Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How Obama Could Create a Long-Term Democratic Majority

By Paul Rogat Loeb, AlterNet. Posted February 7, 2008.


More than a single presidency is at stake -- the future of the Democratic party is.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Paul Rogat Loeb

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Commentators are talking, and rightly so, about how young voters are flocking to Barack Obama. Their overwhelming support gave Obama his Iowa margin, kept him just a few points behind in New Hampshire and Nevada, and contributed to his massive South Carolina victory. Young voters haven't always turned out historically, but they're responding to Obama's message, and together with his equally massive support from African-Americans and strong appeal to independents, their passionate enthusiasm could help him expand the Democratic base enough not only to win in November, but to win decisively.

Obama also offers the chance to make this new generation part of an enduring Democratic coalition -- because once young voters support a particular party a few times in a row, they're likely to gravitate toward that party for the rest of their lives.

That so many young Obama supporters are turning out to rally, volunteer and vote suggests that he might be one of those watershed candidates who really can bring a new generation into politics and help shape their long-term loyalties, permanently enlarging the Democratic share of the electorate. But because of Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama, she risks destroying this shift just as it's beginning to emerge.

Look at the historical patterns: Studies from the past 50 years find that party loyalties tend to form early -- for Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. It was true for the FDR generation, for those who came of age during the anti-war activism of the late Vietnam era, and with the young adults who helped cascade Reagan into office and whose compatriots have remained more conservative ever since.

Major historical events like wars and economic depressions can shift this. So can political scandals and personal crises and conversions. Systematic organizing efforts can also shift voters' worldview and context, particularly for those politically detached, which is one reason unions matter so much. Still, some major patterns get set early on, and that's likely to keep being true.

Generations need several elections to cement the pattern. The votes of 18- to 29-year-olds started shifting back in the Clinton years. Young voters gave Clinton an initial 9 point margin and increased it the next round, but their turnout dropped from the highest since 18-year-olds got the vote to the lowest in the same period. In 2000, Gore led Bush among this group buy 3 percent, with Ralph Nader bleeding off another 5 percent. Led by increases in young African-American and Latino voters, they were the only generation to favor Kerry, and did so by a ten percent margin.

These shifts accelerated in 2006. Fueled by the Bush administration's myriad disasters, young voters played a critical role, supporting Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans by a massive 60 percent to 38 percent difference. They did so in every region of the country, from a three to one split in the East to a three point margin in the South. They provided the critical margin for Sens. Tester, Webb and McCaskill, and fed the victories of the four other victorious challengers. Had it been up to young Americans alone, the Democrats would have also won Senate campaigns in Tennessee, Arizona and Nevada; Ned Lamont would have defeated Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, and a slew of additional House seats would have changed hands. The Democrats would have elected Senators from 26 states, with Republicans carrying just four.

The passion of young people for Obama's campaign is fueled by the Iraq war, an uncertain economy, major concerns about the environment and global warming, and the religious right's attacks on sexuality. But more than anything it's also fueled by Obama's eloquent insistence that change is possible and that ordinary citizens can play a key role. It's fueled by the sense that Obama's personal story anticipates the story of an America that moves beyond its divisions and tackles our fundamental problems. This group also seems to resist the idea that a presidency can simply be handed down like a dynastic succession.

Participating in numbers we haven't seen in decades, these new voters fervently want Obama to win. They're reaching out to enlist their peers and volunteering to help reach others. They can be a powerful force to help him prevail.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, obama, barack obama, hillary clinton, democratic party

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, winner of the 2005 Nautilus Award for the best book on social change.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Pseudo-Progressive
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Feb 7, 2008 12:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary's hawkishness and divisiveness would be bad for the party and the country. She voted for the war and told the same lies in support of her vote that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell told. She is shamelessly running on Bill's coattails, and his record on progressive issues is pretty spotty. He repeatedly betrayed his left of center supporters by siding with the far right on numerous issues. Furthermore, Hillary's ties to Wal-Mart are worrisome; the company exploits workers with low wages and no benefits, buys largely from third-world sweatshop suppliers to both exploit the poor abroad and deny Americans work, and unfairly puts small competitors our of business.

Obama's progressive credentials are the real thing, and quibbling over a few votes doesn't make him a pro-choice neocon, which is exactly what Hillary is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Pseudo-Progressive Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: The Pseudo-Progressive Posted by: MindyB
» RE: The Pseudo-Liberal 'O' Posted by: Andie927
Or he could be the new McGovern
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Feb 7, 2008 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and lose in a landslide.

