The New Democrats

Ron Brownstein's cover piece in the latest National Journal looks at what the primary season tells us about the shape of the Democratic coalition, and what he finds seems to dovetail with my last post about the shape of the Obama vote. "The party is growing younger," he writes, "more affluent, more liberal, and more heavily tilted toward women, Latinos, and African-Americans." These trends have obviously been at work for a long time now, but they've been amplified by the Obama and Clinton campaigns: He's brought more affluent voters to the polls, and more young voters; she's brought out more women, and more Hispanics. Meanwhile ...

Seniors' share of the votes cast has declined this year in all 18 states except Wisconsin (where it remained even) and New Hampshire (where it grew slightly). Likewise, white men have cast a smaller share of the Democratic vote in every comparable state except New York.

White voters with no college education, the foundation of the party's coalition from the time of Franklin Roosevelt through Lyndon Johnson, have also cast a smaller share of the vote this year in three-fourths of the states with data that can be compared with 2004 ... just before the Wisconsin primary in mid-February, ABC News polling director Gary Langer calculated that a cumulative majority of white Democratic primary voters in all of this year's contests had college or postgraduate degrees -- a remarkable tipping point for a party that since its 19th-century inception has viewed itself as the tribune of the working class.

Read the whole thing.

Comments

white men are at the center of any & everything of meaning & value. this is bad news for the democrats! they need to learn from this & only nominate white men in the future. that is, if they want to matter.

Posted by jay | February 29, 2008 1:10 PM

oh, wait! are white men included in the "young people" group? that would mean that future white men will vote democratic! thank goodness.

Posted by jay | February 29, 2008 1:13 PM

But the electorate has shifted. "high school" in 1968 is probably roughly equivalent to "some college" today, and I think everyone recognizes that white "some college" voters are a key swing group.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 29, 2008 1:52 PM

What Beaudrot said.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 29, 2008 2:15 PM

wahhh, old white men, like the ones on the stage during the Republican debates, are becoming a minority group?

Quick, set up a commission to study the problem and find a way to make sure they're guaranteed a small percentage of federal contracting dollars.

Ohh, forget it. It's already all going to Blackwater.

Posted by zic | February 29, 2008 2:25 PM

Check out this Link. Very interesting about Bill talking about Hope -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo

Posted by Alex | February 29, 2008 3:10 PM

Gary Langer calculated that a cumulative majority of white Democratic primary voters in all of this year's contests had college or postgraduate degrees -- a remarkable tipping point for a party that since its 19th-century inception has viewed itself as the tribune of the working class.

Nothing unusual here. Ever since McGovern ran in 1972, the Democrats have swung to the blue state elites, leaving the working-class and even the middle-class soccer moms interested in national security in the dust.

This is why Obama, the most liberal, hard-left senator in 2007, is vulnerable to McCain this year, notwithstanding his frothy, alluring rhetoric. As a conservative, one hopes that Clinton doesn't make a comeback, as she would probably, as a center-left candidate, give McCain a much tougher fight than Obama.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 29, 2008 7:40 PM

"We're not accustomed to politicians as smart as Obama. White voters would likely find his supple intelligence too elitist in a white candidate. But they are so desperate for a positive role model for blacks that many of them have embraced Obama without knowing much about what he wants to do with all that brainpower."

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080225_michelle_obama.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 1, 2008 1:01 AM

The comma-mad Leavitt types: "As a conservative, one hopes that Clinton doesn't make a comeback, as she would probably, as a center-left candidate, give McCain a much tougher fight than Obama."

This from a guy who thought Iraq would be a walk in the park - after all, his Great Leaders told him so.

After Obama gets done with the Corpse Formerly Known As John McCain and rational people get their country back I wonder what will become of the Leavitts. Perhaps they'll build a ghetto of their own in Dubai and call it Leavittown and deliver free doughnuts to Halliburton's old/new CEO all day long.

I won't miss them.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 1, 2008 3:02 AM

From Steve Sailer's Duke-esque piece about Michelle Obama: "Let me finish by speculating even more irresponsibly on what the cautious Barack might be telling Michelle in private: that he'll have to play the moderate during his first term. But when he's home free in his second, then he'll be keeping it real.

For her."

Looky looky! Steve Sailer has the lingo down! In his second term, Obama's going to be Flavor Flav! Sailer sees all!

