SOURCE: AP/Paul Sakuma

A California polling place sign is written in English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Chinese.

Read the full report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

The tectonic plates of American politics are shifting. A powerful concatenation of demographic forces is transforming the American electorate and reshaping both major political parties. And, as demographic trends continue, this transformation and reshaping will deepen. The Democratic Party will become even more dominated by the emerging constituencies that gave Barack Obama his historic 2008 victory, while the Republican Party will be forced to move toward the center to compete for these constituencies. As a result, modern conservatism is likely to lose its dominant place in the GOP.

The bulk of this paper provides a detailed analysis of the demographic shifts transforming the electorate. This analysis is followed by a brief discussion of the geographical dimension of these changes. It concludes by exploring the long-term implications of these changes for the parties.

Key findings on the electorate’s demographic transformation are examined below.

Heavily Democratic minority voters (80 percent for Obama) increased their share of votes in U.S. presidential elections by 11 percentage points between 1988 and 2008, while the share of increasingly Democratic white college graduate voters rose 4 points. But the share of white working-class (not college-educated) voters, who have remained conservative in their orientation, has plummeted by 15 points.

That’s a pattern that’s repeated in state after state, helping send those states in a Democratic direction. In Pennsylvania, for example, the white working class declined by 25 points between 1988 and 2008, while white college graduates increased by 16 points and minorities by 8 points. And in Nevada, the white working class is down 24 points over the same time period, while minority voters are up an amazing 19 points and white college graduates by 4 points.

These trends will continue, and the United States will be majority-minority nation by 2042. By 2050, the country will be 54 percent minority as Latinos double from 15 percent to 30 percent of the population, Asian Americans increase from 5 percent to 9 percent, and African Americans move from 14 to 15 percent.

Other demographic trends accentuate Democrats’ advantage. The Millennial generation (those born between 1978 and 2000) is adding 4 million eligible voters to the voting pool every year, and this group voted for Obama by a stunning 66-32 margin in 2008. By 2020—the first presidential election in which all Millennials will have reached voting age—this generation will be 103 million strong, and about 90 million of them will be eligible voters. Those 90 million Millennial eligible voters will represent just under 40 percent of America’s total eligible voters.

Professionals are now the most Democratic and fastest-growing occupational group in the United States, and they are a huge chunk of the burgeoning white college graduate population. They gave Obama an estimated 68 percent of their vote in 2008. By the middle of this decade, professionals will account for around one in five American workers.

Democrats also generally do better among women than men, and they do particularly well among growing female subgroups such as the unmarried and the college educated. Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama, and an estimated 65 percent of college-educated women supported him. Unmarried women are now 47 percent, or almost half, of adult women, up from 38 percent in 1970, and college-educated women are an especially rapidly growing population. Their numbers have more than have tripled in recent decades, from just 8 percent of the 25-and-older female population in 1970 to 28 percent today.

Finally, growing religious diversity favors Democrats as well, especially rapid increases among the unaffiliated (75 percent of whom voted for Obama). Unaffiliated or secular voters—not white evangelical Protestants—are the fastest-growing “religious” group in the United States. The percentage of adults reporting no religious affiliation almost tripled from 1944 to 2004, rising from 5 percent to 14 percent. Projections indicate that by 2024, 20 percent to 25 percent of U.S. adults will be unaffiliated.

This trend—combined with growth among non-Christian faiths and race-ethnic trends—will ensure that by the 2016 election (or 2020 at the outside) the United States will have ceased to be a white Christian nation. Looking even farther down the road, white Christians will be only around 35 percent of the population by 2040, and conservative white Christians, who have been such a critical part of the Republican base, will be only about a third of that—a minority within a minority.

It’s difficult to look across these many demographic changes and not believe that the Republican Party as currently constituted is in need of serious and substantial changes in approach. These changes could include the following:

• Move to the center on social issues. The culture wars may have worked for a while, but shifting demographics make them a loser for the party today and going forward. A more moderate approach would help with Millennials, where the party must close a yawning gap, and with white college graduates, who still lean Republican but just barely. The party also needs to make a breakthrough with Hispanics, and that won’t happen unless it shifts its image toward social tolerance, especially on immigration.
• Pay attention to whites with some college education and to young white working-class voters in general. The GOP’s hold on the white working class is not secure, and if that slips, the party doesn’t have much to build on to form a successful new coalition. That probably also means offering these voters something more than culture war nostrums and antitax jeremiads.
• Another demographic target should be white college graduates, especially those with a four-year degree only. The party has to stop the bleeding in America’s large metropolitan areas, especially in dynamic, growing suburbs. Keeping and extending GOP support among this demographic is key to taking back the suburbs. White college graduates increasingly see the party as too extreme and out of touch.
• In the long run the GOP has to have serious solutions of its own that go beyond cutting taxes. These solutions should use government to address problems but in ways that reflect conservative values and principles. Antigovernment populism is something the party is clearly comfortable with— witness its evolving line of attack on the Obama administration. But it’s likely not enough to just denounce the other side and what they have done or propose to do in populist terms.

In short, the “party of no” has a limited shelf life. That strategy might help the party make significant gains in 2010, but it will not be enough to restore it to a majority status. For that, a conservatism must be built that is not allergic to government spending when needed and even to taxes when there is no responsible alternative. The party must paradoxically find a way to combine its standard antigovernment populism with pro-government conservatism.

This sounds and is different from what the party has done in the recent past. No doubt many will say that such a “new conservatism” is not conservatism at all. To be sure, it certainly is not conservatism as we have known it. But if the party hopes to once again achieve electoral dominance, there is no alternative moving forward.

The Democrats, for their part, are in a considerably more comfortable position. They have exchanged their old coalition for a new one based on emerging demographics and have already gone through the painful process of ideological reexamination and change that the GOP is currently avoiding.

Their chief challenge now is governance, which is daunting in its own right. They have an ambitious agenda in areas such as health care, financial reform, education, energy, and global relations that they are having some success in pursuing. If these policies have their intended effects and make serious progress toward remedying problems in these areas, Democrats will be in very good shape indeed and will solidify their support among emerging demographics while destabilizing what is left of the GOP coalition.

Conversely, if the Democrats fail to produce—whether through ineffective programs, fiscal meltdown, or both—even an unreformed GOP will remain very competitive despite the many demographic changes that are disadvantaging the party. The next few years will tell the tale.

Read the full report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Now comes the hard part. Our country faces enormous challenges, many the direct result of eight years of hapless conservative governance. The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression is only the latest blow delivered to the American people after years of stagnant wages and the worst job-creation record since Herbert Hoover. Our increasingly costly health care system leaves out more and more Americans every year.

Years of war in Iraq have left Americans less safe at home and abroad despite the incredible sacrifice of our brave fighting men and women there and in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are mounting a comeback. And our planet is now eight years closer to catastrophic climate change.

Sen. McCain and other conservatives supported these policies, and they ran this election year on ambitious conservative plans that would have gone even further. The American people rejected these stale ideas yesterday, understanding the dismal consequences of conservatism these past eight years. The urgency of our problems was central to the decisions of American voters, who were significantly more likely to say that the economy, taxes, heath care, and energy were ìvery importantî compared to four years ago, according to the Pew Research Center.

Thatís why candidates who embraced progressive solutions to these problems won. Obama ran on the most progressive platform of any presidential candidate in at least 15 years, including a promise of universal health care coverage, a dramatic transformation to a low-carbon economy, and a historic investment in education. Winning congressional candidates also embraced progressive policies. And polls showed that voters supported progressive solutions by wide margins.

In a few short months, leaders who support progressive ideals will take up the reins of government in Washington. We must rise to the occasion. We must move beyond the false choice of left versus center to embrace solutions as big as the challenges we face.

We need investments now to jumpstart our economy while laying the foundations for sustained economic growth. Restoring confidence in our economy will require a new direction for the economy, health care, clean energy, and education. And we must be willing to set priorities on government spending to restore budgetary responsibility in the coming years.

If we do these things, then we can translate yesterdayís victory at the polls into a victory for health care, clean energy, national security, and a stronger and larger middle class. The American people are ready. Now it’s time to deliver.

SOURCE: CAPAF

Download the guide (pdf)

On November 4, California voters will decide on 12 state propositions. Propositions 1A and 12 originated in the state legislature, and Propositions 2 through 11 are initiatives placed on the ballot by California citizens. Four of these measures seek to amend the state constitution. The following provides California’s progressives with a guide to the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s recommended vote on each of the 12 propositions.

Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.

