Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The Demography of Obama’s 2012 Landslide

...is given by Mr. Continetti. The Republicans are increasingly old, white and male, and they herd together in the South, Appalachia, and the Great Plains. Meanwhile, Obama is poised to do better in places like NC, VA, MO, IN, and so forth next time, and it’s hard to see how the Republicans mount a comeback in the West. This article might be excessively sobering, because it sort of downplays temporary aberrations that were the result of the economic mess. But all exaggerations contain a lot of the truth. For people who like to speak of emerging majorities, the Democrats certainly have the upper hand right now.

Discussions - 9 Comments

The Democrats definately have the upper hand right now. Saddly enough, Congress is full of blue shirts. However, the Republican party has ran this country for some years now, maybe it is time for the Democrats to show what they have to offer. I mean, how much worse can our economy get? Honestly, I don't believe it can get any worse. However, I do think the Republicans, since well the majortiy is mostly stubborn older men, need to let Obama's presidency run its course. We all just need to wait and see what he will bring or not bring to our country. Then, if he does not solve the bigger issue, in 4 years we can boost him out of the White House and hope the next President will get the job done, and the Rebuplicans can get back the traditional republican states.

Excessively sobering, but demographically true. The forward looking exurbia and the forward looking youth look to be locked in the Obama camp. Barring catastrophe--which no one wants--look to see Republicans locked out of the presidency for eight years.

Maybe a Contract with America Part II in 2014!

But who knows?

Can the Democrats really or regularly count on votes from the suburbs and exurbs? I thought that the high fertility rates in those areas -- i.e., the conscious decision to have and support large families -- were part and parcel of a religiously-based, socially conservative movement that skewed Republican.

Can the Democratic Party -- welfare-statist, sexual liberationist, abortion-friendly, beholden to public school unions -- really presume support among strong, independent, religious, marriage-based families?

Maybe they can if they regularly campaign with smooth operators like Obama. But Democrats have to govern, not just campaign. And Democrats govern as Democrats.

The reality is a little less horrible than the article, but only a little. A better candidate with a better message probably gets some of the suburban and exurban voters back into the GOP column. A better GOTV operation probably gets some conservative inclined voters who sat out this election back into the voting booths. The problem is that even if those two things happen (and neither is guaranteed) it only converts decisive Democrat victories into narrow Democrat victories. If Democrats keep winning African Americans by 9 to 1 and Latinos, Asians and young voters by 2 to 1, it is tough to see how the Republicans get a majority. It is worth pointing out that with all the factional fighting between conservative intellectuals (the "reformers", "traditionalists", whatever)nobody has come up with even the beginings of a strategy that might address this glaring and if unremedied fatal weakness of the political center-right.

Latinos are the key here and the only reason that the Dems are getting them is the backlash against what is seen as anti-Latino character of the immigration debate.




I think we need to neutralize illegal issue and although 'amnesty' goes against conservative gut feeling.. but the solution to this problem that insures a change to what is going on now and something to alter the voting demographic of the Latino voter is very counter-intuitive. The problem with the illegals is that they are illegal and the more we keep them illegal the more they and their children follow the same trends of socio-pathology that the African-Americans have followed and we know that only produces Democrats. Legal Latinos actually track like every other ethnic group in America both economically and politically, and are actually much more conservative than Anglos on social issues. But the way the immigration debate has been and is continually framed by all too many voices on the right has led to all to many legal (and honestly most Latinos are legal and have been legal since the Mexican-American war gave us northern Mexico!!) see this as anti-Latino and have thus want nothing to do with a party that spits at them. And what has this wrought, but the turning over of California and now most of the Southwest to the Democrats. A surefire way to become a permanent minority party.




