Posted on 02/03/2013 11:40:39 AM PST by DBCJR
Demography isn't destiny—and assuming that it is will likely make liberals overreach again.
Many are arguing these days that President Obama has forged a new majority coalition of women, minorities, young people and upscale cultural liberals so large and durable that he can do what no president has done before—pursue a very liberal agenda without serious opposition or defections from his own party. Demography is destiny, this argument holds, and it is irrevocably on the side of Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party.
Yes, there will be fewer whites and more minorities in the future, and Republicans will have to adjust. But the situation is more complicated than that.
Start with the obvious: If demographics were determinative, then Republicans shouldn't have gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives in 2010—the largest midterm shift since 1938—while also taking 30 governorships.
When presidential re-elections yielded realignments in the past, the winner earned a bigger share of the vote than he had in the past. FDR won 60.8% of the vote in 1936 after winning 57.41% in 1932. But Mr. Obama won 51.06% in 2012, down from 52.87% in 2008. Over the course of his first term, his support dropped among young people (a swing of 2.4 million net votes to Mitt Romney), women (a net swing of 1.6 million votes to Mr. Romney), and African-Americans (a net swing 945,000 votes).
And while Mr. Obama may believe he can ignore moderate and conservative whites, congressional Democrats would disagree. Mr. Obama won Florida by a razor-thin 74,309 votes (0.9% of the total), yet Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson won re-election by 1,065,184 votes, or 13%, many from white voters. In North Dakota, Democrat Heidi Heitkamp won a Senate seat by less than 1% while Mr. Obama lost by 20%, and in West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin won re-election by 24% while Mr. Obama lost by 27%. Such Democrats from swing states or districts will be uncomfortable with Mr. Obama's strategy of playing to his party's left wing.
The ideological composition of the American electorate hasn't changed dramatically. Self-identified liberals were 25% of voters in 2012 and 23% in 2008. Conservatives were 35% of voters in 2012 and 34% in 2008.
By some measures, voters are less liberal today than they were four years ago. In the 2008 exit poll, 51% said "government should do more to solve problems" while 43% felt "government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals." In 2012, 43% said "government should do more" and 51% believed "government is doing too many things." While 44% wanted ObamaCare "expanded or left as is," 49% wanted to "repeal some or all of it."
Another sign that Mr. Obama hasn't fundamentally changed America's political structure: Compared with 2008, there were 371,800 fewer white votes cast in Ohio in 2012, when Mr. Obama carried the state by 166,214 votes. Many whites who voted for him in 2008 couldn't bring themselves to do so again or to vote for Mr. Romney. Their staying home represented a tactical victory for Mr. Obama, not a strategic realignment.
Nor can Democrats count on young people forever remaining Democrats. Voters age 18-29 were those most likely to move away from Mr. Obama between 2008 and 2012, and Republican identification generally increases as people graduate college, start work and begin families. Of those who were 18-29 years old in the 1972 election, 47% were Democrats, 26% Republicans and 28% independents. By 2012, these same voters (now ages 58-69) were roughly 37% Democratic, 34% Republican and 29% independent. They backed Mr. Romney by 51%-47%.
Does anyone think every future Democratic candidate will enjoy the unusually high African-American turnout and victory margin of Mr. Obama?
Even among Hispanics, Mr. Obama hasn't locked things up. While Mr. Romney received only 27% of Hispanic votes nationwide, he received 32% in the seven battleground states with exit polling (including 42% in Ohio) and attracted more Hispanic votes than John McCain did in 2008 in California (by 8%) and Nevada (5%).
Republicans have a perception problem with Hispanics, but the GOP earned 44% of Hispanic votes in 2004 and can do so again with the right policies, many more Hispanic candidates and better messaging.
The major impediment is the harsh rhetoric of some Republicans regarding immigration. The solution is less about policy than about respect for the Hispanic community. If federal immigration law is reformed with substantial Republican support—including for a long and demanding but achievable process of earning legal status—the GOP can consistently earn 35%-40% among Hispanics. Having Sen. Marco Rubio as the GOP spokesman on immigration issues will hasten the GOP recovery.
Demography isn't destiny because nothing is permanent in politics—and Democrats' insistence to the contrary will likely lead them to overreach, ignoring issues such as jobs, anemic growth and deficits in order to tackle gun control and climate change. That would be good for Republicans. Governing from the hard left sunk Democrats in 2010 and would cost them again in 2014.
I can’t hear you, Karl.
Well, if you can convince people that the current batch of RINOs ARE Conservatives, then I guess you’ve got it pegged, Karl.
*SPIT*
I am, however, VERY proud of Wisconsin. We OWN it, now. If we can hang on and NOT shoot ourselves in the foot, life in The Dairy State will be grand! :)
Half pay no federal income taxes, thus no skin in the game. Advantage to the tax and spend Rats.
Half receive government money. Advantage to the big-government socialist-spending Rats.
Most people today are informed (misinformed) by entertainment, far leftwing media, and Rat lies. Advantage Rats.
Amnesty will add millions more voters with a track record of Rat voting. Advantage Rats.
The GOP establishment RINO liberals are even more worthless. Advantage Rats.
Vote fraud has been finely honed. Advantage Rats.
>Many whites who voted for him in 2008 couldn’t bring themselves to do so again or to vote for Mr. Romney. Their staying home represented a tactical victory for Mr. Obama, not a strategic realignment.<
.
Either way, the country got screwed and took many steps backward.