CAP Action Fund Vote: YES

California’s current urban, intercity, and commuter rail service largely serves local and regional communities. Intercity rail is mostly provided by Amtrak for longer-haul travelers, with maximum speeds of 90 miles per hour. The current state-funded rail services provide for only minimal travel between northern and southern California.

This measure would authorize the sale of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to fund the construction of a high-speed passenger train system in California. Nine billion dollars would be used, together with any available federal monies, private monies, and funds from other sources, to develop and construct a high-speed train system that connects San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim, and that links the state’s major population centers, including Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The fiscal impact would be about $19.4 billion to pay off both principal and interest—about $647 million per year for more than 30 years.

For more information, please visit www.californiahighspeedtrains.com/

Support: California Alliance for Jobs; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

Opposition: California Rail Foundation; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; state Senator Tom McClintock (R-19th District)

Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals.

CAP Action Fund Vote: YES

Over 40 million animals are raised for commercial purposes in California. In recent years, voters have voiced concerns regarding the treatment of animals, including the housing of certain farm animals such as hens and pregnant pigs in confined spaces and restricted enclosures. Many farming industries have already changed their practices, and there are some federal and state laws protect farm animals.

This measure would prohibit, with certain exceptions, the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that prevents them from turning around freely, laying down, standing up, and fully extending their limbs. Violation of this law would result in a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months. Potential fiscal impact could be millions lost in tax revenue.

For more information, please visit www.yesonprop2.com/

Support: The Humane Society of the United States; California Veterinary Medical Association; Sierra Club

Opposition: Association of California Veterinarians; California Teamsters Public Affairs Council; California Chamber of Commerce

Proposition 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act.

CAP Action Fund Vote: YES

Many children’s hospitals in California provide services to low-income families. In 2004, California voters approved Proposition 61, which authorized the sale of $750 million in general obligation bonds to provide funding for children’s hospitals, many of which cater to low-income communities.

This measure would authorize the state to sell an additional $980 million in general obligation bonds under the same guidelines as Proposition 61 for capital improvements such as the construction, expansion, and remodeling of children’s hospitals. Eighty percent of the funding would go to hospitals that focus on, heart defects, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and leukemia and other cancers. The remaining 20 percent would go to University of California general care hospitals. The fiscal impact would be $2 billion over 30 years to pay off the principle and interest costs—about $64 million per year.

For more information, please visit www.imaginewithus.org/

Support: California Nurses Association; League of Women Voters of California; California Medical Association

Opposition: National Tax Limitation Committee; Assemblyman Ted Gaines (R-4^th District); American Conservative Union

Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy

CAP Action Fund Vote: NO

Since 1953, minors have been able to receive the same care for pregnancy as adults, without parental consent. A legislative amendment to the law in 1987 would have required parental consent for a minor’s abortion, but it was never implemented due to legal challenges, and in 1997 the California Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. In 2005 and 2006, California citizens placed similar initiatives on the ballot, and it once again failed.

The measure is now on the ballot again. Proposition 4 would amend the state constitution to require parental notification by personal written or mail notification 48 hours before a health care provider performs an abortion on an unemancipated minor. For young women from abusive families, this measure would only allow a family member other than a parent to receive the notification if abuse had been reported to the authorities. Violation of the law would put the person who performed the abortion at risk for civil damages in a suit brought by the minor or her legal guardian or representative.

For more information, please visit www.NoOnProp4.org

Support: Friends of Sarah, the Parental or Alternative Family Member Notification Act; California Catholic Conference; Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Opposition: California Nurses Association; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California; California Teachers Association

Proposition 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole, and Rehabilitation.

CAP Action Fund Vote: NO

This measure would expand current drug treatment diversion programs for criminal offenders, modify parole supervision procedures, and expand treatment programs in prisons and for those on parole. In exchange for participation in rehabilitation programs, inmates can earn extra time off sentences and reduce certain penalties for possession of marijuana. The measure would change state law related to administration of rehabilitation and parole programs. These plans together may exceed $1 billion annually in state operating costs.

While Proposition 5 seems to expand resources for progressive treatment alternatives, there is little agreement on how the measure would work and how it would affect existing programs. The measure could undercut progressive reforms, including those enacted in 2000 under Proposition 36. Currently, no first time drug offender is subject to jail time in California. Proposition 5 would have other negative effects, such as compromising the ability of drug courts to intervene until an individual has committed multiple offenses and restricting the discretion of judges to impose or threaten sanctions, including jail time, when necessary to ensure compliance with drug treatment programs.

Issues of this complexity should be vetted and perfected through the legislative process; voters should not be left to wade through this massive, 36-page, single-spaced, fine-print proposal.

For more information, please visit www.noonproposition5.com/

Support: Service Employees International Union, California State Council; League of Women Voters of California; California State Conference of the NAACP

Opposition: Mothers Against Drunk Driving; U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); former Governors Pete Wilson and Gray Davis, Attorney General Jerry Brown

Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws.

CAP Action Fund Vote: NO

This measure would increase penalties for certain crimes as well as create new misdemeanors and felonies related to gang participation and recruitment, possession and sale of methamphetamines, vehicle theft, and tampering with a GPS device. It would increase the amount of state spending for specified criminal justice programs by $365 million, mostly directed at local law enforcement including police, sheriffs, district attorneys, and jails.

This proposition goes too far in abridging civil liberties in the name of law enforcement.

For more information, please visit www.votenoprop6.com/

Support: California State Sheriffs’ Association; California District Attorneys Association; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

Opposition: Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and Southern California; California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation.

CAP Action Fund Vote: NO

California is currently a national leader in renewable energy goals, which it has carefully and deliberately developed. Proposition 7 has good intentions—to expand renewable energy generation—but it is badly structured, poorly written, and would have a detrimental effect on California’s progress toward renewable energy goals. Moreover, many other states closely monitor California, so any problems could be amplified nationally.

The current Renewable Portfolio Standard in California requires private utilities to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2010 and 33 percent by the end of 2020. Proposition 7 would increase this requirement to 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025 and extend it to government-owned utilities. This sounds good in theory but is problematic in several ways. First, the legislation contains a variety of loopholes that are vulnerable to manipulation, potentially making it harder for viable projects to receive financing and thus delaying the development of clean energy resources. With credit now tight, this barrier could mean the difference between completing good projects and abandoning them.

Second, the proposition discriminates against renewable projects smaller than 30 megawatts, thus shutting out numerous projects that are easier and quicker to bring online. Third, Proposition 7 proposes some major regulatory changes that would add further complexity and bureaucratic bottlenecks to the electricity market, including shifting authority over the renewables standard from the California Public Utilities Commission to the California Energy Commission. Proposition 7 also would bypass the existing Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative process in an effort to expedite permitting. While expedited permitting is a noble aspiration, it would ensure costly and prolonged legal battles. Lastly, the proposition creates a potentially costly pricing structure, which would allow power providers to charge 10 percent above market price for renewable energy, thus discouraging competition and innovation and artificially increasing consumer electricity costs. Nearly all the main environmental organizations—themselves adamantly dedicated to renewable energy and combating global warming—oppose Proposition 7.

For more information, please visit www.noprop7.com/

Support: Californians for Solar and Clean Energy; Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America; Progressive Democrats of America, Monterey County Chapter

Opposition: California League of Conservation Voters; Sierra Club; Natural Resources Defense Council

Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.

CAP Action Fund Vote: NO

Currently in California, same-sex marriages are recognized as legal and valid. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 and other statutes that limited marriage to one man and one woman were unconstitutional because they violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

This measure would amend the California Constitution to take away the right to marry from committed same-sex partners. The measure would not require churches or individuals to support same-sex marriages or affect school curricula.

For more information, please visit www.noonprop8.com/

Support: California Family Council; Coalition of African American Pastors; Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays

Opposition: ACLU of Southern California; California State Conference of the NAACP; Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

Proposition 9: Criminal Justice System. Victims Rights. Parole.

CAP Action Fund Vote: NO

This measure would amend the California Constitution to require that restitution be ordered from offenders in every case where the victim suffers a loss. It would increase notice and participation of victims in criminal proceedings. It would allow victims a constitutional right to confer with prosecutors and would return property to the victim that is no longer needed in proceedings. It also would allow victims and their families to refuse to divulge personal information to defendants or be interviewed. Other changes to the constitution include requiring judges to consider a victim’s safety when setting bail and expanding “safe schools” to include community colleges, colleges, and universities. Also, the proposition would require that sentences not be substantially diminished by early release and that sufficient funding be provided to house inmates to the full term of their sentences.

Proposition 9 is an attempt to tilt further the playing field against the accused. As written, the proposition would severely impair the defendant’s ability to gather information and present a full and unfettered defense. It would also unduly influence decisions made by the state by granting legal authority to individuals to engage in the disposition of the state’s case. These changes could ultimately taint the system in a manner that prevents justice for the accused, as well as victims and their families.

