In The New York Times, David Leonhardt writes:
Barack Obama’s two victories created the impression of a strong wind at the back of the Democratic Party. Its constituencies -- the young, the nonwhite, the college educated -- were not only growing but were also voting in increasing numbers....Throughout the Obama years, many Democrats assumed that the country was becoming more Democratic, as a matter of demographic inevitability. They believed this even as Democrats got shellacked in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. Wait till 2016, they said. Victory is a lock, because Democrats will have their "presidential electorate."
The longer view is starting to look quite different, however. None of the other three most recent Democratic presidential nominees -- Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore -- inspired great turnout.... In off-year elections, Democratic turnout is even spottier....
In the simplest terms, Republican turnout seems to have surged this year, while Democratic turnout stagnated....
In [swing-state] counties where Trump won at least 70 percent of the vote, the number of votes cast rose 2.9 percent versus 2012. Trump’s pugnacious message evidently stirred people who hadn’t voted in the past. By comparison, in counties where Clinton won at least 70 percent, the vote count was 1.7 percent lower this year....
For every one voter nationwide who reported having voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016, at least five people voted for Trump after not having voted four years ago. Clinton attracted substantially fewer 2012 nonvoters, the data show. On net, Trump’s gains among nonvoters mattered more than his gains from vote switchers....
Much of that "presidential electorate" didn't turn out, because what was called a "presidential electorate" proved to be just an Obama electorate. Republicans might make the same mistake, especially if Trump wins reelection four years from now. (I hate to say it, but I think that's very likely. America hasn't voted out a sitting president in 24 years, and controversial Republican governors -- Scott Walker, Sam Brownback, Paul LePage, Rick Scott, Rick Snyder -- routinely win reelection.) Republicans might think their turnout advantage will persist if Mike Pence or Paul Ryan is the nominee in 2024. But it will turn out that the Trump bump was all about Trump, not the GOP.
Of course, the GOP has an advantage over the Democrats in elections that don't involve a charismatic candidate. The advantage isn't just white solidarity -- it's the fact that Republican media outlets relentlessly reinforce the sense of Republicanism (and conservatism) as a brand. Republican conservatism may not have a firm ideological foundation -- I agree with Cleek's Law ("Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily") -- but the GOP base eagerly tunes in to right-wing media to have its anger at Democrats and liberals reinforced on a daily basis. A large percentage of Democratic voters don't do this. Most Democrats aren't reading lefty websites every day or watching Rachel Maddow every night, and we barely have any talk radio. So the brand isn't reinforced. And the GOP/conservative brand is reinforced by the NRA, the evangelical movement, and other anti-liberal forces.
Trump may fool Republicans into thinking they'll run the country forever. They won't -- unless they change the institutions of democracy to ensure that they do, which could very well happen.