Basing a new majority on young people and African Americans is not the kind of coalition building that creates political realignment or new majorities. New majorities require majorities-- a number of substantial groupings allied in common interest. Boosting the youth and African American vote is simply buttressing the old Democratic coalition. What about farmers, small businesspersons, enterpreuners, libertarians, etc. who have suffered under Bush , including health care costs, civil liberties losses, etc. That's the stuff of new majorities, but we hear none of that from Obama partisans in their rhetoric.

A rational, objective analysis of how to create a new majority doesn't seem to be part of the narrative when it comes to Obama partisans, but wishful thinking, the kind we saw when McGovern ran, is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Or he could be the new McGovern Posted by: carbon-based
» voters age in 1969 Posted by: foreverhope
» whoops and very sorry Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: voters age in 1969 Posted by: MindyB
Fresh!
Posted by: Steve Adair on Feb 7, 2008 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm 60 years old and it seems to me my group has done a fantastic job of f__king things up for quit some time. It's time for "Fresh". I hope these young Americans get their way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: False Hope Posted by: Andie927
» False Hope!!!! Posted by: foreverhope
Win an election first
Posted by: AndyF on Feb 7, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talk of a long term majority is premature. The Democrats need to win an election first. Given their unfortunate history of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity when it comes to winning elections they need to stay focussed on 2008 and win in November. They should have won in both 2000 and 2004, but in both cases they managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Once they win in November, they can concentrate on doing a great job and paving the way for re-election in 2012. And then continuing to do a good job and 2016 and so on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Win an election first Posted by: CrystalD
» RE: Win an election first Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Win an election first Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Win an election first Posted by: MindyB
Enough of the Obama Rhetoric
Posted by: political watchdog on Feb 7, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's rhetoric of change sent young people to polls. However, many of them said they voted for him because they like his smile. Great! Obama is a media creation, fed by the media. On the other hand, Hillary is constantly described as evil, etc. And the media gave her little credit for winning NY and CA. I was an Edwards supporter, and still believe he is the only Democrat who could win in November. But the more I hear and see Hillary, the more I am drawn to her. With her you have substance. With Obama you have rhetoric and a very poor state Senate and U.S. Senate record. The media, however, are in his pocket. Notice how they refer to him as Obama but to her as Hillary. The media is giving Obama a pass, just as it unwisely gave Sen. Joseph McCarthy a pass, and the American people paid. Yes, Oprah, this is the time. She is the one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not Enough of the Obama Rhetoric Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
Yes, it would be a tragedy to lose this opportunity to enlist youth.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 7, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The positive response to Obama is important. The growing evidence of grassroots support for him is phenomenal. And some see him as even more electable than H. Clinton.

We will see whether the Democratic Party leadership is worthy of the new supporters. Their task is to find a way to make "too much of a good thing" work for us. We all know that a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket might be able to win. I'd even be cheered by recalling Al Gore to resolve the deadlock.

Let's stop writing about the clashes between Clinton and Obama. The MSM feeds on that like they do with violence. If it bleeds, it leads.

McCain is the GOP choice. Let's see who can do the best job of putting the war-mongerer, Bush-lover in his place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seems to be all flash
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Feb 7, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and in the immortal words of Stargate SG1's Baal--he's all flash and no photo. When I listen to him I hear no solid background, he was not in Congress when the war was voted upon. I say WAR because IRAQ was not part of the deal--Afghanistan and Bin Laden were--Bush and his ilk are the only ones that should be held responsible for our going into IRAQ. It was, recall a Republican dominated Congress then.

I listen and think about the candidates' resumes (and pretending that much of the information that I may or perhaps should not know (the Urban Legend factor)as one would do when deciding on any job candidate. I give more points to Hillary. She is not part of a
"dynasty" but more like a partner in a political but enduring and loving marriage. (Family Value alert!) That's what I see or read (and I do alot of each!) She has age, years and positions of experience and "internship" as First Lady. (A newscaster called her the VP the other day and I thought that was unnecessarily snarky. ) Her "associations" with the powerful is a plus, not negative. Once in office she might just whittle them down like so many bad vermin. She's a woman! And while I think that Obama would make a great vice president and if he could hone his great eloquence and rhetoric in that very important and worldwide office, then he could easily carry the Democratic Party (perhaps known colloquially as Democratic-Progressive)...just sayin'

A big (big) population they have all left out of the equation, and it puzzles me, are the Boom! (Read Tom Brokaw's book) Those of us who were around as young adults in the 60's and how both Hillary AND Obama are products of that great/unraveling time. Even though I only hit puberty in the Summer of Love--I grew up straight in it.