For more information, please visit www.votenoprop9.com/

Support: California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations; California Farm Bureau Federation; Crime Victims United of California

Opposition: California Democratic Party; California Teachers Association; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds.

CAP Action Fund Vote: NO

Proposition 10 would raise $5 billion from general obligation bonds to fund consumer rebates for purchasing certain alternative or high fuel-economy vehicles; research in alternative fuel and renewable energy technologies; incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology; grants to cities for renewable energy projects; and funding to colleges for academic and job training in renewable and energy efficiency technologies. On the surface, Proposition 10 is appealing. Yet it is too expensive and has too little impact on greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants from the California vehicle fleet. With interest charges, Proposition 10 would cost California taxpayers $10 billion over 30 years, an exorbitant sum in times of tight budgets. Moreover, California already has in place some statutes and is pursuing further legislation that will achieve equal or superior results with little or no cost to the taxpayer.

California is a world leader in passing clean-air regulations to reduce vehicle tailpipe pollution and increase fuel efficiency. The rebate program defined by Proposition 10 is poorly structured and heavily favors natural gas over other alternative fuels that could provide greater environmental benefits in both the short and long term, such as hybrid heavy-duty trucks or plug-in hybrid electrics. Unfortunately, natural gas vehicles are rare and expensive. Moreover, there is no fueling infrastructure for privately owned natural gas vehicles. Even with a generous rebate, they would be accessible primarily to upper-income consumers, raising important policy questions about equitable use of taxpayer dollars. A 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of all transportation fuels will soon be mandated under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and this policy should reduce emissions by an amount comparable to Proposition 10. Moreover, California has passed landmark legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, and the state is waiting for the federal Environmental Protection Agency to issue a waiver that allows California to implement these standards. Both Senators McCain and Obama have promised to issue this waiver.

For more information, please visit www.noonproposition10.org/

Support: Clean Energy Fuels; Chesapeake Energy; Westport Fuel Systems

Opposition: California League of Conservation Voters; Sierra Club; Union of Concerned Scientists

Proposition 11: Redistricting.

CAP Action Fund Vote: NO

Beginning with the 2010 census, this measure would amend the California Constitution to require that a 14-person commission draw state legislative district boundaries. These commissioners would be chosen by government auditors who would select 60 registered voters from the applicant pool; legislative leaders could disqualify up to 24 candidates from those 60 selected. The auditor would next randomly draw the first eight commissioners, who would then pick the final six. The commission must have five registered Democrats, five registered Republicans, and four members registered with another or no party. The fiscal impact is expected to be about $4 million in 2010.

Proposition 11 on its face is rational and attempts to provide fair, honest, and open elections. Electoral contests should not be predetermined or slanted by who controls the process during a redistricting year. Yet because of the many stipulations on its membership, the commission created by Proposition 11 is unlikely to be representative of the California population. Furthermore, the commission will not be held accountable to voters for its actions. Realigning legislative districts under the new requirements—a process which would have little oversight or redress—would likely benefit some voters’ representation at the cost of others, which undercuts the basic concept of fairness this measure is intended to address.

For more information, please visit www.noonprop11.org/

Support: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; former State Controller Steve Westly; California Republican Assembly

Opposition: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); California Democratic Party

Proposition 12: Veterans Bond Act of 2008.

CAP Action Fund Vote: YES

Voters have approved bonds for veterans 26 times in California’s history. The Cal-Vet Home Loan program issues low-interest home loans to military veterans.

Proposition 12 provides a $900 million bond for California veterans in the form of loans to purchase farms and homes. All of the principal and interest costs would be covered by the borrowers. Fiscal impact would be tax revenue lost on the bonds.

For more information, please visit www.cdva.ca.gov/

Support: Senator Mark Wyland; Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Opposition: Gary Wesley, attorney at law

Download the guide (pdf)

SOURCE: CAPAF/Lauren Ferguson

Download the full report (pdf)

Some worry that as the United States grows more racially and ethnically diverse, the country will become increasingly fragmented. Yet whites, blacks, and Hispanics in the Millennial Generation—Americans between the ages of 18 and 29—are more diverse and share more similar attitudes about the economy than any previous generation of young people. Young blacks and Hispanics have historically been more progressive than young whites, but young whites are closing the gap and have actually become more progressive in several areas, according to the results of our study.

On a range of economic issues—from support for universal health care and labor unions to assistance for the needy—minorities in the Millennial Generation are generally more progressive than whites of the same age. Young blacks and Hispanics are more likely than young whites to believe that the government can be a force for good in the economy, and that labor unions are necessary to ensure strong and sustainable economic growth, as well as support increased investments in health care, education, and other areas.

Perhaps the most unique trait of the Millennial Generation is that the gap between young minorities and young whites is shrinking. Not only are young adults today more progressive than previous generations—as a previous Center for American Progress report, “The Progressive Generation,” found—but they are more likely to hold similar views than previous generations of young adults. Young whites today are closing the progressive gap with minorities on most of the economic issues we examined—and on some issues have become more progressive.

Over the past 20 years, an average of 86 percent of blacks aged 18 to 29 agreed that labor unions are necessary to protect workers, while 72 percent of young whites agreed—a 14 percentage-point progressive gap. Today the gap is just 2 percentage points.

Forty-six percent of young Hispanics over the past two decades believed it is the government’s responsibility to ensure a good job and standard of living for all, while just 35 percent of young whites did—a gap of 11 percentage points. Today, the gap is less than 6 percentage points.

An average of 55 percent of young blacks and 54 percent of young Hispanics over the past 20 years have supported universal health care provided by the government, while 45 percent of young whites held this view. Today, young whites are slightly more supportive of universal government-provided health care than young Hispanics and nearly as supportive as young blacks.

Over the last two decades, an average of 88 percent of young blacks and 83 percent of young Hispanics thought federal spending for education should be increased, compared to 78 percent of young whites. Today, Millennial generation whites have nearly cut in half the gap between themselves and young blacks and have overtaken Hispanics.

An average of 85 percent of blacks, 72 percent of Hispanics, and 51 percent of whites aged 18 to 29 over the past two decades have supported increased federal spending for the poor—a gap of 34 percentage points between young blacks and young whites and 21 percentage points between young Hispanics and young whites. In the most recent survey, whites had reduced the gap with blacks by almost 10 percentage points and had cut it in half with Hispanics.

Young adults today have more similar views perhaps because they face a common economic struggle. Millennials are confronting far more significant economic challenges than other recent generations—such as lower rates of health care coverage, worse job prospects, and higher levels of student loan debt—and are likely reacting to the conservative policies that have created much of their financial difficulties. It also appears that the gap is closing in part because young minorities tend to keep the progressive views of their elders, while young whites are increasingly rejecting the more conservative views of elder whites.

Whatever the cause of their economic progressivism, Millennials of all races are set to play a major role in the 2008 election and beyond. The economy is the most important issue of the election for all voters, but has been a bigger concern for Millennials than older generations. Millennials are a very large generation in size—and by far the most diverse. And young adults are voting at increasingly high rates, with 2008 likely to be the third major election in a row with an increase in turnout among young voters.

Due to their embrace—across race and ethnicity—of decidedly progressive positions on economic issues, this generation could well be poised to transform the American political landscape in 2008 and beyond.

Download the full report (pdf)

Read an excerpt: What does it mean to be a progressive? (pdf)

Join the discussion on Facebook

Read advance praise for the Power of Progress

Purchase this book now

Watch the Event Video

America is facing unprecedented challenges—new threats to our economic well-being, our environment, and our security. The American people are looking for real answers; the next president must mobilize our government and our citizens in ways that no president has done since FDR. America needs the power of progress . . . once again.

At the turn of the twentieth century, the American Dream was beginning to dim in a nation riven by growing inequalities in wealth and run by a powerful network of privileged industrialists and their political allies. But that era also gave birth to a renaissance in American political thought that forever changed our nation.

At a time when conservative ideology served as an excuse for the accumulation of wealth and privilege, the original Progressive movement created a new political order built on America’s basic principles—justice and equality for all, economic opportunity, and a commitment to the common good.

The lives of all Americans have been profoundly improved by the achievements of progressive reformers, from the eight-hour workday and voting rights to our victory in the Cold War and the economic gains middle-class Americans enjoyed under our most recent progressive president, Bill Clinton. Today’s challenges demand a second great Progressive era. America needs an economy in which workers at every income level share in our riches; a climate policy that stops global warming and ends our addiction to fossil fuels; and American leadership in the global fight against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and poverty.

