The Democratic Coalition is..........

[MrMittens]

..More unstable than you might think.

Now I really don't want to rain on your parade. You guys fought a strong campaign, and outclassed the Republicans on the ground. You deserve a bit of celebration following this election.

But I'd just like to make the rarely mentioned point that.........

Despite Romney's flip-flopping, a monstrous caricature being painted of him, a gruelling Republican primary, a lack of enthusiasm amongst the Republican base, a widely held perception of the GOP as extreme, a number of gaffes by the nominee, a lacklustre convention, a relatively poor VP choice, the nominee's inability to gel with the general electorate, insane comments by further GOP'ers further down the ballot, three out of four poor debate performances by Romney and Ryan and the media blackout on coverage of Romney during Sandy..........Romney still was only 2.7 points behind Obama in the final result. Only 1.4% more, and he would have won the popular vote.

Narrow results in a number of states, which were largely swung by the Hispanic vote, tell how unstable the Obama coalition really is. It's made up of a number of voting blocs: Blacks, Hispanics, the Young, Single Women, Knowledge Workers etc. If even one of these blocs is eroded, Obama's popular vote and electoral college majority can easily come crashing down. I believe that if the GOP had maybe endorsed the DREAM Act, or even simply put a Hispanic on the ticket, the Republicans could have come a lot closer than they did to victory. Florida almost certainly would have swung their way, VA too probably and possibly CO.

Now another problem for the Democrats is their percentage of the white vote. They suffered a 20 point trouncing in the popular vote this year amongst whites. This is four points less than in the last Presidential election. Whites may be a declining percentage of the electorate, but they will still be by far the largest group for the next few cycles. I'm not going to go all 'ermahgerd, Democratic war on whites!' because that's just rubbish. But there does seem to be a broader decline in support for the Democratic Party amongst whites, which I believe could turn into terminal, as opposed to temporary decline. If the Democrats are seen to become a party of minority groups, then this will discourage white voters from voting for them. It is the same problem but in reverse for the Republicans. If the Democratic share of the vote amongst whites tumbles say, andother 4-5 points, then no amount of increased minority support will be able to compensate for it for 8-12 years. And this assumes that the Dems carry on rolling up landslides amongst Minorities, which I think is unlikely, especially if Obama follows the tradition of poor second terms.

But seriously, be gentle with this analysis, as I repeat this is not another 'OMG Democrat War on Whites' attack thread

[pa2011]

You seem to ignore the fact that any number of future Democratic nominees are likely to do better among white voters than Obama ever was able to do.  Parts of western Pa, eastern Ohio are likely to swing back a bit to Democrats next time.

But I see your broader point..  Thinking long term, I wouldn't be surprised if states like Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin and maybe even Michigian and Ohio, fall more heavily into the R camp. But states like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and eventually Arizona and Georgia could compensate for the Midwest trends toward the GOP.

[pa2011]

Also the problem with this analyis is also that the Democratic base is growing in population, while the GOP base is by in large not.

Four years from now, the Democrat can probably loses 10 to 20 percent of the Hispanic vote compared to what Obama got and still come out with the same huge raw vote totals that Hispanics gave Obama.

[Ty440]

You do realize that Hispanics in general favor a more activist government?  Look at all the Latin American countries in South America and their form of government.

Ronald Reagan passed the Simpson–Mazzoli amnesty bill and what was the Hispanic response ? In 1988 they turned  right around and  gave Dukakis 69% of the  Hispanic vote.




George  Bush hit 40% in 2004 only because he was from Texas and did exceptionally well with Hispanics there which skewed the overall vote, consider that an outlier.

I can only see the Republicans bouncing around between 28% as a low  and 36% as a high, for they next several cycles, unless they nominate a Hispanic themselves.

[Mehmentum]

Actually, in 2004 George Bush did well with Hispanics because he actually tried to win them over with more pro-immigration policies.   

As for the OP, I'd much rather be in the Democrat's position than the Republican's position right now. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Actually, in 2004 George Bush did well with Hispanics because he actually tried to win them over with more pro-immigration policies.   

As for the OP, I'd much rather be in the Democrat's position than the Republican's position right now. 

More than just immigration, the whole compassionate conservative thing as well. It was more than just Texas if you look at the exit polls for the various states.

[Indy Texas]

You do realize that Hispanics in general favor a more activist government?  Look at all the Latin American countries in South America and their form of government.

Ronald Reagan passed the Simpson–Mazzoli amnesty bill and what was the Hispanic response ? In 1988 they turned  right around and  gave Dukakis 69% of the  Hispanic vote.




George  Bush hit 40% in 2004 only because he was from Texas and did exceptionally well with Hispanics there which skewed the overall vote, consider that an outlier.

I can only see the Republicans bouncing around between 28% as a low  and 36% as a high, for they next several cycles, unless they nominate a Hispanic themselves.

You're not really doing yourself any favors with that comparison.