What a TOOL he is. A pure product of Aryan Brotherhood/Turner Diaries/militia nonsense. He probably has George Lincoln Rockwell's autograph on his lower back.

And Ross links to this cretin. How many big TVs does Sailer have?

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 1, 2008 3:13 AM

Maybe I spoke too harshly - I'm sure that the Great Journalist Steve Sailer and his acolyte Ross will shortly even the scales by discussing the all-on-her-own accomplishments of Cindy McCain, who has no blemishes at all, and who is very, very, very, they-don't-get-any-whiter white. I look forward to reading it, especially the parts about how her drug-free lifestyle and her drive to get a great education despite the great barrier of her privileged background. They're great, great, unbiased journalists, so I have no doubt they're hard at work on this. Especially Steve Sailer, whose entire career has been based on being color blind.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 1, 2008 3:21 AM

Or, the republicans are now a more white nationalist christian older party.

Posted by jay | March 1, 2008 7:58 AM

The real question is not the inroads made by the Democratic Party. Demographic changes in the U.S. was going to give them those changes no matter what. The real question is what will the U.S. be like after the Republicans becomes irrelevant to national politics just like the Republicans are not relevant to politics in states like Maryland and Mass.

What will politics be like in the coming one party state. Will the former Republicans start voting in the Democratic primary? Will the Democratic primary be moved to September to limit the time between the real election (Democratic Primary) and the moot general election? How soon will it be until more than half of Congress gets to run for reelection unopposed?

Posted by superdestroyer | March 1, 2008 11:07 AM

"ABC News polling director Gary Langer calculated that a cumulative majority of white Democratic primary voters in all of this year's contests had college or postgraduate degrees -- a remarkable tipping point for a party that since its 19th-century inception has viewed itself as the tribune of the working class."

Ah, but isn't the same thing probably true of the Republican voters? According to the 2006 Edison exit poll (n=6076), 45.4% of Democratic House voters had college degrees; 44.8% of Republican House voters did.

The bigger story here is that the population, the electorate, and particularly the primary electorate are all increasingly well educated across the board, and at a much higher rate than the rest of the country. The fact that 45-50% of voters have college degrees compared to something like 15-25% among the population at large is the really shocking (and possibly troubling) fact here.

Posted by Peter | March 1, 2008 3:46 PM

The real news is that there's no need for a thread called "The New Republicans," because people are jumping off of that decaying old shitwagon as though it's on fire. Good times. Good times.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 1, 2008 10:49 PM

I used to think that, but surprisingly, there's some new blood in the GOP. What about Jindal, Palin, Pawlenty, Sanford, and their ilk?

Posted by Quietus | March 2, 2008 7:51 AM

When the St. Obama bubble bursts, after the Republicans turn their sights seriously on him, we'll see whose wagon is decaying.

One tidbit from Rick Santorum:

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

Posted by Peter Leavitt | March 2, 2008 8:55 AM

Yes! Run against Roe v. Wade! Please. Add that to running for the indefinite extension of the war.

While you're at it, how about running against puppies and for mandatory child enemas?

Posted by DivGuy | March 2, 2008 9:44 AM

When the St. Obama bubble bursts, after the Republicans turn their sights seriously on him, we'll see whose wagon is decaying.
One tidbit from Rick Santorum:
Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.

Right know, Obamites are touting the "superior judgement" of the figures of the Hard Left and Muslim World that were vehemently against America going into Iraq - despite a consensus of global intelligence agencies that Saddam either had large quantities of WMD or he was staging an insane suicidal bluff that would end in his defeat and execution.

That puts the superior judgment of Obama in alliance with rabidly anti-Iraq War Mayor "Red" Ken Livingston of London, Chapaquiddick Kennedy, Al Qaeda, Barbara Boxer, the bribed Kofi Annan, Vladimir Putin, the Saudi monarchy, all the Indonesian political parties, Cynthia McKinney, the Supreme Ruler of Iran Khameni, and Jaques de Villepin. All gave rabid "superior judgment" speeches on the War. Some more so than Obama predicting "quagmire", even "death to all invading infidels". None of the others are held up by Obamites as co-equal reseviors of immense wisdom who "got it right" while Hillary got it wrong.

