatally flawed from the start. In 2012, the Census Bureau estimated the population of Delaware at 917,053. The under-18 population was estimated at 22.4%, or 205,419. That leaves a voting-age population of 711,634, not the 870,000 you estimate. Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/10000.html
Where do you get your 15,000 felons number from?
ETA: Cross-posted with Nuttingham.
Also, there were 635,995 registered voters in 2012, not 627,000.
And the Democrats had 302,606 registered voters then. How do you estimate a potential D voter pool of 397,000?
Source: http://elections.delaware.gov/reports/e70r2601_20130101.shtml
cassandra–I agree with you, and that was (sort of) part of my point.
ProgPop argues for signing up every available voter, but it seems to me that what’s happened to the Democratic Party in DE is that as the DE GOP imploded their center and center-right moderates migrated toward the only game left in town.
As a result that took your party (which, as an entity, was not that far to the left in the first place) and nudged it a healthy chunk back toward the right, so much so that the “progressive” wing of the DE Dems is now a decided minority in its own party.
Interesting question: would you rather have somewhat fewer but more united Democrats in Delaware, or are you happy with the big corporate tent?
If “center-right moderates” are more interested in results than they are in dogma, then a move to the left is inevitable.
Liberal economic policies such as progressive taxation and industrial policies that don’t overweight the concerns of capital are the only proven path to broad-based economic growth.
All the Chicago school voodoo economics has been nothing but a train-wreck, so if “moderate” has anything to do with practicality, we should be a big progressive tent.
Redoing PP’s math with accurate numbers …
Voting age population: 711,634
Registered voters: 635,995
Unregistered pool: 75,634
Subtracting PP’s estimate of 15,000 felons, though we still don’t know where he got that from …
And you end up with an unregistered-but-eligible total of 60,639, a far cry from the 225,000 he guessed at.
That means that 89 percent of the voting-age population in Delaware is registered to vote. If someone wants to spend their time going after the remaining 11 percent, go for it. But even if every single person in that category registered with the Republicans, Democrats would still have a 60,000-voter edge statewide.
It is safe to assume that a decent percent of the “unregistered-but-eligible” have consciously opted out of this utterly corrupt bullshit system.
I don’t mind corporations being in the big tent — what I mind are Democrats who think that these corporations have some priority over the people they keep asking to vote for them. The corporate constituency seems to be in line to grab up as many taxpayer resources as possible, while putting the rest of us at some risk in the form of reduced regulations and expecting taxpayers to bail them out when their risky behavior comes crashing down on them. These are the same Democrats who are telling me to expect a cut in Social Security. A Big Tent isn’t supposed to mean that voters are turned into soylent green for the coprorate interests.
I blew the VAP number by bad extrapolation. Apologies. My source for the convicted felon number was an advocacy web site (ProCon.org)….I rounded it up from 2010 numbers of 14,032 to 15,000 to account for the 4 year update and to be sure I did not overstate the potential. But my central point is still valid. Taking Sussexwatch’s 60,639 unregistered but eligible, plus UDel’s data that says in the 2010 mid-term Delaware had only a 50% turnout, or 308,218 votes, leaving about 280,000 non-voting registered voters(adjusting for 15,000 felons), don’t these together represent a greater potential? Sure does to me, even if the Dems register their current 48% share of existing registered voters and eligible non-voters. How? By adding registration and turnout foot soldiers on the ground with great messaging, delivery of message and great candidates speaking to the needs of young voters here who UDel data says tend to be independent but trend Democrat. It seems to me that smugly settling for the comfortable status quo is precarious, especially when our existing national office holders cast votes which betray their base, threatening robust turnout.
By all means, when proven wrong, reframe the debate by comparing apples to raisins! First you were talking about registration; now it’s turnout.
Turnout is always lower in midterms, by the way. In 2010, it was 49%. But in 2012, the year you were actually discussing, turnout was 65%.
I know who the base is for the right. They seem to be mostly of a single stripe – white, older, conservative, biblical literalists, yadda, yadda. But who is the base for the (D)s? My perception is that the (D) base is really comprised of multiple blocks (i.e. labor, African American, progressives, et al). But as more or less a centrist my perception is colored by my biases. The so-called millennials do not appear to a part of the base. Catholics (25% of the population) seem to be split. Is there an accepted definition of the Democratic Party base?
My sense is that there is a money base and a voting base. Since it costs a lot to get elected, the money base gets most of the attention from Dem politicians. The voting base is an afterthought. The voting base has had no option other than to vote for the “D” because of the horrible alternative provided by the Republicans.
The one wild card is labor which has a foot in the money base and the voting base. That’s why the “Club for Growth” is so dedicated to undermining Labor and making the country look more like Wisconsin.
In some areas, the “base” starts with primary voters. I’ve been searching state records and other reports for the 2012 Democratic Primary turnout. Can’t find it anywhere. Anyone? The 2008 Democratic primary Presidential vote was just under 100,000. Don’t have the Dem. registration levels for 2008, but if the 2012 numbers are anywhere close for Dem. registration back then, at just under 300,000 registered, only about 30% of Dems. showed up for a primary vote. Hmmmmm.
primary voters = The base
That makes sense to me on its face. The GOP base chose O’Donnell over Castle. The Dem base chose Markell (narrowly) over Carney.
