Obama's Building a New Coalition; Some Aren't Happy

Posted by Booman, Booman Tribune at 1:32 PM on April 19, 2008.

In a general sense I think it is bad form to pull comments off a blog. But I think it's important to address a couple of recurring points that keep coming up in the Hill-o-sphere. Over at Taylor Marsh there is a discussion thread about Howard Dean's request that the undecided superdelegates show their cards.

An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they're for - and "I need them to say who they're for starting now."

"We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time," the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We've got to know who our nominee is."

Marsh interprets this is as panic by Dean because of the debate performance of Barack Obama. That's her interpretation, and she's free to it. My interpretation is that he is more concerned about Clinton's debate performance, but that isn't the subject of this post. I want to look at how some of Marsh's readers look at Dean and Obama.

I'm really upset that Dean would be pressing this right now, with Pennsylvania still coming up. He is so desperate to get his butt out of the fire over Michigan and Florida. Can't anyone else see that? He's pressing this so he won't have to make any decision on Florida or Michigan, because if he had to count Florida and Michigan, Hillary would win it. then.. Dean would have to give up his entire 50 stated strategy that he is so hellbent on continuing (just to prove a point and remake the party.) I don't recall ASKING anyone to remake OUR party...

...Dean, et al, want to remake the party so that they don't have to rely on the "lunchbucket democrats" anymore, or the swing voters. This is a big mistake. The moderates they are sacrificing for the "new" voters, are not going to stick around where they aren't wanted. Dean pushes Obama at our party's peril. He's so afraid of violence in Denver that he'll risk the sure defeat in November with Obama as the nominee, just to avoid it.

There is a lot to unpack there. But before we do, let's look at another comment.

This man has singlehandedly created a Third Party! I will let YOU decide what to call it. The "We're New & Different" Party? The "Great Speeches & Comedy Routines" Party? The "We're Not Washington Like Them" Party ? The "We Can Dance & They Can't" Party ? ... or maybe the "We Talk To Everybody" Party.

They make no secret of it ! They BRAG that this new party is made up of Newbies and Youngsters and Independents and CrossOvers from the other party.

The sad part is while they may continue to cling to the name Democrat ... they are actually a bastard third party ... and by doing this neither they ... or the real Democratic Party they've now managed to destroy - can win.

Now, there's some delusional thinking in these posts, particularly over whether Florida and Michigan would change the outcome of any of the metrics of the race. But they are picking up on the nugget of something real. Chris Bowers analyzed it two days ago in his The End of Liberal Elites post. You should read the whole thing to get a full flavor of his argument, but the key is demographic change.

In 1972, McGovern won 37.52% of the popular vote. In 1984, Mondale won 40.56% of the popular vote. In 1988, Dukakis won 45.65% of the popular vote. In 2004, John Kerry won 48.27% of the popular vote. The basic reason for this is not consistent improvement of the quality of the Democratic candidates, but the changing demographics of the electorate that these candidates more acceptable to the nation of the whole.

In 2008, we have probably reached a point where the demographic tilt of the electorate favors those candidates by 50% + 1. If this is the case, then it would represent the end of the "liberal elite" and civil right backlash narratives as an effective anti-Democratic tactic on the national level.

Demographics represent one of the key elements of a new left-leaning governing majority. But that is true for any Democratic nominee, including Clinton. Obama, however, has a new and unfamiliar coalition of voters. On the one hand, Obama has attracted the liberal elites. These are college professors, urban and suburban professionals, people that work in performing arts, etc. This group is whiter, wealthier, and more educated than the Democratic Party as a whole. They have had a string of electoral champions and electoral disappointments. And one reason for those disappointments has been that the African-American community did not support Dean over Kerry, Bradley over Gore, Tsongas over Clinton, or Hart over Mondale.