In The Power of Progress, John Podesta—former Clinton chief of staff—along with his colleague, John Halpin, explains how progressive values changed America in the wake of the Gilded Age and how these values will reshape America after the Bush presidency. Tapping the spirit of great progressive leaders from Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt to Martin Luther King Jr., The Power of Progress provides the road map toward a government responsive to the needs of its citizens; one that is focused on our generation’s greatest challenges: combating global warming, growing our economy and expanding the middle class, and meeting America’s twenty-first-century security challenges.

“We all want to be able to pass on this world to our kids, to give them a better opportunity in life,” said Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event about fiscal responsibility last Thursday. He discussed Maryland’s fiscal shortcomings prior to his administration, as well as the steps he has taken so far to correct it.

John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, introduced O’Malley, pointing out the financial problems weakening the country and the lessons that can be learned from Maryland.

“Today, Americans are increasingly disillusioned with the state of our nation, and with good reason,” he said. Podesta explained that the deficit this year is projected to reach $482 billion, the highest in history. In addition, household debt is at an all-time high, unemployment rates are increasing, and mortgage foreclosure rates are growing.

Still, Podesta offered a glimmer of hope. “Governors and legislatures have taken the lead and done many things,” he said, citing an increase of the minimum wage and an expansion of health care access. In order to face this fundamental budget challenge, he said, investments in infrastructure, energy, health care, and education must be made.

Podesta held out O’Malley as an example, saying he puts “people above politics” and has been able to restore fiscal accountability in Maryland within 14 months by adopting this approach.

O’Malley discussed the “politics of posterity” in his speech, condemning a national tendency to pass the buck to future generations. Before O’Malley took office, the state had a $40 billion budget shortfall, and the government was carving into public safety, education, and health care.

When O’Malley became governor in January 2007, he had to decide “whether we would allow circumstances to change us or whether we would change circumstances,” he said. Most importantly, he wanted to make government work again.

“It’s a duty we have not only to our neighbors, but to our next generation,” O’Malley said, criticizing collapsing bridges, depleted military, ineffective classrooms, home foreclosures, unaffordable college tuition, and a weakened federal government.

O’Malley focused on three principles that guide his administration: strengthening the middle-class, expanding opportunity, and improving education. Before he took office, $2 billion of expenditures had been locked away from public use. “The chickens of our bad math were coming home to roost,” he said.

O’Malley took steps to reduce expenditures by cutting 700 government positions, closing the Maryland House of Correction, modernizing the tax code, raising the sales tax, and passing Maryland’s first progressive income tax. Although not all of these decisions were popular, 46 percent of Maryland residents found their tax burden reduced, said O’Malley.

In addition, this is the third year Maryland has frozen in-state college tuition in order to increase funding for community college and K-12 education. This also allows Maryland to embark on the largest expansion of health care and work for the health of the Chesapeake Bay, he said.

O’Malley has worked for progressive fiscal responsibility in his term as governor so far, balancing an inherited $1.7 billion structural deficit while making investments to protect Maryland’s priorities.

“By restoring fiscal responsibility, we’re now able to focus on the future again,” O’Malley said. “We’re investing in the talents and ingenuity of our people.”

For more about this event visit the event page.

• Visit the event page for more information

“Is it about policy or is it about theater?” Elizabeth Edwards asked about the first 100 days of a new presidency at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event Friday. Edwards, a CAPAF Senior Fellow, joined Newsweek editor Jonathan Alter and Clinton administration adviser Michael Waldman to discuss the tradition of the first 100 days, both historically and for the upcoming administration.

Alter recently published The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, about the successes of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Hundred Days and which of his characteristics made it possible. By looking through the lens of FDR’s experience as well as those of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, and a handful of other previous presidents, the three panelists discussed the possibilities, lessons learned, and advice for starting a new presidency.

“It was very much a seat-of-the-pants operation,” Alter said of FDR’s experience. “There was no blueprint.” Instead, Roosevelt used his executive powers to make 15 major changes. Since then, most presidents have resented the precedent he set.

Alter stressed the necessity of employing the first 100 days to its fullest potential. “[You must] strike while the iron is hot, while that mandate, if you have one, is fresh,” he said. During this time, everyone “plays together nicely,” he said. “There is a lot of goodwill.”

Waldman warned against the trap defined by Roosevelt’s shadow, as the media may overfocus on that time. “Mistakes are there, and they last past the first 100 days,” he said. “In a sense, more can go wrong in the hundred days than can go right.” Waldman emphasized the importance of picking qualified, experienced political advisers to help shape a new administration, much as Reagan did.

The participants also discussed the matter of temperament, an important quality for any president, according to Alter. “[The American people] want to see confidence,” said Waldman. “Joy and passion” are necessary attributes for setting a defining tone for a new administration.

One new challenge of the presidency is running a country with a rapid-fire, 24-hour news cycle and the omnipresent voices of the Internet. Woodrow Wilson, for example, was able to take two weeks off to decide what to do about World War I. The Clinton administration, said Waldman, had no such luxury and instead replied to accusations and attacks within a day.

In addition, Alter suggested that the new president utilize his power of executive order to lift the spirits of the people, as Roosevelt did when legalizing a specialized type of beer in the middle of Prohibition. Roosevelt proved that the first 100 days can set a mood in addition to achieving changes in policy—theater rather than policy.

Finally, Alter, Waldman, and Edwards said that working off a predecessor, whether detested or not, is important for a new administration. “They define themselves in part by who they’re not,” Waldman said. Although the conversation mainly focused on a change following a disliked president, Alter mentioned that Lyndon B. Johnson was able to succeed by making his first 100 days a memorial to Kennedy.

Possible solutions to health care problems and the Iraq war will be important, but the essential lesson from these historic examples is not a specific policy change.

“No president can really succeed at doing big things if they’re not able…to transport Americans to a higher place,” Alter said.

• Visit the event page for more information

Two battles are being waged in the public policy and political sphere that will determine the future direction of the country. One is the debate among the presidential candidates. The other is the less visible but critically important ideological debate being waged in the blogosphere, the media, and in workplaces and homes to define the best policies that will lead our nation back to a position of prosperity and strength.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF) has assembled a new policy war room to make the progressive case in this ideological debate. The war room — dubbed the Hyde Park Project — will feature the first-ever public policy rapid response blog of its kind.

Primarily through daily postings on The Wonk Room blog site (www.thinkprogress.org/wonkroom), the Hyde Park Project will focus on driving the ideological debate in four key policy issue areas: health care, economic mobility, national security, and climate change. The daily mission of the project is a substantive, focused, and relentless effort in each of these areas:

– Defining the Bush record on the four core policy areas

– Critiquing the conservative approach

– Promoting progressive policy solutions

– Defending those progressive ideas from false attacks

This year the public is paying more attention to the progressive-conservative ideological debate. And while much of the media will inevitably focus on the political horserace, the Hyde Park Project’s goals are different: We will draw attention to substantive differences between conservative and progressive policy approaches and work to advance the progressive perspective. Our ultimate goal is to create a mandate for progressive action in each of the four core policy areas. The impact will be felt in the environment these policy arguments create for action on these issues in 2009 and beyond.

In addition to a significant blog presence, the Hyde Park Project will commission new academic analyses and studies to bolster progressive policy arguments.

To maximize its influence, the project will utilize the CAPAF’s existing resources. The Wonk Room will operate as a sister-site of ThinkProgress, the 26th most popular blog in the world with an audience of over 1 million unique visitors a month. The Wonk Room team will also write content for The Progress Report, an e-newsletter with nearly 80,000 subscribers. The Wonk Room content will also be disseminated to radio stations via Mic Check, CAPAF’s radio prep service.

The Hyde Park Project will combine the talents of individuals from unique backgrounds, joining former policy directors of presidential campaigns with established progressive bloggers and skilled political researchers.

For press inquiries, please contact: Daniella Gibbs Léger at dleger@americanprogressaction.org

The public is demanding a fundamentally different direction in four critical areas: economic mobility, universal health care coverage, energy transformation, and national security and the war in Iraq. These issues cannot be viewed in isolation. What is striking is both the breadth of the problems and the public’s readiness to support major reforms. This means progressives can not only win elections, but can also change the nation’s course with solutions equal to our challenges. But progressives must be bold.

In the note that follows, we highlight each of these four issues—economy, health, climate change, and national security—frame the debate on each, describe the conservative failure, and advocate a progressive approach.

