The Emerging Majority ( Democrats might be in control for a very long time )

Small changes can have dramatic consequences. The electorate shifted about 4 points toward the Democrats in between the 2004 and 2008 elections--from 48.3 percent of the popular vote four years ago to 52.5 percent today. But those 4 points gave Obama the largest share of the vote since 1988, the best showing by a Democrat since 1964, the first black president, the first non-southern Democratic president since John F. Kennedy, and likely larger Democratic majorities in Congress than when President Clinton took office in 1993. In a closely divided America, a swing of four votes in a hundred can mean a decisive victory.

Obama's achievement can be explained with a few numbers. The first is 27 percent--President Bush's approval rating in the national exit poll. Pretty dismal. The poll found that voters were split on whether John McCain would continue Bush's policies. But those who thought McCain would be another Bush broke overwhelmingly for Obama, 91 percent to 8. That's a huge, damning margin.

The second number is 93 percent. That's the percentage of voters who gave the economy a negative rating in the exit poll. They supported Obama. And they were right to give the economy a negative rating. The financial crisis is spilling over into the real economy of goods and services. Unemployment is rising and consumption is falling. The week before the election, the Commerce Department announced that consumer spending had dropped 3.1 percent. Consumer spending hadn't fallen since 1991, and this year's decline was the largest since 1980.

The day before the election, the auto companies announced that they had had their worst month in a quarter-century. When economic conditions are as bad as this, of course the party out of power is favored to win an election.

Considering those numbers, the 2008 electoral map isn't all that surprising. Bush, the economy, and Obama's personal and political appeal have pushed the nation toward the blue end of the political spectrum. But, for the most part, the shift is gradual and on the margins. Obama will be president because he took states that Bush won in tight races four years ago. Bush won Ohio by 2 points in 2004. This year Obama won it by 4. Bush won Florida by 5 points in 2004. This year Obama won it by 2.5 points.

Obama's victories in the West were impressive. Bush won Colorado by 5 points in 2004. Obama won it by 7. Bush won New Mexico by 1 point in 2004. Obama won it by a substantial margin--about 15 points. Bush won Nevada by 2 points in 2004. Obama won it by about 13 points.

Virginia has been trending blue since 2001, when Mark Warner was elected governor. In 2004, John Kerry won the Washington suburbs of Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax, but still lost the state to Bush, 45 to 54 percent. The next year, another Democrat, Tim Kaine, succeeded Warner. And the year after that, voters replaced incumbent Republican senator George Allen with Democrat Jim Webb in a contest decided by just a few thousand votes. In 2008 Virginia went totally blue. It handed the Democrats as many as three more House seats, replaced retiring Republican senator John Warner with Mark Warner (no relation) by a vote of two-to-one, and swung for Obama by a margin of 5.5 points. Virginia's electoral votes went for a Democrat for the first time since 1964.

The two major surprises on our new map are North Carolina and Indiana. Bush won North Carolina by 12 points in 2004. This year Obama erased that margin and won by a couple tenths of a point. It's the first time since 1976 that North Carolina has voted for a Democratic president. In Indiana the swing toward Obama was even more pronounced. Bush won there by a huge margin of 22 points in 2004. Obama made up all of that ground, eking out a victory of about a point. No Democrat had won Indiana since 1964.

If I were Obama strategist David Axelrod, I'd--well, I'd probably be exhausted right now. But I'd also make sure that President-elect Obama spends the next four years visiting North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. He needs to deepen his support in all five states. And I'd also make sure Obama visits Missouri, where at this writing it appears he barely lost; Montana, where he lost by 2.5 points; and Georgia, where he lost by 5.5 points. If Obama holds all the states he won this year and adds those three to his column in 2012, he'll be reelected in a landslide. That's a big "if," of course. The key is a successful first term.

Where does this leave the Republicans? In deep trouble. The GOP is increasingly confined to Appalachia, the South, and the Great Plains. When the next Congress convenes in 2009, there won't be a single House Republican from New England. The GOP is doing only a little better in the mid-Atlantic. There will be only three Republican congressmen in New York's 29-member delegation in the next Congress. Only a third of Pennsylvania's delegation will be Republican--about the same proportion as in New Jersey. There will be a single Republican in Maryland's eight-man delegation. The Rust Belt is hostile territory, too. So are the Mountain West and the Pacific Coast. The GOP is like the central character in Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone." It's on its own, no direction home.