But Obama has managed to create, for the first time, a coalition of liberal elites and African-American voters. As an aside here, as someone that has done political work in urban black neighborhoods and has been active in reforming the machine-driven politics of Philadelphia, this coalition is a dream come true. But what does it mean that Obama has put together this coalition? And, here I must add, Obama is also attracting young people in droves and pulling in independents and some former Republicans. That's important because he needs an expanded base for the general election. Yet, Obama is doing all this without relying on 'lunchbucket' Democrats. And lunchbucket Democrats have been decisive in every Democratic primary since McGovern and every general election since FDR built his majority coalition.

This man has singlehandedly created a Third Party!

...I don't recall ASKING anyone to remake OUR party...

...they are actually a bastard third party.

There is nothing radically different about Obama's policies. Most people agree that his policies differ little from Clinton's. What's new is his base of support. And aside from young people who swing back and forth (see their support of Reagan), Obama's core support is still coming from loyal and reliable Democrats. Liberals and blacks are the most reliable Democrats. So, there is nothing too radical in his base supporters. What's new is only that his base is not built on 'lunchbucket' Democrats.

But moving back to policy, if there are not large differences between Clinton and Obama, what do lunchbucket Democrats have to fear? The answer is obvious: influence. They may not be the decisive voting bloc anymore in either Democratic primaries or general elections. And that makes some of them so uncomfortable that they view this new coalition as a 'bastard party'. They also share the view of many in the punditry class, that this new coalition is unelectable because its face (as opposed to its policies) are too liberal and too black. But Bowers has an answer for that, too.

In 2006, Democrats won an 8.2% popular vote victory in House campaigns despite losing the white Protestant vote 61%-37%. Democrats even lost white evangelicals 70%-28%, but still had a banner year. In fact, Democrats won a landslide national victory despite splitting what many analysts have long considered the Holy Grail of swing groups, white Catholics, 50%-49%.

In 2004, John Kerry took 41% of the vote among whites, and lost the popular vote by 2.46%. In 1988, Michael Dukakis took 40% of the white vote, but lost the popular vote by 7.72%. With only a 1% improvement among whites, John Kerry improved 5.26% overall (source).

In 1992, whites were 87% of the electorate. In 2004, whites were 77% of the electorate, a 10% drop in just 12 years. Further, the three groups of whites among whom Democrats hold more than a 2-1 edge on Republicans, white union members, white non-Christians, and white LGBTs, are all increasing their share of the electorate and the white vote. Although not by a 2-1 margin, Democrats also do very well among white single women, who are also increasing their share of the electorate.

Who don't Democrats do well among anymore? Straight, Christian, non-union whites who are not single women, do not self-identify as liberal, and are over the age of 30. Basically, that is just about the only group where the backlash narratives will still have wide appeal. While about 90% of the punditry falls into that category, and while Republicans win this group with more than 70% of the vote, it only represents about one-third of the electorate, and decreases in size every year.

It's no wonder that some whites are feeling the Democratic Party slipping away from them. But it isn't a matter of changing policy...at least, not yet. At this point it is a more visceral feeling than anything you can document. You can see hints in the polling (.pdf). Among Pennsylvanian Democrats for whom immigration is their number one issue, Clinton leads 56%-19%.

I would be very hesitant to attribute this to racism. Some racism exists, without question. But much of this angst is taking place on a more subconscious level. And I don't think it will necessarily result in the loss of large numbers of white working class voters to the Republican Party specifically because they aren't any real tensions over policy. Working class whites are suffering terribly in this economic downturn and John McCain and the Republicans are offering them no help. Obama is offering universal health care, relief on the cost of education, a helping hand through the housing slump, etc.

Although some voters will drift away as they feel less integral to the party's success, enough will remain to help form a new majority governing coalition. And most of these young voters are likely to stay reliable Democrats for the rest of their lives, just as young voters have stuck with their initial partisan preference in the past.

AlterNet is a non profit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by our writers are their own.

Tagged as: election08, demographics, obama

Booman is the proprietor of the Booman Tribune.