Vulnerable Democrats across the country are distancing themselves from President Obama, even as his disapproval rating continues to fall nationally. In some places that distancing takes the form of hand-waving the president's relevance to the election, as Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska has done by taking the line of "mend it, don't end it" on the Affordable Care Act. In other places, like Louisiana, it takes the form of outright chastising the president's agenda, as Sen. Mary Landrieu has taken to doing, especially on his energy policy.
And then there's Kentucky. In February, former President and Democratic "Explainer-in-Chief" Bill Clinton hit the campaign trail in support of Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, whose family has a long relationship with the Clintons. It's a boon to Sec. Grimes, who can campaign on the popularity of a former president, rather than campaign against the unpopularity of a current president. Among the Democratic establishment, Clinton commands better fundraising capacity than any other Democrat in the country, save for possibly President Obama himself. Unlike many Democrats these days, Clinton is still popular in the South, as he is across the nation. And if the psycholinguists at NC State are to be believed, even his accent can help with Southern voters. (Sec. Grimes's accent is still noticeable, although not nearly as recognizable as Clinton's.)
But how does Clinton's popularity translate into votes for Sec. Grimes? For comparison, here's President Clinton's narrow 1-point victory over Kansas Sen. Bob Dole in 1996:
 |
| 1996 presidential election in Kentucky by county and margin. |
and here's Sec. Grimes's 21-point blowout in her 2011 election against businessman Bill Johnson:
 |
| 2011 Kentucky Secretary of State election by county and margin. |
As
native Southern Democrats, both Sec. Grimes and President Clinton
carried coal country in the east by very comfortable margins (it's also
roughly the same region where Vice President Al Gore did best in 2000 and where the Kerry-Edwards ticket did best in 2004). Simplifying it down to "coal country good, Bluegrass not so much", however, misses an important shift in the Democratic base in Kentucky in the past two decades:
Sec. Grimes improved massively over President Clinton in the Bluegrass compared to her improvement in the eastern coal fields. A lot of that improvement, however, comes from Sec. Grimes's overall better performance across the state. When we normalize the margins of victory, comparing the differences between regional margins and the statewide margin, coal country is actually much more friendly to the former president than to Sec. Grimes--in 1996, President Clinton's performance in coal country was 20 points than the statewide margin, while in 2011 Sec. Grimes outperformed her statewide margin by only 4 points. Conversely, the Bluegrass was much friendlier to Sec. Grimes, who outperformed her statewide margin by 6 points in the Bluegrass. President Clinton actually did slightly worse in the Bluegrass compared to the entire state.
Does it represent a trend? We can't be sure--Sec. Grimes hails from Maysville and is a Bluegrass native, while President Clinton wasn't even from the state. Her "native daughter" status may be what's causing the apparent shift in voting patterns. However, there does appear to be a trend of the Bluegrass becoming more Democratic and the coal counties becoming less so. In particular, the coal counties started becoming more and more Republican beginning around 2002, the year President Bush unveiled his ironically-named "Clear Skies Initiative", which removed many regulations on the coal industry that continued to thrive in the mountains of eastern Kentucky and West Virginia:
The data for this graph include presidential, Senate, and gubernatorial races, so the pattern seems to hold well for the Democratic improvement in the Bluegrass since 1996 and the Republican improvement in the coal counties since 2003, regardless of what election is taking place. The data also include match-ups between candidates from all over the state, so any native son effects shouldn't favor one side or another. It's almost certain that Sec. Grimes will be facing incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell, another Bluegrass resident (he lives in Louisville). But if this shift is a real trend, she should attract more of the vote in the Bluegrass than in the rest of the state.
All this means there is still reason to believe that Clinton can give a boost to Sec. Grimes. As Democrats have lost ground in the coal counties despite remaining competitive statewide, the former president may be able to remind easterners of a time when they voted just as Democratic as everywhere else in Appalachia. In effect, he has the potential to shore up weaknesses where they're currently appearing in the coal counties. Whether this translates into a substantial boost in those counties will only be seen come November, since the fact is that Clinton remains the surrogate, not the candidate. But you can't really ask for a better surrogate than Bill Clinton. TOSS-UP
 |
| Improvement in Democratic MOV, 1996-2011. |
Sec. Grimes improved massively over President Clinton in the Bluegrass compared to her improvement in the eastern coal fields. A lot of that improvement, however, comes from Sec. Grimes's overall better performance across the state. When we normalize the margins of victory, comparing the differences between regional margins and the statewide margin, coal country is actually much more friendly to the former president than to Sec. Grimes--in 1996, President Clinton's performance in coal country was 20 points than the statewide margin, while in 2011 Sec. Grimes outperformed her statewide margin by only 4 points. Conversely, the Bluegrass was much friendlier to Sec. Grimes, who outperformed her statewide margin by 6 points in the Bluegrass. President Clinton actually did slightly worse in the Bluegrass compared to the entire state.
Does it represent a trend? We can't be sure--Sec. Grimes hails from Maysville and is a Bluegrass native, while President Clinton wasn't even from the state. Her "native daughter" status may be what's causing the apparent shift in voting patterns. However, there does appear to be a trend of the Bluegrass becoming more Democratic and the coal counties becoming less so. In particular, the coal counties started becoming more and more Republican beginning around 2002, the year President Bush unveiled his ironically-named "Clear Skies Initiative", which removed many regulations on the coal industry that continued to thrive in the mountains of eastern Kentucky and West Virginia:
The data for this graph include presidential, Senate, and gubernatorial races, so the pattern seems to hold well for the Democratic improvement in the Bluegrass since 1996 and the Republican improvement in the coal counties since 2003, regardless of what election is taking place. The data also include match-ups between candidates from all over the state, so any native son effects shouldn't favor one side or another. It's almost certain that Sec. Grimes will be facing incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell, another Bluegrass resident (he lives in Louisville). But if this shift is a real trend, she should attract more of the vote in the Bluegrass than in the rest of the state.
All this means there is still reason to believe that Clinton can give a boost to Sec. Grimes. As Democrats have lost ground in the coal counties despite remaining competitive statewide, the former president may be able to remind easterners of a time when they voted just as Democratic as everywhere else in Appalachia. In effect, he has the potential to shore up weaknesses where they're currently appearing in the coal counties. Whether this translates into a substantial boost in those counties will only be seen come November, since the fact is that Clinton remains the surrogate, not the candidate. But you can't really ask for a better surrogate than Bill Clinton. TOSS-UP
No comments:
Post a Comment