Ironically most illegals are here to do jobs, mostly season jobs that US citizens don't want. And if you think you can increase the wages so US citizens want them, your fooling yourself, economically. Ironically illegals are hard workers, much harder than another minority group that shan't be mentioned. And contrary to most fears of the right wingers who fear the tidal-wave of illegals swamping America if we had a liberal guest-worker program, most of them are here to make money and go home to their families. The current system forces them to stay here, because returning home is too risky and might mean their inability to return. The fact they are stuck here leads to family break down and their illegal status keeps them under the sway of criminals and gangs and fear the police and normal integration into American life. Here the libertarian view to allow free movement would actually decriminalize their lifestyle and allow them to return home and return to their jobs when needed. And actually will reduce the cost on local communities that their illegal status drastically imposes (and is very much the stimulus for the anger over illegal immigration). And ironically, what will happen will be the problem disappears and the positive aspects of their services will be a win/win to America. And a win for Republicans, as once this issue is resolved, Latinos will no longer see the GOP as this hostile anti-Latino force but a party whom they have more in common with than that other party. Again, this is rather counter-intuitive and I only saw it after living in Eastern Europe.




To buy into a Huntingtonian view would be a path of suicide for the GOP as from the plain facts of the case he is just wrong on the Hispanic issue.

the suburban/ rural "demography is destiny" argument is interesting, but assumes that children will vote as their parents do, and retain the same values. In my experience, the kids that go to college, don't. You could certainly discourage kids from going to college in all sorts of ways, including making it difficult to get loans, or by diminishing the value of parental savings--but the demographic argument as much admits that conservatism has no coherent intellectual underpinnings that aren't easily dissolved by a little higher education and exposure to people unlike yourself.

As one who does hardcore electoral statistics, I can tell you that Obama has the better hand of cards for 2012, no matter how you slice it.

The economy was actually taking another hit in 1936 as FDR firmly whipped Alf Landon 60-40.

In 1964, the economy was sputtering and the south was pissed off over the Civil Rights Act and still, LBJ won a massive landslide, 61-39 over Goldwater.

At this point in the game in 1982, Reagan’s numbers were even a tick lower than Obama’s are now. And Reagan came back to win a 58-42 landslide in 1984.

Bill Clinton’s numbers at this stage of the game in 1994 were under Obama’s, and his health care initiative had FAILED. The GOP of 1994 was also better organized than it is in 2010. And Clinton came back to trounce Bob Dole by 8 points in 1996.


Winning percentage changes:
FDR increased his PV% by 3 points in 1936 over 1932.

Eisenhower increased his PV% by 2.2 points in 1956 over 1952.

We cannot compare Nixon correctly, as he went from a 3 man race in 1968 to a two man race in 1972.

Reagan increased his PV% by 8 points in 1984 over 1980. 1980 had a third party candidate (Anderson), who did get 6.6% of the PV ala Perot in 1996.

Clinton, in 2 three-man races, increased his PV% by 6 points in 1996 over 1992.

GWB43 increased his PV% by 3 points in 2004 over 2000.

FACIT:
Obama is poised to pick up between 3-5 points in 2012 and add 5 to 8 states to his column.

Only 4 times in 114 years has an incumbent been turned out of office, and in 3 of those four occasions, the incumbent was a republican:

Hoover in 1932
Ford in 1976
Carter in 1980
Bush 41 in 1992.

In most cases, the incumbent was re-elected and only in the case of Woodrow Wilson was his re-election win leaner than his initial win.

Many wish to compare Obama to Carter in the hope that he will also be a one term president, but statistically, the comparison to Ronald Reagan fits much better most of the time.

The 1st amendment guarantees us all the right to as much propaganda as we want. But demographic and electoral statistics tell me that the probability of Obama winning a LARGER landslide in 2012 than he won in 2008 is extremely high.

Also, I did a complete statistical analysis to this in late 2007, here is the study.

Those are the numbers, down to the hundreth of a percentage point.

Lets try that again:

Also, I did a complete statistical analysis to this in late 2007, here is the study:

http://rosenthalswelt.blogspot.com/2007/11/1904-2004-end-analysis-part-4-two-term.html

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/13239