1.  Economic Mobility

The economy has stopped working for America’s middle class and those hoping to join it. The personal saving rate over the current recovery continues to be historically low; family debt has reached record levels; wages and median income are down in real terms; health and pension coverage are declining; and with a diminished ability to join a union, workers are capturing far less of the economic pie. Conservatives’ unwillingness to confront any of these realities—or to offer plans of their own—demonstrates the dead end their philosophy has reached.

The subprime mortgage crisis has been sadly instructive. For most Americans, the principal pathway to wealth has been homeownership. The instability in this key sector set off rippling economic effects. It has also reminded Americans of the basic economic trends, such as stagnating wages and low mobility, that conservatives have failed to address.

One notable group in this election—unmarried women—is the fastest growing demographic and looking for economic change the most. According to Women’s Voices Women Vote, the average income of unmarried women is $40,000, and 36 percent of them move every two years. They need a government that is providing economic security and economic mobility.

Progressives can and must offer a fresh paradigm that accomplishes three things: improved broad-based economic growth; increased individual opportunities for those who work, not just those who invest; and a modernized social contract to enhance economic security.

Progressives need to take a series of actions to rebuild the ladder of individual opportunity: investing at the front and back end of our children’s education, restoring Americans’ ability to join unions, reforming the tax code to honor work and not just capital, promoting widespread retirement savings and sound home ownership, and lifting poor families out of poverty by building on proven policies. This means accelerating America’s transformation to a low-carbon economy—the driver of a new innovation economy—and it means trade, aid, and monetary policies that create a growing global middle class of consumers for U.S. products and services.

2.  Health Care

Our health care system continues to crumble: 47 million Americans are uninsured, up by 8 million from 2000; premiums have practically doubled over the last 7 years, growing at five times the inflation rate; half of bankruptcies are driven at least in part by health coverage; and businesses are struggling to compete globally under the burden of health care costs.

Although those trends have been building for decades, the political environment is new. Corporate groups and unions are coming together to demand broad reforms. And while conservatives continue to sell the tonic of laissez-faire, the public is no longer buying. In the recent debate over the State Children’s Health Care Program, or SCHIP, the public sided overwhelmingly with progressives.

Progressives stand for health reform that ensures affordable coverage for all Americans, reduces health care costs, and makes prevention a priority. Progressive policymakers have released strategies for realizing this dream; building on shared responsibilities for health coverage across American families, employers, and public programs; and reducing costs by making the long-term investments we need to achieve savings and improve care.

Conservatives will try the tired cries of “socialized medicine” and misleading attacks on these approaches, but those attacks will fail. Progressive approaches will build on our current system, increase rather than reduce choices, and lower costs. This is what Americans want today.

3. Energy Transformation

Global warming has become an astonishing threat to the future of America and the world. In 2004, Swiss Re warned in a report that the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by climate change, threaten to double to $150 billion a year in 10 years. A 2006 Friends of the Earth study found that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions could cost the global economy $20 trillion by 2100. Around the globe, particularly in the poorest countries, even a relatively small climatic shift can trigger or exacerbate food shortages, water scarcity, destructive weather events, the spread of disease, human migration, and natural resource competition, creating profound national security challenges for the United States and the world.

What is encouraging is the change in the public perceptions. The 2008 election will be the first in which voters accept that global warming is a crisis requiring a major response. As The Washington Post reported in April, “[f]or many children and young adults, global warming is the atomic bomb of today.” According to a Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research poll, there has been a 10 to 15 point increase in concern about global warming in the last two years. In denying the scientific reality—literally rewriting scientific documents—conservatives have become a minority of a minority on this issue.

The urgency of this issue demands a president willing to make the low-carbon energy challenge a top priority in the White House—a centerpiece not only of his or her energy policy, but also of his or her economic program—to produce broad-based growth and sustain American economic leadership in the 21st century.

The American voters will reward a presidential candidate that can lay out a vision and a program that will produce an economy in which highly efficient vehicles dominate the roadways; service stations pump large quantities of low carbon alternative fuels; and buildings employ day-lighting, solar heating and cooling, as well as highly efficient appliances and air conditioning. In this economy, utility companies will increase their profits when customers save energy and draw more than a quarter of their feed stock from renewable sources of energy. Coal-fired power plants will be built to capture CO₂ and pump it through a national network of pipelines for geologic storage. And businesses of all kinds will have to factor the cost of carbon into their bottom-line calculations and aggressively pursue low-energy options.

Taking such action is not just good for our environment; it can provide a powerful charge to the economy.

4. National Security and Iraq

By the time the country settles into the general election debate, we will be five years into the Iraq war, with no end in sight. With little more than a year left in the Bush presidency, the United States risks slipping into what can best be described as strategic drift in Iraq. The United States cannot continue to muddle through in Iraq hoping that things will somehow get better. Drifting along has severe consequences for America’s security.

Our overwhelming engagement in Iraq has diminished our capacity to respond to other conflicts, even on the key front in nearby Afghanistan. Americans continue to die in Iraq for an undefined strategic purpose. Although the Bush administration estimated the war would cost no more than $50 billion, a recent CBO report estimated the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan could reach more than 40 times that amount, or $2.4 trillion.

Public opinion has remained steady in its overwhelming view that we are in the middle of an Iraqi civil war and the troops should begin coming home. Public opinion is right. Conservatives have tied their strategy to a failed president and an outdated national security strategy that has undermined America’s position in the world and made Americans less safe. Progressives must offer an alternative national security strategy that would get us out of the trenches of Iraq and refocus our powers on revitalizing our country’s military and addressing the continued threat posed by global terror networks.

Progressives understand that in order to reclaim control of the situation in the Middle East the United States must responsibly redeploy the troops while intensifying diplomatic efforts to put an end to Iraq’s vicious struggles for power. The nation must undertake proactive measures that recognize our soldiers have been pushed beyond the call of duty. And we must renew our commitment to diplomacy to make America safer.

Conclusion

After eight years of failed conservative leadership, the country is poised to move in a more progressive direction. Now is not the time for caution or mere modulation in approach. Progressives win when they offer changes equal to the challenges we face.

]]> http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2007/06/15/3214/a-new-era-of-progress-in-the-states/ Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:00:00 +0000 http://ap5c4.techprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2007/06/15/3214/a-new-era-of-progress-in-the-states/

“It’s important to tell the story,” Diallo Brooks of the Center for Policy Alternatives told attendees at an event at the Center for American Progress yesterday focusing on progress in the states. No, Brooks was not talking about tales of Capitol Hill chaos or White House rumors; he was talking about what’s going on with progressive legislation at the state level. State legislators’ stories, he explained, show that states are leading a new era of progressive reform.

The Progressive States Network and the Center for American Progress event yesterday brought together leaders from Maryland, Washington, and Iowa who have championed a progressive agenda in their home states. Each representative discussed the new policies implemented, the tools they used, and the challenges they faced.

Maryland House Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20), for example, explained how she has helped Maryland take steps to ensure adequate health care for all citizens with specific attention on children. “A tidal wave of progressive action” helped move the legislation, she explained, expressing hope that this trend will continue for years to come and push the traditionally more conservative State Senate into action. Mizeur’s personal goal for the session is to work toward a mandate that all children receive health coverage, better protecting the 90,000 kids in Maryland currently living without insurance.

Even though the states are a continent apart, Washington State Senator Karen Keiser (D-33) noted the similarities between Washington and Maryland—two states working to be “not just a Petri dish, but a leader” in implementing a progressive agenda.

Washington was the second state—following California—to require that companies provide paid family leave to parents with new children. State-based advocacy groups, such as “Moms Rising,” were instrumental in passing the social programs. And thanks to progressive action, Washington can now boast virtually universal health care for children under 18. Keiser emphasized that they are trying to provide “health care, not just health insurance.”

Iowa State Senator Joe Bolkcom described how in his state “the progressive agenda is the mainstream agenda,” Bolkom pointed to the state’s leadership in the fight to stem the effects of climate change. The Iowa Power Fund, an initiative that created a new office of energy independence in the governor’s administration and provided $100 million for new research in green technologies, for example, was recently instituted with a wave of popular support.

The senator brought home the practical success of his progressive initiatives by noting the state’s fiscal accomplishments. Iowa has not only balanced their budget, but deposited funds into “rainy day” accounts for the state, at the same time adding additional benefits to citizens. This success was only possibly through elections, he emphasized to the audience saying “elections do matter;” without broad public support for progressive issues and candidates, Iowa’s progress would have been impossible.

Diallo Brooks and Joel Barkin, Executive Director of the Progressive States Network gave a national perspective to these victories. Progressive networking across states has added to momentum, Brooks explained, and this action provides and example and case studies for the federal government to follow.