The Republicans are in demographic trouble. When you look at the ethnic composition of Obama's coalition, you see that it's kind of a mini-America. About two-thirds of Obama's supporters are white and a third minorities. The Republican coalition, by contrast, is white, male, and old. There's the first problem. Overall, Obama may have lost the white vote (while still doing better than Kerry did), but in 2008 whites (not counting Hispanics, per Census convention) made up the smallest proportion of the electorate since the start of exit polling. Obama scored tremendous victories among minorities. He won more than 90 percent of the black vote. He won the Hispanic vote by a two-to-one margin. He won the Asian vote by a similar margin.

Then there are the young. Voters under 30 turned out in only slightly higher numbers than they did in 2004, but they overwhelmingly backed Obama, 68 percent to 30. A successful Obama presidency could lock these voters into the Democratic column for a long, long time.

The most striking divide in 2008 is between rural voters and metropolitan voters. Rural voters back the Republican party overwhelmingly. The problem is that there aren't many of them--and there are fewer all the time. It's the metropolitan voters, the voters who live in cities or suburbs or exurbs, who are growing. And these voters are trending Democratic. Obama won the Philadelphia suburbs, the Washington, D.C., suburbs, the Chicago suburbs in Illinois and Indiana, the Denver suburbs, the suburban counties that make up the Research Triangle in North Carolina, and many more. He won the Orlando suburbs by 20 points. Disney World is Obama country.

Suburbs and exurbs are the most dynamic, fastest-growing places in the country. They are future-oriented. Republicans win when they build out from their rural base and gain support in the exurbs and suburbs. That's how Bush won in 2004. But in Bush's second term, things went awry. The suburban voters abandoned the GOP for the Democrats. The exurbs became volatile battlegrounds. And the GOP was left a minority party.

I think of places like Loudoun County, a northern Virginia exurb. Bush won Loudoun County by 12 points in 2004. In 2008, Obama won Loudoun by 6 points. For the GOP to have a future, it has to reverse that 18-point swing. Otherwise, Republicans better start praying for rain.

Our rate of immigration and higher birthrate has postponed our demographic/economic implosion by about eight to 10 years, but even we cannot escape it.

You must be joking. First of all, the US has the highest rate of population growth of any developed country, i.e., almost 1% a year. Since 1970, we have added 100 million people and will add another 165 million in the next 50 years. There will be no demographic implosion. Instead, there has been a demograhic explosion in terms of population growth thanks to immigration. Despite immigration, we will continue to be an aging society. And out of control immigration and population growth will actually hurt us economically as most of this growth will add to our economic burden.

In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree; today there are 3.3, and by 2030 there will be two.

I am not in favor of throwing Israel to the wolves. However, I believe that when our national interests diverge, our interests [US] should come first. In the past, it has been the tail wagging the dog when it comes to US national interests in the Middle East.

Sometimes Israel calls the shots in this two way relationship but most of the time we call the shots or it's a stalemate
It's absurd to paint this as a picture where Israel is in control. Now or in the past. I'll bet you love James Baker and Lee Hamilton who is a real freakin dullard. The Baker/Hamilton doctrine is in effect now. Bush has half cut loose Israel

Total bull about tail (Israel) wagging the dog. More like a tug of war. The USA has been dictating to Israel the last few years and if you want a standard rejoinder you can sensibly say that the US has a right to due to military aid and other aid to Israel. Sometimes Israel calls the shots in this two way relationship but most of the time we call the shots or it's a stalemate.

Based on personal experience, you couldn't be more wrong. The US dictates nothing to Israel. In most cases, it is the other way around. We have very little control over Israeli foreign policy or actions. They don't listen to us whether it is stopping the expansion of settlements or selling American military technology to China.

It's absurd to paint this as a picture where Israel is in control. Now or in the past. I'll bet you love James Baker and Lee Hamilton who is a real freakin dullard. The Baker/Hamilton doctrine is in effect now. Bush has half cut loose Israel

It is actually a political reality. Israel will do whatever it takes to protects its national interests. We should do the same.

Keep them going through the financial crisis-they are in the process of reforming and re-organizing. Give them the bail out.

The Dems' bailout has strings attached, e.g., the USG will dictate what kinds of cars will be built. Bush doesn't want to use the bailout money saying that the pot of money set aside for the auto industry to make more fuel efficient cars should be used for that purpose.

GM has some awesome cars coming in 2010. We are talking cutting edge technology. I believe we may well become the world leader on new auto technology. I work for GM I know what’s coming. Rick Wagner has been working on a GM transformation for some time-the financial crisis stopped this process.

Are you saying that the bailout should be based on merit? What about Ford and Chrysler? If the technology is so good, then it will sell itself and won't need a government bailout. I would prefer a short term loan.

