Poll: Democrats face big enthusiasm gap in 2016

The growth of unmarried women, minorities, and Millennials is a potential boon to Democrats in the next election, but they have to turn out. For now, there's a 15-point enthusiasm gap, says Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. 

Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor
Page Gardner, president of the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, and Stan Greenberg, chairman of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and co-founder of Democracy Corps, speaks to reporters on Monday at a Monitor-hosted breakfast in Washington.

Democrats believe they have a winning agenda heading into the 2016 presidential election. And for the first time, the “base” of their party – unmarried women, people of color, and young voters – represents a majority of voting-eligible citizens, according to survey data released Monday.

But none of that matters if Democrats don’t turn out. As of now, 16 months before Election Day, that’s the challenge for them: The Democratic Party faces a big enthusiasm gap with the Republicans, according to a poll of 950 likely 2016 voters sponsored by Democracy Corps and Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund. 

Among Republicans, 67 percent reported the highest level of interest in the 2016 elections – rating it a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 – compared with 52 percent of Democrats. Among the so-called rising American electorate (unmarried women, minorities, and Millennials), only 48 percent responded with a 10. 

“Even though they’re giving the Democrats big numbers, their lack of enthusiasm is grounded in an analysis of the way the political system operates,” Democracy Corps founder Stan Greenberg told reporters Monday at a breakfast hosted by the Monitor.

At focus groups, Mr. Greenberg says, a lot of the talk centered on money in politics and perceptions that candidates can’t relate to the problems of average people.

“They’re made up of a lot of rich people. They don’t have these problems we deal with on a daily basis,” read one focus group comment, as reported by the two voter-research organizations.   

Is all this bad news for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner? No, says Page Gardner, founder of Women’s Voices, now known as the Voter Participation Center. Ms. Gardner points to the “four pillars” of former Secretary Clinton’s campaign – building “the economy of the future,” campaign finance reform, strengthening families, and national security – as evidence she’s addressing the concerns of the Democratic base.

Also helping Democrats, and Clinton, is a perception that Republican candidates “don’t get” the lives of most Americans, Gardner says.

On the flip side, Republicans are more jazzed than Democrats about the 2016 elections because “they don’t like [President] Obama, they don’t like Hillary Clinton,” says Greenberg.

“When they watch the Supreme Court on gay marriage and the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, they see that the only thing to stop it are the Republican presidential candidates,” he adds. “They are trying to stop something as opposed to Democrats who are needing to change a government that needs to be reformed.... And so it is a more complicated argument for Democrats.”  

Last week, Mr. Obama and the Democrats won two huge victories in the Supreme Court – a challenge to the federal subsidies in Obamacare and the right of same-sex couples to marry. Republican presidential candidates are using those issues to argue the importance of recapturing the presidency, which brings the ability to drive the Washington agenda and nominate Supreme Court justices.

But Greenberg rejects the idea that Republicans could win politically from last week’s Supreme Court losses.

“If there’s a perception that [Obama] is a successful president, that’s a plus” for Hillary, he said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Poll: Democrats face big enthusiasm gap in 2016
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today