Interstate cooperation like that facilitated by the Progressive States Network, which brings together policy makers to “share ideas and best practices,” is unprecedented, but crucial. As Barkin put it, “When something passes… it sends shock waves.” Now the entire nation is feeling the effects of progressive action on the state level.

For more information, see:

• 2007 State Legislative Season Shows States Leading a New Era of Progressive Reform

Get more information about the Center for American Progress’ state-level research and outreach initiatives from State Progress. You may also contact Derrick Richardson, Senior Manager for State and Regional Affairs at (202) 741-6286 or drichardson@americanprogress.org.

Turnover elections traditionally bring with them both new hope and great expectations. With their votes, the American people have asked for change in Washington, tired of the partisanship and paralysis of the past. When elections are about change, the electorate, not surprisingly, actually expects change to occur.

The American people expect action and results. According to a post-election USA Today poll, approximately half of respondents said they expected the president and the Congress would cooperate with each other in the coming year.

While it received little attention in the media coverage of the 2006 campaign, the Congressional Democrats put forward a specific policy agenda that begins to implement real change to address our security failures and alleviate the economic pressures on the middle class and least fortunate. The House Democrats’ 100-hour agenda provides the right start for the 110^th Congress, and should pass with bipartisan support. Congress cannot credibly set out to address the nation’s problems until it fixes its own, and the ethics and pay-as-you-go reforms will go a long way to restoring faith in government. Among its other important agenda items: raising the minimum wage, giving government the tools it needs to lower prescription drug prices for our nation’s seniors, replacing tax breaks for polluting oil companies with clean energy technologies, lowering the cost of college, and promoting stem cell research. These are critically needed fixes that will go a long way to securing the trust of the American people in Congress’ ability to work for them and hopefully begin to build a better working relationship between Democrats, Republicans, and the president that can bring effective new policies to our governing.

This past election, Americans asked Washington to stop ignoring our country’s problems and get about the business of solving them. Progressives have an opportunity to show that their governing philosophy addresses real people’s concerns. The righted ship of Congress should leave Americans feeling that progressives have delivered change that clearly opens the doors of opportunity to a growing middle class, reawakens our conscience, and commits us to the common good, reforms government, and restores the image of the US as a nation of both strength and a force for progress.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund offers our recommendation for new ideas and policies that the 110th Congress should take on and enact before the August recess, after the first 100 hours. In the weeks and months after those first hours, Congress will have an opportunity to demonstrate progress on fixing the problems Americans face. Indeed, we argue that instead of following the traditional Congressional course of an initial burst of activity followed by weeks and months of less action, the Congressional leadership can show the American people it continues to work to meet their needs by continually passing legislation in the spring and summer.

While restoring order and accountability to the day-to-day business of the Congress is essential, a sense of urgency needs to become palpable in order to meet expectations set by the midterm elections. Internal and external deadlines with committees should be set on key deliverables. Doors should be opened to include the minority party in an unprecedented fashion. And recognizing the Senate may take longer to work its will than the House, the Senate leadership can continually promote the progressive agenda issues by pushing proposals onto the floor.

The proposals that follow are concrete policy changes that Congress could pass in those months to demonstrate that progress is at the core of a progressive philosophy. By continually moving new proposals through the legislative process, the Congress can also dominate news coverage and communicate its intention to hold equal sway with the president on the domestic and foreign policy agendas of the country.

These policies would address aspects of the most pressing of our nation’s problems—Iraq and national security, energy security, economic policy, health care, education, and the environment. We urge and underscore the need for dialogue across the aisle in addressing these issues, and especially in developing a plan for a swift and successful conclusion to the US presence in Iraq. The American people are looking for bipartisan agreement on that plan.

The opportunity voters have given progressives to lead cannot be overstated, just as the midterm election results cannot be over read. We have been given the chance to prove that our ideas and policies can help solve the nation’s problems, but we also shoulder the responsibility to repair the damage our union has sustained at the hands of radical conservative ideologies. It is an opportunity that should not be wasted.

• Read the agenda

If you would like further information on any of these important measures, we encourage each voter to visit the California Secretary of State’s website, click on the links provided throughout our guide, or contact Nicholas Rathod, Senior Manager of State and Regional Affairs at the Center for American Progress Action Fund at stateprogress@americanprogress.org.

• View the voter guide here

Whoever succeeds in framing Katrina will have enormous power to shape America’s future. Progressives started out with the framing advantage, because empathy, responsibility, and fairness are what progressives are about. Conservatives started out with a big disadvantage, because they promised to protect us and they failed.

Read more here.

September 11 slowed the Democratic trend that we predicted, but the coalition we foresaw is still taking shape.

There were certainly reasons to despair after the 2004 election — chiefly, the awful thought that George W. Bush and a Republican Congress could find the means to exceed the egregious irresponsibility, the xenophobia, the sheer partisan pettiness, and the callous disregard for life and law of Bush’s first term. But the election itself, and Bush’s margin of victory over Democrat John Kerry, were not reasons to despair. Bush won re-election by a smaller margin than Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, or Dwight Eisenhower — and against a deeply flawed Democratic opponent.

And there was little sign of a party realignment. In the great realigning elections of 1932 and ’36, and ’80 and ’84, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, respectively, created majorities by winning over new blocs of voters from their opponents. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, Bush and the Republicans had to patch together what remained of Reagan’s older coalition — without those states and voters that had earlier begun moving toward the Democrats. Bush’s victory in 2004 didn’t represent the onset of a new majority but the survival of an older one.

The Democrats surely showed weaknesses in the election, particularly in the Deep South and among white working-class voters, but they also displayed continuing strength among constituencies that will command a growing share of the electorate in years to come. These include minorities, single men and women, and college-educated voters. The Democrats also demonstrated surprising strength among younger voters — partly, to be sure, because of the Iraq War, but also because these voters are in tune with the cosmopolitan sensibility that the Democrats represent. And in this election, the Democrats benefited from a new Internet-based popular movement that could do for this era’s Democratic Party what the labor movement did for the old party and what the religious right has done for the Reagan Republicans.

Reviving Reaganism

In 1980, Reagan won a new majority that combined long-standing Republican support among upscale voters, farmers, and businesspeople with new levels of support from white working-class Democrats in the South and the North. He fused a traditional Republican attack on high taxes with militant anti-communism, opposition to racial preference, and support for a cultural conservatism rooted in church and family. With this appeal, Reagan not only carried the South and the Plains but, drawing on the suburban vote, states like California, Illinois, and New Jersey. In the ’90s, Republicans maintained their support in the South and the Plains, but the Democrats under Clinton won over a new generation of upscale suburbanites and city dwellers who lived in postindustrial metropolitan areas. By winning back a modest share of the white working class and maintaining Democratic support among minorities, Clinton obtained a plurality of votes in ’92 and ’96. He also turned California, Illinois, and New Jersey into Democratic enclaves. And in 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote. On the basis of these trends, we foresaw, in our 2002 book, the emergence of a new Democratic majority by the end of this decade. But the movement toward a Democratic majority was interrupted by the September 11 terrorist attacks. By responding dramatically to al-Qaeda, Bush was able to revive the Republicans’ reputation as the party of national security. In the 2002 election, Bush was able to exploit his success on that score — and to amplify it through carefully timed “terror” alerts and wild exaggeration of the Iraqi threat — to override his failures in managing the economy. In the 2004 election, he used virtually the same formula, and it worked. For substantial parts of the spring and early summer, Kerry actually held the lead in opinion polls. Voters didn’t know him, but they knew Bush and were wary of the war in Iraq, which had turned into a quagmire, and the sputtering economy, which had never fully recovered from the recession. Yet after the Republican convention, which was almost entirely devoted to promoting the president as the commander in chief in the war against terrorism, Bush moved ahead in the polls, and, except for the week after his dismal performance in the first debate, never relinquished his advantage.

Bush combined a public campaign as commander in chief and tax cutter with a more targeted campaign aimed at spurring turnout among white evangelicals and winning over observant Catholics (including Hispanics) and Jews who backed Israel’s Ariel Sharon. Unless you lived in a small town in a battleground state—say, Lakeland, Florida — you would not have been aware, for instance, of Bush’s pitch for evangelical votes, which was often conducted on Christian radio stations, in churches, and on billboards reading “One Nation Under God — Bush/Cheney.”

Bush’s targeting was successful. He picked off Democratic constituencies in battleground states, including culturally conservative Hispanics in New Mexico, evangelicals and some Jews in Florida, and observant Catholics in Ohio. In the national exit poll, Catholics who attended church weekly voted for Bush by 53 percent to 45 percent, very close to the president’s margin among this group in 2000, but in Ohio, Bush won 62 percent of the observant Catholic vote, up from 55 percent in 2000. These were significant tactical successes, but they didn’t add up nationally to a new coalition.