The auto industry is crucial for the country in terms of jobs (milllions) and our future. This industry can and should be saved. The consequences of the failure are so bad that no responsible, sane person would contemplate it.

We will still make cars in this country, just not American ones. There is something called comparative advantage. If the US can no longer make cars competitively for whatever reason, then the industry will go bust no matter what the USG does to prop them up. No industry can be made immune from market forces.

Your personal experience is hardly unbiased and objective. I buy it at a steep discount. I don’t care if you were ambassador to Egypt. I know Islam better than you do. Go read Jihad Watch and get a proper education on it

The plan right now is Baker/Hamilton so you should be happy.
But you are too aggrieved to admit that Islam is on a roll and if they kill off Israel they will be even more emboldened then eventually get you children and grand children

As long as we get large amounts of foreign oil we are entangled. That means oil from Saudi, Venezuela and other malcontents
We are in a great geo political battle for oil and resources. Withdraw from that and we are screwed.... And your president Obama’s plan is to jettison Israel and Iraq so to give our enemies victories
If you want a fortress America then we have to dig our coal and burn it without carbon sequestration so go tell you next president Obama that. We also have to shift a lot of vehicles to our abundant natural gas so go convince Obama on that one too

I have lived a total of nine years in three Islamic countries [Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia] and travelled to many more. I don't need to go to Jihad Watch to get an education about it.

But you are too aggrieved to admit that Islam is on a roll and if they kill off Israel they will be even more emboldened then eventually get you children and grand children

Israel will survive long after you and I and our children and grand children. Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and a first rate military. The only thing that will take them down is the 16% of their own population that are Arab muslims.

As long as we get large amounts of foreign oil we are entangled. That means oil from Saudi, Venezuela and other malcontents

Our dependence will grow not decrease in the next few decades.

We are in a great geo political battle for oil and resources. Withdraw from that and we are screwed.... And your president Obama’s plan is to jettison Israel and Iraq so to give our enemies victories

I didn't vote for Obama but he is the President-elect. Elections have consequences. Obama will never jettison Israel. His appointment of Rahm Emanuel and the many Jews in his transition and campaign team should tell you something. The arab world is very unhappy with Obama's selection of Emanuel for obvious reasons. With a record class of Jewish congressmen in the 111th Congress and with very little difference between the two parties on support of Israel, Obama can't change US bilateral relations with Israel even if wanted to.

If you want a fortress America then we have to dig our coal and burn it without carbon sequestration so go tell you next president Obama that. We also have to shift a lot of vehicles to our abundant natural gas so go convince Obama on that one too.

I don't want a "fortress America." McCain also supported a cap and trade system along with his buddy Lieberman. You can bet they both will help Obama achieve it, which will wreck our economy. And they will support an amnesty, which will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen.

You’re right about the people on the ground - yes, but as your last line correctly puts it, there is a declining number of workers per retiree. That’s what we’re not escaping. You’ve got the situation correctly summed up - we’re drowning in immigrants, and it isn’t helping - the number of workers per retiree is still going down. It has only stalled the inevitable (and it has - we’d be down to under 2 workers per retiree right now if not for immigration).

I don’t think we’re going to add all the projected people in the next 50 years. Just how attractive is the US going to be as the bills for the last 50 years come due? “Welcome to America - fork over your paycheck so we can sit on our plump buttocks!” isn’t what I’d call a hugely successful PR campaign. The benefits gravy train is quickly going to come to a stop - if anything, the recent financial turmoil is a precursor to what is coming down the pike.

You’ll see other countries cut bennies too. Keep an eye on Germany - they’re the country that started many of the schemes that we all “enjoy” today - socialized medicine, free public schools, old age pensions... all go back to the Kaiser’s time in Germany. They’re not only out of money as they’re bailing out their banks, the worse thing is that they’re an export-dependent economy. And I dunno about you, but from what I see, there are some really hard times ahead for the employee base of German exprt production - like autos - as the US consumer slams their wallet shut.

I think coming out of this economic recession (or possible depression if the Democrats get their way and play Step-n-Fetchit for the unions, which was what helped prolong the Great Depression in ‘37 to ‘38), there is going to be a serious examination of just how much we want immigration into the US. It is one thing to spout the twaddle that is on the base of Lady Liberty, it is quite another thing to have said policy while you can’t get a job.

Citi this morning announced 50K+ layoffs in one fell swoop. Betcha that woke up some people in DC.

We are saving millions of jobs and saving the economy from a 1930’s style depression.

Can you guarantee that our economy will be saved by the bailout? So far the results have not been encouraging. We already have a $10 trillion national debt and a $60 trillion unfunded liability in the form of the entitlement programs. Who is going to bailout the USG?