I think that President Hillary with Vice President Obama (because I do not see emnity there..think of any "two lawyers having lunch joke")

I am a mid fities single woman who thinks Hillary will speak Truth to Power,change the country's worldview as from power-over to power within, and be the mentor and bridge that will bring Obama to the proper place and time to have gotten his Master's (I'm also voting for Hillary because it worries me that Obama gets alot of haves and havemores..anyway.) My MLS that I got the old-fashioned way (not online with all due respect) pays me no more than a teacher. If I get sick and lose my job, who's going to have the healthcare plan in place?

I hope we see more panoramic articles on Alternet and not so many persuasive essays so that WE can think for ourselves. Thanks for listening.

"Making sure Banned Books are stocked in Libraries for 17 years..." A Liberal Librarian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We can't re-wind and start over Posted by: liberalibrarian
I'm supporting Obama
Posted by: happyhermit on Feb 7, 2008 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he is ushering in a movement--people are excited and flocking to the polls with nice signs and nice songs. he could potentially crush mccain, embarrass the republicans, and drag some huge coattails into office with him. plus, he's black, so to speak, and that's sweet.

this enthusiasm is completely unwarranted. usually we deify people AFTER they've done something--which is something Obama hasn't done. let's not be too cynical, but lets not be too naive also.

i'm in my early 20s. i assure you, most people my age have little clue about what Obama has actually done, or even what his platform really means. they think he'll actually end the iraq war, they think that he is "clean" in terms of campaign finance, and even go so far as to call it a "grassroots" operation.

this is delusional. but then again, at this point, perhaps we can say: "so what?" i mean, most republicans are delusional: they support policies that are against their best financial interests. they've been tricked. obamania--while unreal and a bit absurd--could PERHAPS be a form of constructive brainwashing.

i hope so. but that said, i fear a kind of obamania deflation that might occur once he gets into office and realizes that he can't or won't end the war, the economy is in shambles, his health care plan is terrible, his potential desire to invade pakistan might result in disaster, etc.

the question is: will the enthusiasm simply end once obama is elected? people my age are acting as if ALL THEY NEED TO DO is get him into office, whereas really, because of his corporate connections and centrist policies, if they want real progressive change, they're going to have to FORCE him, as much as they can, to deliver.

will THEY do this? "yes we can" seems to be focused on campaigning, not governing, and the people who are so adoring of him will have to go AGAINST him, hold his feet to the fire, if they actually want him to become what they imagine he already is.

and yes, i think nearly all of this is due to the fact that he is extremely attractive. but again, so what. if we can use it to our advantage, so what.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm supporting Obama Posted by: MindyB
Do what Australia does - make voting a legal requirement.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 7, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Novel idea? Not at all.

Another good idea: provide public financing for elections at the city, county, state and national level. You could decide who gets financing democratically - say, by counting up the number of signatures each candidate can bring in.

Until you get the money out of politics and get a higher turnout than 25% of eligible voters, nothing will change - and the powers that be don't want anything to change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's racist victories.
Posted by: cjohnson44 on Feb 7, 2008 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So 4 out of 5 Blacks voted for Obama. Racist voting along race lines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama's racist victories. Posted by: happyhermit
» RE: Obama's racist victories. Posted by: Longdream
» racist spin and Obama victories Posted by: foreverhope
Hillary will ensure a long term Democratic majority
Posted by: Lanlan on Feb 7, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama may attract many independents with his feel-good rhetorics in the short run, but Hillary is the one certain to ensure a long term Democratic majority by her proven brilliant leadership that achieves tangible results.

After all Hillary has transformed many of the traditiotionally rock solid conservative counties in upstate New York into solid Democratic strongholds by her brilliant leadership as a New York Senator. She won a landslide victory in her re-election, getting a whopping 67% of the votes, prevailing even in traditionally Republican upstate New York.

In New York, Hillary's effective performance has achieved bi-partisan unity around issues. She has delivered what Obama is promising to do. She has proved that she can transform rock solid conservatives into solid Democrates by her deeds.

No wonder that the son and daughters of the late Sen. Robert Kennedy are ardently endorsing her in the excellent must read article "Kennedys for Clinton" published in the Los Angeles Times on 1.29.08.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Seriously??? Posted by: areaman
Facts and Deeds speak louder than words
Posted by: Lanlan on Feb 7, 2008 12:05 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those are the facts, like it or not. Don't let Hillary's haters brainwash you. There is a reason why the corporate media is hyping Obama and employing a blatant double standard in trashing Hillary, just like it did with Al Gore.