Bush failed to capture any of the northeastern or Pacific Coast states that Reagan had won easily in 1980 and ’84, and he failed to make dramatic gains nationally among the voting groups that had moved into the Democratic Party in the 1990s. Rather, the key to Bush’s victory was reviving Reagan’s support among the white working class. According to the post-election survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps/Institute for America’s Future, Bush enjoyed a whopping 24-percent edge among non–college-educated whites, compared with a 19-percent advantage in 2000. (Clinton had actually carried this group by a point in each of his election victories.) Insofar as whites still make up 77 percent of the electorate and non–college-educated whites represent a majority of the white vote, that increase alone accounts for most — perhaps 70 percent — of Bush’s improved performance in 2004.

This increase came primarily among white working-class women, a group that has shown particular sensitivity to issues surrounding terrorism. One mid-October poll of women voters by comScore, a marketing firm, showed that terrorism was the top issue for women voters, ahead of the Iraq War, the economy, or health care. Of the quarter of women voters who selected terrorism as the top issue, more than three-fourths favored Bush. And according to the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner post-election poll, white working-class women voters, in particular, chose terrorism and security (35 percent, up from 28 percent in late September) over the economy/jobs (25 percent, down from 39 percent in late September), the Iraq War (25 percent), and health care (9 percent) as their most important voting issue.

Kerry and the War

Bush also benefited from a less than formidable Democratic challenge, which was the product of the peculiar circumstances in which the Democrats found themselves in the fall of 2002. In September of that year, Gore, then the Democratic front-runner, gave a stirring critique of the Bush administration’s plans for war in a speech sponsored by MoveOn.org. But Gore was subsequently attacked by pro-war Democrats in his own party. The Washington Post, which would later endorse Kerry, charged that Gore “validated just about every conspiratorial theory of the antiwar left.” With his support dwindling in the Democratic establishment, and with his poll numbers far behind those of Bush, Gore, who for all his weaknesses might have been the strongest candidate in 2004, took himself out of the presidential race.

In Congress, the three leading aspirants to the nomination — Kerry, John Edwards, and Dick Gephardt — were determined not to make the same mistake as Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, whose vote against the Gulf War, it was widely believed, had cost him a chance at the presidency. As a result, they backed the war resolution. But as the campaign unfolded, they were unable to respond to the deepening quagmire in Iraq and to the growing popular outcry against the war, particularly among Democratic primary voters. Kerry finally secured primary voters’ support by opposing $87 billion in funding for the war in October 2003, but by the same move, he made himself a ripe target for the Bush campaign’s charge that he was a “flip-flopper.”

To have won in November, a Democratic candidate would either have had to match Bush’s credibility on the war on terrorism or make the failure of Iraq, rather than the war on terrorism, the focus of voters’ anxieties. Kerry was unable to accomplish either objective. In August he would declare, astonishingly, that even if he had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he would still have voted for the war. Even in October, after he had developed a clearer position, voters could still detect little difference in what he planned to do if elected and what Bush might do. The main difference was in the steadfastness of their approaches.

To make matters worse, Kerry was also incapable of articulating a clear economic message. According to exit polls, while just 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush to handle the economy, only 45 percent trusted Kerry with the job. Kerry’s health-care program was incomprehensible except to policy wonks. And he embodied an austere, upper-class New England liberalism that turned off many voters. He lacked a popular touch.

Kerry’s failure as a candidate was evident to us in two visits we made to Martinsburg, a small, blue-collar town in West Virginia. We first visited Martinsburg in July, before the Democratic and Republican conventions. At that time, knocking on doors in a working-class neighborhood, we discovered considerable dissatisfaction with Bush over the war in Iraq and the economy. Few people knew Kerry, but they said they were considering voting for him. Visiting Martinsburg two days before the election, we discovered that most of these voters had decided to support Bush. They often mentioned gay marriage and “family values” — the area is dotted with churches — and feeling “safer” under Bush. They also thought Kerry was too “liberal,” a comment about his “values” rather than his program.

Most of these voters were registered Democrats who had voted for Clinton in ’92 and ’96. And many of them told us, and Democratic canvassers, that they would have voted for Clinton this time, too. Typically, one voter, who faulted Kerry for being “too liberal” on “family values,” said Clinton had been “dishonest,” but that he was “an excellent president.” When these voters talked about the economy, they were clearly closer to the Democrats than Republicans, but they expressed confusion at what Kerry wanted to do. One older voter said, “Of all the countries today, we are the only one that doesn’t have any sort of health-care plan.” That sounded like a line from a Democratic ad, but the voter added that he couldn’t figure out how Kerry’s health plan worked.

In battleground states where there was also a closely contested state race, Kerry usually ran behind the other Democrats on the ticket. In Washington, Patti Murray’s margin in the Senate race was 6 points better than Kerry’s; in Wisconsin, Russ Feingold’s margin was 11 points wider; in Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln won and Kerry lost; and in Colorado, Ken Salazar won and Kerry lost. If Bush’s victory represented a maximization of opportunity, Kerry’s totals represented a bare minimum. Yet this bloc of anti-Bush voters who supported Kerry was extremely large — Kerry garnered the most voters ever for a Democratic candidate — and could be the basis for future Democratic victories.

The Two Coalitions

In the wake of the election, some commentators argued that Bush had dramatically altered the electoral map of the last two decades, but as the corrected exit polls and other post-election surveys have appeared, it has become clear that Bush’s successes were primarily tactical. He didn’t make fundamental or decisive inroads into the Hispanic vote except perhaps in New Mexico. Overall, Bush probably increased his support among Hispanics by no more than 4 percent or 5 percent — only slightly more than among voters overall. In Florida, Kerry actually appears to have done better among Hispanics than Gore did.

Much was also made of Bush’s support in exurban and rural areas. The president did increase his support in these areas, but that is part of a trend that began in 1980. It did not decide the 2004 election. Only 13 percent of Bush’s gain in overall vote could be attributed to his increased support in the fringe or exurban counties of large metropolitan areas. And this support is unlikely to prove decisive in the future. Despite the fact that exurban areas have been growing fairly rapidly, they start from such a small base that their share of all voters has increased only modestly over the last 20 years, from 3 percent to 5 percent. Together with rural counties, which have been declining in population, these areas have stalled at 25 percent of the vote between 1984 and 2004. Exurbia and rural America don’t make for much of a political growth stock. They help make Republicans competitive, but they don’t give them a new and enduring majority.

The Democrats, on the other hand, continue to show support among groups that are steadily growing as a percentage of the electorate. Among minorities (now up to 23 percent of the electorate), Kerry increased his margin among Asian Americans. His margin among African Americans was slightly smaller than Gore’s in 2000 — no doubt a product of his patrician aloofness — but higher than that of Clinton in ’92 or ’96. While Kerry got drubbed among white working-class women, he and the Democrats continued to show strength among single and college-educated women. Single women, whose vote he carried by 25 percent, increased their share of the electorate from 19 percent to 22 percent; college-educated women, whom Kerry won by 10 percent, increased their share from 21 percent to 22 percent.

Kerry actually did better than Gore did among professionals, a key group in the transformation of the suburban vote. He carried voters with a post-graduate education by 11 percent, 3 percent better than Gore had done. Like Gore, Kerry split college-educated voters overall with Bush, but he increased Democratic support among college-educated men, going from a 57-percent to 39-percent deficit in 2000 to a 53-percent to 45-percent deficit this year.

Kerry also did exceptionally well in ’04 among the new generation of voters, winning 18-to-29-year-old voters by 54 percent to 45 percent, compared with a narrow 48-percent to 46-percent margin for Gore in 2000. He even won young male voters by a 51-percent to 47-percent margin, a big change from 2000, when Gore lost these voters 51 percent to 41 percent. In 2000, youth were only 2 points more Democratic than all voters. In this election, youth were 12 points more Democratic. By its nature, the youth vote is transient. But Kerry’s and the Democrats’ success among these voters could have lasting results. Young voters, like suburban professionals, seem to be turning Democratic because of the Republicans’ identification with the cultural right. If so, this trend is likely to continue. Young voters also tend to preserve their loyalties as they get older. Many of the voters who turned 18 during the Reagan years are still voting Republican; many of the current younger voters will continue to vote Democratic as they get older.