As Sailer notes, when we see the "Superior Intellect and Judgment" of Saint Obama at work in the Illinois Legislature, we see his great wisdom displayed on a range of issues. Infanticide. Gun bans. More race preferences in State hiring and state universities hiring. More money to the "oppressed". Criminal rights, Anti death penalty. More agribiz favors. Favors to his Chicago sugar mommas real estate schemes. Favors to black Muslims..

What separates the vaunted judgment of Obama from the above list of anti-war mutts was he was just a state senator agreeing to give an antiwar speech at a Jesse Jackson-led rally to get the patronage of the wealthiest radical Jews in Chicago for his planned Senate run. That would be Bettylu Saltzman (600 million worth) and Penny Pritzger (2 billion) and their constellation of lesser radical left fatcats, prominant bought officials in Chicago, and ex-60s radicals such as former SDS member Marilyn Katz (Mayor Washington's aid who thought of the Vietnam-style protest rally and recruited Obama, Jesse, and a speaker from Farrakan), and pet U-Chicago terrorist radicals like Ayer and Bernadette.(Who hosted one of Obama's 1st fundraisers in their home because he was as anti-Bush as Chomsky).

Once the Brilliant Mind of Obama settled into a good groove and the Republicans imploded in scandal and then guaranteeing his win by running a deranged Fundie carpetbagger against him (Keyes) - he immediately began backing off his Superior Judgment. To avoid dissing prominant Democratic Senators who voted for the war, Obama avoided mentioning it at all in his 2004 Dem Convention keynote speech other than one line to support the judgement of Kerry and others who voted that way as honorable.

In his Senate race, a little-known detail is Obama had to remove two Black Muslim women he placed at Michelle's recommendation who had the pure, good Bush& Iraq hatred, but many other "inconvenient" hatreds his radical Left Jewish benefactors objected to, from positions as his Senate Treasurer and assistant chief of Staff.

During his Senate race then in the Senate while brown nosing up to Hillary and other powerful colleagues - Obama then repeatedly gave the line that he didn't KNOW how he would have voted on the war if he had been in the Senate at the time.

Obama's backtracking went on for 2 years, his famous little speech to Chicao's richest radicals was removed from his website and only resurrected when Obama's handlers were convinced the War was lost.

Posted by chris ford | March 2, 2008 9:58 AM

DivGuy: Yes! Run against Roe v. Wade!

Santorum again:

The act [Born Alive Infant Protexction Act] simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.
Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

i.e. Obama, who claims to bringe non-partisan "change" to politics, has taken a radical position on this issue. Can anyone cite any position where he, like McCain, took a centrist position in order to compromise with the Republicans?

Posted by Peter Leavitt | March 2, 2008 12:33 PM

Re: just like the Republicans are not relevant to politics in states like Maryland and Mass.

If memory serves me correctly Massachuesttes had a couple of Republican governors in recent times.

Re: That puts the superior judgment of Obama in alliance with rabidly anti-Iraq War Mayor "Red" Ken Livingston of London, Chapaquiddick Kennedy, Al Qaeda, Barbara Boxer, the bribed Kofi Annan, Vladimir Putin, the Saudi monarchy, all the Indonesian political parties, Cynthia McKinney, the Supreme Ruler of Iran Khameni, and Jaques de Villepin.

And also in alliance with a majority of the American electorate who have decided that the Iraq War, whether in pursuit of mythical WMDs or in the quixotic quest for Iraqi democracy, was a big huge mistake.

Posted by JonF | March 2, 2008 3:48 PM

JonF, Having a RINO as governor does not mean that the Republicans were relevant to politics. Romney spent her time as governor having his veto overridden by the Democratic controlled legislature.

The same goes for Maryland. The day after Ehrlich left office, it was like he was never governor. Ehrlich has no affect on policy.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 2, 2008 5:55 PM

I think there's a serious methodological problem with Brownstein's analysis. Full explanation here, but basically I think he's wrong to assume that these changes between 2004 and 2008 are significant as anything beyond variation caused by turnout.

After all, 2008 is a much higher-turnout primary season than 2004 (because it's more competitive), and that turnout increase does not affect every demographic the same way -- specifically, it's less likely to affect precisely those groups that Brownstein claims are losing their influence (seniors, plus lower-education/income voters and moderates/independents [who tend to be low-information]). So then this isn't a restructuring of the Democratic coalition so much as a natural shift caused by turnout. Am I missing something?

Posted by Markus Kolic | March 2, 2008 9:54 PM