Keep in mind that Bush had been hailed as a bi-partisan bridge builder by the media, remember? Didn't Bush promise to transform the government as well? Didn't people say that Bush was more likeable and came across more honest and sincere?

It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same indeed.

Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different result.

Don't be misled by words and appearences, check the record, the future of this nation is at stake, the more so in light of the dire state of its economy, among others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Facts and Deeds speak louder than words Posted by: constitution, what constitution
No more DINO's
Posted by: Marlena on Feb 7, 2008 7:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintons are really repubs in dem clothing, and have done their very best to advance the agendas of their corp masters, so of course they have to tear down Obama, and any other candidate who might have a chance to win. Look at their record, not their rhetoric!! Ant the ones runing the Dem party are the same bunch that lost in 00 and 04. Why are those losers still there? If it's another self serving corp owned clinton the dems run, im voting for a third party, again!! I will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils...who would be McCain:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama's a DINO Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Obama's a DINO Posted by: liberalibrarian
Thank you!!
Posted by: SufiLizard on Feb 8, 2008 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article brings up some excellent points, that add to what I've been saying for the past week. If Hillary is our nominee John McCain will win in November.

If she ends up winning the nomination, I really hope I'm proven wrong and I'll happily eat crow, but I doubt I'll have to.

But it's not all about young people.

Obama, was not my first (or even second) choice in the Democratic primary, but there is a clear difference between Obama and Hillary.

Take my extended family for instance. My wife's family tend to be left-leaning independents (with one libertarian-leaning branch), while my family tend to be moderate to right Republicans.

As of right now, almost everybody in both of our families would consider voting for Obama. He really has that much appeal. That's not to say that everybody on the Republican side will end up voting for Obama over McCain, but the intensity of their resistance to him will just not be there like it would for Hillary. And I think some of them will actually vote for Obama.

Hillary on the other hand would get maybe half of the votes from my wife's family and none from my side of the family (except of course me, but only because of the Supreme Court).

I realize this is just one bit of anecdotal evidence, but I think the implications are striking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you!! Posted by: VZEQICVA
Concered Republican
Posted by: ConcernedRepublican on Feb 8, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush spoke to a boisterous crowd shortly after 7 a.m. EST. The ballroom erupted in cheers when someone shouted "Are there conservatives in the house?" When the president walked on stage, they clapped and chanted "Four more years! Four more years!"...sounds awfully familiar, kind of like the same rhetoric right before we elected George W. for his second term... that led us into the recession we are now facing.. OBAMA 2008!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Concered Republican Posted by: Paso Bee
RACISM
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 9, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the person or persons who accuse black voters who want to see Obama in the presidency of "racism", in a brilliant bending of that word, I'd like to say this:

Only people in power can exhibit or practice racism. Anyone can be prejudiced or bigoted--those are just human failings, and we've all got 'em. But racism, by definition, is practiced by a people or group with systemic power against a group which has none. Period.

Black folks cannot practice racism, by its definition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paso Bee
Posted by: Paso Bee on Feb 11, 2008 10:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is dead on. The issue is credibility. Hillary, who voted opportunistically time and again on the most important issues of our times, like the Iraq war and the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, betrayed the hopes and ideals of the American people. At least with Obama we don't have this kind of a negative record. So at least with Obama, we still have hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote omn Iraq
Posted by: psl2745 on Feb 29, 2008 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why isn't more said about the fact that Obama never voted on the Iraq war. It was just his opinion when he was running for the senate. He wasn't privy to the facts the Senate was given. I didn't know this myself until the other night during the debate. Not much is being said about it.
Most people were for the invasion with the information regarding the weapons of mass destruction. This is one of the things he keeps saying how he didn't vote for the war. Yes, he didn't vote for the war, he couldn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote on Iraq
Posted by: psl2745 on Feb 29, 2008 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why isn't more said about the fact that Obama never voted on the Iraq war. It was just his opinion when he was running for the senate. He wasn't privy to the facts the Senate was given. I didn't know this myself until the other night during the debate. Not much is being said about it.
Most people were for the invasion with the information regarding the weapons of mass destruction. This is one of the things he keeps saying how he didn't vote for the war. Yes, he didn't vote for the war, he couldn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cramer speaks about economy
Posted by: psl2745 on Feb 29, 2008 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday on The Ellen Show, Jim Cramer (host of Mad Money) said Hillary Clinton would be the best for our economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]