The Republicans got their most impressive results in the South, where they won five Senate seats vacated by Democrats and increased their congressional delegation. Kerry’s percentage was even less than Gore’s was in every state of the old Confederacy except Virginia and the Carolinas (where Kerry managed only to match Gore’s poor performance). If the Democrats get shut out in Deep South states like Alabama and Georgia (except in majority black congressional districts), their political infrastructure will deteriorate and they will become less able to field competitive candidates, even when the opportunity for success might arise. That will make it more difficult for Democrats to win back Congress, and may also hamper them in presidential races.

Outside the Deep South, however, the Democrats made inroads. In Arkansas and Colorado, they won impressive Senate victories. Democrats also continued to dominate the nation’s postindustrial metropolitan areas, or “ideopolises,” increasing the pro-Democratic bias of these areas relative to the rest of the country by a point (three quarters of Bush’s net-vote gains, in fact, came outside of ideopolis areas). Kerry predictably racked up large margins in Illinois’ Cook County and California’s Bay Area, but he also increased the Democrats’ margin in Texas’ Travis County (from a 5-point deficit to a 14-point lead), North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County (from a 3-point deficit to a 4-point lead), and northern Virginia’s Fairfax County (from a 1-point deficit to a 6-point lead). It is voters in these ideopolis areas of the solid red states (those Bush carried by 6 points or more in 2000) that are increasing their share of nation’s vote, while the non-ideopolis areas of these states, where Bush made big gains in 2004 (more than two-fifths of his overall increase in vote margin), remain stagnant.

The New Center-Left

In this year’s election, the Democratic coalition was strengthened by the emergence of new political organizations. Some of these, like America Coming Together (ACT), grew out of the older alliances among labor and public-interest groups in Washington. Others, like MoveOn.org, came out of the virtual community that the Internet has created. Both kinds of organizations should be around when the next election comes along, and could play an even more decisive role in mobilizing around issues, raising money for candidates, and turning out voters. The ability of the Democrats to match the Republicans in funds (in fact, the Democratic National Committee actually raised more money than the Republican National Committee, and Democratic and Democratic-oriented organizations spent more in support of Kerry than their Republican counterparts did in support of Bush) was largely due to the use of the Internet, a medium that Democrats and liberals dominate in the same way that Republicans dominate AM radio.

These new groups — and particularly those like MoveOn that are based on the Internet — are most clearly expressions of the growing importance of professionals and college-educated women in the Democratic Party. Many were founded by high-tech professionals, and their members are drawn primarily from the college-educated workforce that has been turning Democratic. In fall 2003, when MoveOn surveyed those of its million-plus members who had voted in its Democratic primary, it found that the single largest group was college-educated women — a perfect match with the profile of new Democratic Party.

Some Republican and hawkish Democratic commentators have branded these new movements and organizations part of the left. New Republic Editor Peter Beinart even compared them to the communist-infiltrated left of the late 1940s that backed Henry Wallace for president. But the outlook of these new, primarily upscale and highly educated activists is Clintonite and center-left rather than left wing. These people support environmental regulation and women’s rights, vehemently reject the social strictures and anti-scientific attitudes of the religious right, and favor tolerance and fairness in social policy. But, like many college-educated liberals, they are also fiscal conservatives. When MoveOn held a poll in January 2004 on what ad the organization should run on the week of Bush’s State of the Union address, its members chose one attacking the Bush administration’s budget deficits.

In the 2004 election, ACT, MoveOn, and the other Democratic-oriented groups that took to the field were clearly matched and, in some states, out-organized by Karl Rove’s professional cadre. But without their work, turnout in Democratic-leaning areas in the battleground states might not have increased as much as it did. What’s more, young voters, who were a particular target of ACT and the Internet groups, might not have responded as enthusiastically as they did, both in terms of their turnout (which may have gone up by as much as 9 points) and their support for Kerry. And this was, after all, these groups’ first try at organized intervention in a presidential race. It took Christian conservatives two decades to enjoy the same kind of success that these groups enjoyed the first time around. They should be back and better able to do their job in 2006 and 2008.

The Contingencies

But elections aren’t won simply by demographic changes. They are won by candidates, and the results often depend on unanticipated events like 9-11. In Congress, Democrats will have a difficult time winning back either the House or the Senate in 2006. In 2002, the Democrats had an extremely good chance to increase their hold over the Senate; instead, they lost it because of 9-11. In 2004, they couldn’t overcome retirements in the South, and in 2006, they will face an unfavorable set of contests, although retirements can always alter this [see Sam Rosenfeld, "Better Luck Next Time," TAP Online, November 17, 2004]. Barring the unforeseen, the Democrats’ next chance of winning back the Senate will probably be in 2008.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ best chance of winning back the House (as well as the Senate) is to do what the Reagan Republicans did: oust or convert like-minded members of the opposite party. The Republicans won the southern seats that were held by conservative Democrats; similarly, the Democrats need to take over the seats outside the Deep South that are now held by moderate Republicans. There are about 50 to 60 such Republicans in the House, well enough to tilt the majority back to the Democrats. But this could take several election cycles, as it did in the case of the Republicans and the South. Popular Republicans will have to retire or lose some of their support in redistricting, as Maryland Republican Connie Morella did. Of course, this process could be accelerated if the conservative Republican leadership in Congress runs roughshod over such moderates as Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee and Delaware Representative Mike Castle.

As for events in the world, Democrats — and Americans in general — have to worry about a darker scenario. Much of the election in 2004 was decided on whether the electorate focused on 9-11 or the war in Iraq. If voters worried about the former, they backed Bush; if they worried about the latter, they backed Kerry. Many Democrats pointed out that Bush has increased the threat of terrorism by invading Iraq, but Bush was able to convince enough voters that the war on terrorism is a seamless web that has to be combated, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, and he actually used the mobilization of Islamic radicals in Iraq as grounds to support his candidacy.

A dynamic like that could be set up in the future as well. If Bush were to continue on his present course in the Middle East — launching, for instance, a preemptive strike against Iran or encouraging the Israelis to do it — he would succeed in even further enflaming this region and making it even more likely that Islamic terrorism would blow back into western Europe and the United States. Bush and the Republicans could then argue that this spread of terrorism rendered their tenure in office even more necessary. Nobody knows whether American voters would buy this argument the second time around, but it is certainly possible that they would.

Barring that, though, the Republicans’ “Reagan-lite” coalition does not appear to have broad enough support to dominate American politics for the rest of the decade. That should open the door to the Democrats and their new coalition — especially if they can find a way to both mobilize their new center-left and nominate candidates with some comfort level among white working-class voters. The results of the 2004 election suggest that’s the right formula. If Democrats want to win and bring their majority into being by the end of the decade, they should adopt it.

John B. Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic and visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, are the authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority.

In the November 2 election state ballots contained a nationwide total of 163 questions.  And while the media has obsessed over the issue of same-sex marriage which was on the ballot in 11 states, less attention has been paid to other important votes related to jobs, healthcare, education, and the environment.  Here are some highlights of progressive victories on state ballot initiatives or referenda, including two successful measures that were designated as urgent action items by the American Progress Action Fund: 

Ballot initiatives and referenda

Minimum wage

• Florida passed Amendment 5, which sets the minimum wage at $6.15 and adjusts it to inflation. American Progress Action Fund success! Thanks to all who took action!
• Nevada approved Question 6, which raises the minimum wage to $6.15 and adjusts it to inflation.

Taxes

• Maine defeated Amendment 1, which would have limited property taxes to 1% of their assessed value. American Progress Action Fund success! Thanks to all who took action!
• Washington defeated Initiative 892, which would have allowed non-tribal slot machine taxes to offset property taxes.

Health

• Montana passed Initiative 149, which increases taxes on tobacco products by $1 to pay for children’s health care.
• California passed Proposition 63, providing funds to expand mental health programs.
• California passed Proposition 71, establishing the Institute for Regenerative Medicine to conduct stem cell research.

Education

• North Carolina passed Amendment 2, which more equitably distributes civil fine revenue among school districts.
• Washington passed Referendum 55, which overturns a charter-schools law that was approved narrowly by the state legislature.

Environment

• Colorado passed Amendment 37, requiring public utilities to generate 10% of their energy from renewable sources by 2015.
• Washington passed Initiative 297, banning dumping of nuclear waste.
• Arizona defeated Proposition 100, which would have allowed the state to trade public lands under certain circumstances.
• Montana defeated Amendment I-147, which would have permitted cyanide use in open pit mining.

Transportation

• Colorado passed Referendum 4A, which imposes a penny sales tax for light rail expansion.

Medical malpractice

• Florida passed Amendment 7, which grants broader family rights to patient medical data in suspected cases of medical error.
• Florida passed Amendment 8, which bars doctors who have committed 3+ instances of medical malpractice from practicing in the state.

To learn more, visit The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, and download their full report.