We have bailed out AIG to the tune of 160 billion why? Do you think the financial sector was not to blame for the mess they created? We gave banks money, and they gave themselves fat bonuses and bought other banks while refusing to lend money.

I was against the bailout. It is just delaying the inevitable. The more government involvement, the more prolonged the economic downturn. It took WWII to get us out of the Depression, not New Deal socialism. And don't forget that it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quasi government run enterprises, that started the house of cards to collapse. What makes you think that Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Dodd can manage our economy better than the marketplace?

Surely, we can give the big three a loan of 50 billion to weather the credit crisis. The auto industry is a vital part of our economy. good things are on the horizon.

We have heard this before. I have lived in both socialist and communist countries. Propping up inefficient and unprofitable enterprises destroys economies.

We bailed out the financial sector because without banks, literally nothing else in the US economy works. The economy has no chance to function, much less recover, if banks won’t trust each other and allow commerce to happen.

Everyone knows of Smoot-Hawley and the effects on trade. Well, when banks refuse to honor letters of credit used in international trade because they don’t trust the bank on which the LOC is drawn, you have a trade disruption writ large.

The auto industry is essential, but they cannot survive at their current cost structure. They need to go into BK today, without delay, and get their cost structure repaired immediately. If they need a bailout, then let’s bail them out when they’re NOT a black hole and have a chance of surviving.

Too many people think that bankruptcy means the business stops. Not true. It simply means that their liabilities are restructured by a court.

Actually the projections have been understated in recent years. In 2000, the Census Bureau predicted that by 2050, the US population would be 403.7 million; in 2004 the number was revised to 419.9 million, and in 2008, it was revised again to 439 million. That's a 36 million increase or about the size of the population of California. The Census Bureau also moved up the date when non-Hispanic whites would make up just 50% of the population from 2050 to 2042.

And a surge may be on its way in just months. “Surge Two”: Northward Flood of Mexicans Likely to Increase after U.S. Election

The entire world will suffer when American consumerism declines. Germany will no doubt be impacted as will China, Japan, Europe, etc. The US is the engine of the world's economy.

You are correct historically. People forget that the labor unions were among those pressing Congress to limit immigration after the Great Wave, which prompted the Immigration Acts of 1920 and 1924. The US became a low immigration country for over 40 years until the 1965 Immigration Act, which changed the demographics of this country forever.

The current black unemplopyment rate is 11.1% and for Hispanics, 8.8%. This would not seem to be the best time for guest worker programs and an amnesty. The only fly in the ointment for Obama is the growing political rise and pressure from Hispanic groups that want Obama to pay up on his political debts. There will be a mass Hispanic demonstration in Washington on Jaunary 21, the day after Obama is sworn in, demanding legalization of illegals.

If the GOP is smart [and it isn't], they would take a stand on immigration essentially calling for an attrition thru enforcement approach and reducing legal immigration from the current 1.2 million annually to 300,000 and to go to a merit based system. It will take some guts because it is going to be attacked as nativist and racist, but it will lay down the marker and set the stage for what will be the coming battle over immigration similar to what happened in the 1920s. Our current level of one immigrant out of 8 residents in this country is the highest it has been in over 80 years and in a decade it will be one in 7. There is going to be blowback and it is important to make the Dems accountable and responsible for the consequences.

“What you say is totally untrue. We have a huge trade deficit.”

I didnt say otherwise. OTOH, the biggest component of our trade deficit is oil.

” Production is not up except in fake government cooked reports.”
I cant argue with someone who dimisses facts not to his liking.

” You can’t find a product made in America in most stores.”
Nice absurd generalization. Go to Home Depot next time.

” You work in tech hey. You know I said to my wife that she was right, we should have stood up for steel...your are next. Count on it; there will always be some cheap foreign labor which will cost the globalist less than you.”

I know that already, you silly person. I’ve worked with teams in multiple countries, like India and Russia etc. Of course the companies will do what makes most economic sense, and asking them to pay more for something that they can get for less is absurd. You cant wall yourself off from the simple reality that the most productive and efficient companies win and the rest dont.

Despite hiring overseas, our company has jobs, production and exports from the US. If you try to stop it with protectionism, all you will do is make US companies go out of business, while Japanese and European companies take all the business. You will actually hurt exports.

“As for the dynamic economy, you hit the nail on the head. It’s changeable. It can turn on a dime-like now. There is no underpinnings.”
Not really. The underpinnings are simple: Create something of value in a productive way and you can make a profit.

Creation of value is the underpinnings of the economy.

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.