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

Weekly Standard ^ | Nov 17,2008 | Matthew Continetti

[SeekAndFind]

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.

[etradervic]

The sad fact is that even if McCain had won that we still would have had a massive illegal immigrant flow.

[Texas_shutterbug]

Well, since the south and most of the country went by the “one drop rule,” Obama is - at best - a multicultural black. :)

[yazoo]

He can quote all the numbers he wants. If the country goes down the toilet the electorate is going to throw the Dems out. The shift occured due to rising oil prices, a plummeting economy, and unpopular war.

[eggman]

Otherwise, Republicans better start praying for rain.

No problem there, a storm is coming. Now that the Democrats have both Congress and The White House, there is no one else to blame for all of the dark clouds that are on the horizon. We are very close to a depression and Obama, Reid, and Pelosi can only give away so much of America's wealth before the tipping point is reached.

If they push on gun control, same sex marriage, or full amnesty for illegal aliens the Democrats will likely lose their slim majorities they won in the battleground states. Obama will be pedaling his bike across a tightrope while being pushed by the far left contingent of his party to pedal faster.

[stockstrader]

They are In like flint, and they are not going anywhere soon. It's a whole new ballgame.

I agree.

The demographic changes (which started to show in this election) are devastating for the Republican Party in the future.

In the coming elections--those demographic changes will not just continue--they will ACCELERATE (in the favor of the democrats).

[dsc]

“The shift occured due to rising oil prices, a plummeting economy, and unpopular war.”

I think the shift reflects decades of effort in all our social institutions.

There are millions out there who sincerely believe that Bush was the worst president ever. The painting of Washington crossing the Delaware means nothing to them. And they don’t understand the nature of our Constitution.

Unless we can find some way to deny these cretins the vote, we are well and truly hosed, and it’s our own fault for letting the forces of evil indoctrinate the young for decades.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Strange that so many of the Western democracies are moving to the right while the U.S. is moving to the left.

I think we're behind schedule. Those countries have already tried the Obama Way and found out that it doesn't work - the USA still has some hard experience to gain. ;)

[dsc]

“If the country goes down the toilet the electorate is going to throw the Dems out.”

Like they threw FDR out?

The dims and their propaganda organs will just blame it on the right wing, and their stepford voters will believe them.

[stockstrader]

We are very close to a depression....

Yes we are.

And the current pathetic state of the economy will be the ALIBI for the democrats for the next for years!!!

I wish I could get a royalty for every time we hear, "LOOK AT THE MESS WE INHERITED FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION" in the next four years. That 'blank check' EXCUSE will carry Hussein for years from now too.

He's the luckiest man alive!!! (By the time the 2016 election comes around--the Dems won't have that golden alibi--but for the next four years, they can and WILL ride that incredibly lucky gift).

[nathanbedford]

And the new ball game is...

Minorities of color will vote their color. Henceforward, America will become increasingly racist. Minorities will vote their race. Whites have unilaterally disarmed in the face of racist voting by African Americans and to a lesser degree by Hispanics.

As the spoils systems of the Democrat party leeches out goodies on the basis of political correctness, virtually all of America will become as corrupt as Chicago. The rule of law will give away to political correctness. Corruption now a newly defined and rendered acceptable will be funneled through our institutions, such as our universities, our churches, our courts, and our municipalities. There will be new institutions like civilian indoctrination camps. The new ball game means that conventional electioneering will as utterly irrelevant as campaigning from the back of the train.

I give conservatism about a 50-50 chance to survive in any form recognizable by my generation. Most of traditional America will be befuddled as we witness, time after time, appeals to reason increasingly falling on ears as deaf as they were on November 4, 2008.

[stockstrader]

As the spoils systems of the Democrat party leeches out goodies on the basis of political correctness, virtually all of America will become as corrupt as Chicago.

And the best place for Hussein to start--

will be the hundreds of thousands of new worthless, meaningless, 'do-nothing', 'make work' government jobs that Hussein has promised.

[flintsilver7]

Democrats are, to nobody’s surprise, greatly misreading the results of the election. George Bush has managed to irritate many people who agree with him on many issues by screwing around with bailouts and amnesty. This is why his approval rating is 20% or thereabouts. It doesn’t mean that 80% are diametrically opposed to Bush’s policies, but it does mean that 80% of people are disappointed with one or more of his actions. It would’ve been nearly impossible for a Republican to win this election solely because of the squishy middle who would oppose the Republican candidate regardless (and many did).

Add to that John McCain, a weak candidate in the first place, supported amnesty and bailouts - the same things that pissed off many Bush supporters in the first place. Right or wrong, many of the squishy middle who supported Bush last time became disaffected with McCain for those two issues.

Statistically speaking, it’s also extremely difficult for one party to hold the White House for three consecutive terms. Jesus himself probably couldn’t have won reelection following Bush.

[Canedawg]

As the author wrote: The Republicans are in demographic trouble.

It’s true.

There may have been the widely reported criticism of those who cling to their guns and Bibles, but in reality it is the people clinging to the right to abortions and the stupidity of political correctness who are affecting the elections.

[the right side jedi]

Yeah, it’s a little too early to write eulogies for the Republican party. I mean weren’t people saying in 2002-2004 that all the demographic trends were against Democrats? That we would have some permanent Republican majority?

In 2002-2004, the demographic trends were our way - growth in red states, loss of people in blue states, increasing support from Hispanics (talked about at the time as natural conservatives?), increasing inroads into the black community, Republicans have babies - liberals either don’t or kill them in their womb, folks moving to the suburbs, etc...

