Democrats Are Split Over What Sewed Up Win

By RONALD BROWNSTEIN

Nov. 22, 1996 12 AM PT

TIMES POLITICAL WRITER

WASHINGTON — Just weeks after President Clinton’s decisive reelection victory, Democratic analysts are dividing sharply over the reasons for his success, setting in motion a roiling argument that may shape looming debates over the federal budget, entitlement reform and the Democratic Party’s direction.

On one side is the Democratic Leadership Council, a leading party centrist group, and Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief pollster in 1996. On Wednesday, Penn and the DLC released a national survey contending that Clinton won reelection primarily by attracting a relatively upscale constituency drawn to his fiscal and social moderation.

On the other side are several liberal groups and Stanley B. Greenberg, the principal pollster in Clinton’s 1992 campaign. Based on his own post-election surveys, Greenberg maintains that Clinton’s gains in 1996 came primarily from less affluent voters (especially women) drawn to him mostly by his promises to protect traditional Democratic programs like Medicare and education.

This argument opens what is bound to be a sustained struggle to influence Clinton’s course during the next four years. Penn and the DLC argue that Clinton can best solidify his political coalition--and make legislative gains in concert with congressional Republicans--by moving forward with budget-balancing, welfare reform and entitlement reform. But Greenberg and the groups sympathetic to his analysis warn that the president may drive away his new supporters and endanger Democratic prospects in future elections if he joins with Republicans to significantly retrench Medicare and other social programs.

This dispute is the latest act in a disagreement that has shaped Clinton’s administration from the outset. Clinton’s original team of political advisors--including Greenberg and senior consultant James Carville--viewed economically strained, culturally conservative, downscale whites as the key swing voters in the electorate. They counseled Clinton to woo them with an economically populist agenda that included raising taxes on the affluent and guaranteeing universal health care.

A New Team

After the demise of health care reform and the GOP landslide in 1994, Clinton exiled those advisors and brought in a new team--led by Penn and strategist Richard Morris. This new group argued that economically optimistic, middle-class parents were the key swing voters who could carry Clinton from his 43% showing in 1992 to reelection in 1996.

Working with his new team, Clinton laid siege to those voters last year by offering a seemingly endless array of policies tailored toward parents, by signing Republican-drafted welfare reform legislation and by offering his own plan to balance the budget.

Penn argues that remaining on that course offers the Democrats their best chance of building a lasting majority coalition. He says Clinton’s increased strength in 1996 came primarily from “a middle-class and upper-middle-class constituency flanked by younger women, senior women and Hispanics” who were drawn to the president “precisely because he was seen as standing in the center.”

“This coalition . . . can be solidified if we show results on welfare reform, balancing the budget, juvenile justice, education and even entitlement security,” Penn said.

But Greenberg, who conducted his own post-election survey for the Campaign for America’s Future--a new liberal group--says that route is pocked with political land mines. From his analysis, he concludes that most of Clinton’s new 1996 voters were non-college-educated whites--particularly women--who were attracted to his values agenda and centrist positions on issues like crime and welfare, but primarily motivated by his defense of Medicare and education.

Rumbles in Congress

Though supportive of a balanced budget in principle, Greenberg says, these voters may recoil from the Democrats if the party now takes aim at Medicare through a budget deal or long-term entitlement reforms. “The popular agenda does not encompass the kind of entitlement reform contemplated by elite opinion,” Greenberg wrote in a paper summarizing his survey.

For now, at least, virtually all Democratic observers agree that Clinton remains squarely on the DLC/Penn side of the argument, committed to reaching a balanced-budget deal with the GOP and contemplating a bipartisan Medicare commission to recommend long-term reductions aimed at stabilizing the program for the retirement of the baby boomers.

But it is much less certain how far congressional Democrats--especially in the House--will follow him on that course.

Penn argues that congressional Democrats failed to regain a majority precisely because they did not move to the center as clearly as Clinton.

Many House Democratic leaders, though, staunchly believe that the key to Clinton’s revival was not his centrism or support for a balanced budget, but his vetoes of the two GOP plans to actually restrain the growth of Medicare, Medicaid, education and other popular programs.

“Congressional Democrats are pretty sure that the way they turned the tide was how they stood up to Republicans,” said Ruy Teixeira, a public opinion analyst at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. “So they are in a difficult position. They won’t start out by saying, ‘Screw the president, we’ll just go our own way.’ But that is never going to be that far away from their thoughts.”

Reading the Polls

This year’s exit polls offer support for both analyses. Compared to 1992, Clinton in 1996 did gain ground with the non-college-educated voters stressed by Greenberg. He also ran well with the groups emphasized by Penn and the DLC: married couples, middle-income families and independents.

But the exit polls also point to an interpretation emphasized by neither side. In almost every group--whether Penn’s married couples or Greenberg’s voters without college degrees--Clinton’s gains came overwhelmingly from female voters, not men. In fact, The Times’ exit poll showed that, compared to 1992, Clinton’s margin of victory this year declined among groups like married, senior and non-college-educated men, while his advantage increased with women in the same categories.

The increased prominence of women in his coalition adds a new complication for Clinton because female voters have tended to be more supportive than men concerning spending on social insurance and education. “The things that always moved women were education . . . and economic security, security for your family, but not deficit questions,” said Lara Bergthold, executive director of the Hollywood Women’s Political Committee, a prominent Los Angeles-based liberal fund-raising group. “Checkbook economic questions, yes; but balanced budget, no.”

Penn disputes that characterization, arguing that swing voters--including women--are willing to support activist government “only if” it is conditioned on a promise to also balance the budget.

This argument is likely to grow steadily more pointed in the months ahead, as Clinton moves from rhetorically embracing the concept of a balanced budget toward negotiations with the congressional majority aimed at actually producing one.

“Unless major cuts are made in defense, which I can’t see happening,” said Bergthold, “inevitably Clinton is going to have to make some pretty major cuts in social programs that are going to anger his more liberal constituency.”

Researcher Monika McDermott contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Women’s Impact

Women were the key to the expansion of President Clinton’s political coalition in 1996. In 1992, Clinton defeated George Bush by a margin of 5.6 percentage points; this time, he downed Bob Dole by 8.4 percentage points. This chart compares Clinton’s margin of victory among several key demographic groups in 1996 with his margin of victory in 1992. It shows that the biggest increases in Clinton’s margin of victory came among women, especially relatively less affluent women:

Change in Clinton’s margin of victory from 1992 to 1996, by group

Woman earning $20,000 a year or less: +22

Latino women: +22

High school-educated women: +20

Women earning $20,000-$40,000 a year: +19

Politically moderate women: +19

Women age 65 or older: +19

Latino men: +18

Politically independent women: +17

Democratic women: +17

Catholic women: +17

Women with graduate degree: +13