I am so happy that I’m old enough to know what it was like when America was still America. I look at my kds and grandchild and I feel a deep sadness flowing over me.
I read a few sentences, but when I saw it was written by Karl Rove, I stopped reading it. This pos does not say anything I want to hear.
Add free food to a cage of rats and the population will expand till the cage is full of rats. Cut off the food, and the rats will eat each other till the cage is empty.
Hand out money till its worthless in a welfare state and the same thing happens. Cities fill with rats...
Advantage, rats, for a short while. Then everything goes Galt on ya and the blood flows. Advantage then, those who can support themselves, cause now they dont have to feed rats...
Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, Cleveland, Camden, Detroit.
90% of blacks vote for Obama. 117 electoral votes decided by racism.
The RATS perceived war on women didn’t work. The war on gays didn’t work. The war on Latinos didn’t work. What worked for the Democrats was ignorance and reverse racism.
It’s a fact of life that RINOS will never address.
F U K R!
“The major impediment is the harsh rhetoric of some Republicans regarding immigration. The solution is less about policy than about respect for the Hispanic community. If federal immigration law is reformed with substantial Republican support—including for a long and demanding but achievable process of earning legal status—the GOP can consistently earn 35%-40% among Hispanics. Having Sen. Marco Rubio as the GOP spokesman on immigration issues will hasten the GOP recovery”
I appreciate that K Rove has been in the business of political analysis for a long time, however, as one who makes a living analyzing data and designing successful strategies for moving forward, there are a lot of assumptions in Mr. Rove’s analysis that demand scrutiny. What evidence is there that Repubs have “harsh rhetoric” on immigration? I understand that Repubs want a properly managed immigration system, including border management that protects Americans from harm. I also understand that millions of people violate US law regarding immigration while people who follow US laws in many areas of life are concerned about their own treatment. Is there something harsh about these views? Is harshness actually part of Repub statements or is it simply a propaganda message created by non-Repubs? If you don’t know the difference, I don’t think your recommendations, Mr Rove, are well-founded.
Also, and perhaps more directly related to your predictions regarding future Repub election success, what evidence do you have that immigration legislation led by Repubs will lead to increased votes from Hispanics? And, if it leads to even 45% Hispanic votes for Repubs, isn’t that still a minority percentage, Mr Rove? Don’t you need 50+% of the votes to win? Will adding 11 million new voters and gaining 5million Repub votes be a victory, Mr Rove, if there are 6 million Dem votes? Consider the math Mr Rove.
I notice, Mr Rove, that you emphasize demographics and voter percentages. Missing is an explanation of WHY voters in the groups you identify voted the way they did. Why did they change their votes over the years? I am not so much interested in superficial percentages as I am in the reasons people vote the way they do. Write an article about the “why’s” of voting, and I will be much more interested. Lots of the election results would have differed if a larger percentage of eligible voters actually voted—you could change a lot and win a lot of elections if you find out how to motivate voters.
In Rove-speak, that means "if the Republican Party would just move more to the left".
Shut up, Karl.
As long as you are advising the Repukelicans, and they’re stupid enough to listen to you, there will continue to be a communist majority voted in to office, you ignorant, RINO-loving, bloviating dumba$$.
Morality is destiny.
That is presupposing there aren't factors outside in the world's wings waiting to move in and take advantage of such discord. It's a bad route.
It would be better to get a handle on it sooner. Very easily solved problem with a just system of voting -- "just" being that Americans who are charity cases to the government recuse themselves from voting. A nasty, hard, fight, but a just one.
The first debate where Obama looked like an idiot should have clinched the election for Romney, but his idiot advisers didn't press home the attack and we all know the results.
With the right candidate the GOP can sweep the election in 2016 especially if he or she runs like Reagan on the misery index and "Are you better off?". The next four years of Obama will be a disaster and I hope even some of the low information voters realize their mistake and will want change.
What I fear is that Obama will gain total control of the media by killing talk radio, muzzling Fox News and censoring the Internet. Then we will be in a dictatorship.
“In Rove-speak, that means “if the Republican Party would just move more to the left”.
Yup. What he’s saying is “press 2 for Spanish and visit your local welfare office.”
I have read about and heard about a lot of former Republicans changing their affiliation from Republican to Unaffiliated after the last election. I am one of them. And it makes sense. If these voters wanted to vote for a Democrat, there is already one on the ticket. No need for your party to nominate their own like happened in 2012.
I heard many of these people say that the GOP will notice these defections and change in order to bring back the disenfranchised. Unfortunately, I believe the GOP will notice and will change. It won’t be a change to draw these voters back. It will be a change to draw the Hispanic, minority, feminist, and takers. The GOP will move towards being a slightly more business friendly version of the Democratic party.
I’ve said it before: RINO’s are no longer the Republicans who act like Democrats. The Republicans who act like Democrats are the majority of the caucus, at least on the Federal level. The RINOs are now the ones who are conservative.
Every year 2.5 million (mostly white, mostly old, 65% R voting) people die.
And are replaced by (mostly minority, >70% D voting) people.
Decades of “progressive” education, liberal control of internet media, and onslaught of illegals makes the future a real struggle.
Obama's majority coalition is likely based on information-starved voters as much as the decision to get an abortion is based, in probably many cases, on the intentional lack of information about health and psychological risks in getting an abortion imo.
In other words, many women, minorities and young people evidently do not understand that Obama and the Democrats, but also including Republicans, have been establishing federal spending programs outside the framework of the Constitution, many social programs based on wrongly ususped state powers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.