These things don’t permanently change in 2-4 years without something MAJOR happening. Most Bush voters who voted Obama and dems this time basically threw tantrums because of their own financial situation and wanted someone to blame or fell under his hypnotic spell or liked the idea of a black president.

Unless Obama and the Dems either enact amnesty, the Fairness doctrine, DC statehood, overturn election fraud measures, or actually ending up doing a halfway decent job (unlikely), then it’s far too early to talk about Permanent majorities.

[stockstrader]

As the author wrote: The Republicans are in demographic trouble.

It’s true.

No question about it.

The country has been inexorably moving 'to the left' for a long time now (especially the last 20 years). The demographic changes (even without a 13 million person amnesty--which is more likely than ever) are staggering and will continue to accelerate in the future.

The Republican Party (as we knew it under Reagan) as we knew it just a few years ago--cannot exist in the future.

[yazoo]

“Like they threw FDR out?”

You could be right, but conditions are somewhat different now. Things are not nearly as bad as they were when he took office with 25% unemployment and most people have a history of how well the free market works to know what is possible. Obama can’t satisfy the electorate with a lot of make work programs that won’t help anyone.

[yazoo]

“and it’s our own fault for letting the forces of evil indoctrinate the young for decades.”

I don’t disagree, but that indoctrination loses it’s appeal when you have a college degree and you can’t find a job. Most of these young people come from middle to upper middle class families and they just take it for granted that Obama is going to create an economy which will provide them with great jobs. When that fails to happen they will most definitely look elsewhere. When I was in College in the early 70’s there was just as much indoctrination. A lot of them believed it until Jimmy Carter came along, then they switched to Reagan.

[reagan_fanatic]

While having the dims running the whole show may seem bad to us initially, in reality it is setting them up for a huge fall. The blame for whatever bad happens will now fall squarely in the dim's laps. If we play our cards right, will make substantial gains in ‘10 and in ‘12.

What worries me more than anything else right now is the rat's efforts to turn 20 million illegals into permanent democratic voters by legalizing them. We MUST find a way to stop the rats from doing this, or we can kiss the White House good-bye for a very long time.

[NVDave]

Most people vote economics; we can see that even in this election, when the DNC was going to make it all about Iraq and the economy handed them the election issue they wanted.

Towards that end, here’s what the GOP must do:

1. Quit carrying water for Wall Street. Wall Street donates (in the majority) to the Democrats, and it makes few friends with the electorate to be carrying Wall Street’s agenda of stupid deregulation (eg, allowing i-banks to lever up 40:1) or defending their excesses. This doesn’t mean that the GOP should use the DNC playbook of bashing Wall Street every other day, just quit taking Wall St’s side in the battle. The DNC can bash them... and we can say nothing.

This will also wake up Wall St, who have been assuming the GOP will pack their agenda for little to nothing.

2. Quit believing the idiotic economic analysis of the Bush years. Stop trumpeting the headline numbers of GDP, CPI and employment reports and dig down into the internals and see what is really going on.

Bush should have been able to do this — after all, he’s supposed to have a MBA, right?

BTW — I think Bush was asleep in most of his MBA classes. If he had been awake, he would have see the current crisis coming last year.

There should be an “economics bootcamp” for GOP Congressional representatives and senators, so they know their buttocks from their elbows about matters economic. Sometimes, when I see GOP delegations on financial channels, I cringe because their “analysis” of economic signals is so easily debunked. We have to get rid of this pop-psych approach to economic policy.

While the GOP is out of the White House, it should become a goal that every GOP member become fluent in financial lingo, economic stats and at least basic analysis that won’t make people laugh. By doing this, the public will eventually see the GOP and DNC talking heads side-by-side on various shout shows and come to realize that the GOP has a clue, and the DNC has... Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer.

3. Next time the GOP is in the executive branch, get a competent SecTreas. The three during the Bush administration have been hopeless disasters, with Paulson being the worst. Apropos of (1) above, do NOT select SecTreas from Wall Street. The reign of the House of Goldman must stop.

4. Election results show that the very wealthy (people with net worth of $25 million or more) break STRONGLY Democratic and are among some of the most liberal. So rather than be seen as “defenders of the rich” — the GOP should craft tax policy to give the ultra-rich exactly what they want: higher taxes. The GOP should go after the ultra-wealthy with a fury, because these people are also funding the DNC. Again, as in (1) above, quit carrying their agenda for them. If they’re not only not going to vote for the GOP, but advocate higher taxes and then give huge amounts of money to those who claim to want higher taxes, then give them exactly what they’re asking for: higher taxes. Make the taxes confiscatory - 90%+. When the ultra-rich complain, play back sound clips of such people as Buffett moaning about how his admin assistant pays more in taxes than he does.

The DNC will obviously protest (1) and (4) especially. Now call them defenders of Wall Street and the rich. Hang it around their necks and make them own up to the facts - that the Wall Street bankers and ultra-rich are Democrats, not Republicans.

[NVDave]

You’re right — we’re behind schedule.

They’re in the same demographic bind on social welfare systems that we are. If you look at Japan, Germany, Italy, et al — they’re collapsing from within, as their boomers get older and start sucking the coffers dry, they have a real (and very deep) gap in working population contributing to these pay-as-you-go social welfare systems (their equivalents of our Social Security and Medicare).

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.

These pay-go systems, coupled with the huge “pig in the python” that is the Boomer generation, is going to cause huge re-evaluation of the social welfare costs in the “social democrat” states of Europe and Japan. Go read some of the english language press in German (or about Germany) on their policy changes on this stuff. It is a very sobering read.