It also stands to reason that when there are no competitive primaries, the base is irrelevant.
It also explains why Matt Denn would have an edge on Biden Jr. in primary, but would be a prohibitive underdog against him in a general election.
It makes sense to me as well, but really that’s intuitively obvious since primary voters would those who are most invested. But who or what are they?
A Huff Post article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/what-is-the-democratic-pa_b_741708.html) said in part
“African Americans are the biggest and most loyal part of the Democratic base. Gays and lesbians are less numerous than African Americans, but are also an important part of the base. Jews are too few in number to have a comparable role in the party. The rest of the Democratic base is ideological, not ascriptive, in nature. Progressives, or liberals, are the other major Democratic Party base. These voters may be motivated by anti-war sentiment, a desire for more progressive domestic politics, civil rights, the environment or other issues.”
Also, a Pew Research report (http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/) said “The GOP has largely erased the wide lead Democrats had among white voters with family incomes less than $30,000.”
(<30K Rep: 43 Dem: 45 in 2012).
I would have thought that the (D) base would be very inclusive of the working poor, but the Pew numbers don't seem to indicate that. There is no conclusion or opinion on my part. I was just curious and when I get curious I ask questions.
However, it does make me wonder about constituencies and why I can probably accurately characterize the right (neo-whack jobs, except the moderates who have been marginalized) it's much more difficult to characterize the left. Everyone here seems to be pretty progressive but I wonder if that is really representative of the "base" or just the attraction of like minds?
Stan/PP: You really haven’t been searching top hard. All that information is on the Commissioner of Elections’ website and findable with just a few clicks.
2012 Democratic primary turnout was 17%.
2008 registration statewide was 602,317, with 69% turnout; for the Dems, it was 279,916, with 71% turnout. That’s turnout for state elections.
Democratic turnout in the 2008 presidential primary was 38%.
Results and turnout: http://elections.delaware.gov/information/electionresults/election_archive.shtml
Registration data: http://elections.delaware.gov/services/candidate/regtotals.shtml
The Democrats have always been more of a coalition than a cohesive party. That the GOP has erased the wide lead Democrats had among lower income white voters speaks to the success the GOP has had playing on the fears of a group of people who are highly susceptible to propaganda. The rise of the 24/7 wingnut echo-chamber coincides with the reduced influence of unions.
With no central message to hold interest groups together (thanks Bill Clinton!) the working poor have been easy prey for the Koch funded race-baiting and fear mongering.
My biggest criticism of Obama has always been that he never consolidated his big electoral win by framing some solid outlines of the Democratic Agenda. Instead he squandered his mandate to do so, by chasing the “middle ground” and trying to compromise with despicable creeps.
Since much of the working poor is in the deep South, you are probably right that race mongering and fear have heavily contributed to that particular shift. And without a unifying theme (we are all in this together) those divisions probably exacerbate views that if one division gains the other division loses. Not sure what the central message would be that evokes a rising tide..all boats meme. Still, coalitions are bound by common ground and disdain for the wing nuts can only carry one so far.
Agreed. Howard Dean had begun to outline a Democratic Theme before he was taken down by the media. Obama simply blew it.
So here is a good example of how this all plays out in the real world.
Republicans can be whipped into an angry froth to vote against their economic interests, and Democrats don’t have an answer for that.
We have the sick ass, dying Republic that we deserve.
Don’t forget women. Women are a huge part of the Dem base. Women are the main ones responsible for educating children and have real skin in the game when it comes to reproductive rights, health care, elder care (don’t I know it), medical leave, etc. You know… real life issues… that tend, in a patriarchal society, to hit women harder. Dems would be wise to hammer these issues.
absolutely, women are and were a critical reason why the President won reelection-
not enough focus there
Like others have pointed out, there’s no unregistered behemoth lurking out there.
VAP: 694,530
http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/12_5YR/DP05/0400000US10
Reg: 636,200
http://elections.delaware.gov/reports/e70r2601_20140301.shtml
91% registered. That’s absurdly high compared to other states, and is largely due to the Motor Voter program, which makes registering the easiest possible thing ever when dealing with the DMV. I guess that’s partly due to DE having a terrible public transit system, which pushes people toward car ownership.
In any case, voter registration efforts are simply costly and labor-intensive. With only 9% unregistered, just isn’t worth it.
The DDP could run a much better campaign, particularly around getting out the vote. No disrespect to Mr. Daniello, who was no doubt instrumental to restoring Democrats to a majority last decade, but when the party re-elects an 80-year-old chairman you’re not going to get innovation and modernity.
“The DDP could run a much better campaign, particularly around getting out the vote.”
Agreed. We have to get out of the lazy habit of depending on Unions, especially since The Club for Growth and the Koch Bros. have slated unions for extinction.