Did Obama really change the map? Is his coalition sustainable?

[Whoa20]

Kudos to Barack Obama, and his decisive win Tuesday, and congrats to America. for the first time since 1996, we chose the right party to be in charge. But for all the talk of the electoral college map, did Obama really change it, or did he just do what Kerry did not, meaning give the voters a reason to vote for him? I ask because Barack Obama did not really pick up any new region of the country. He won Kerry/Gore plus stock swing states like IA, NV, OH, and FL, which are won by Dems when they actually win. While he did win VA, NC, and IN, he did so in a year when an incumbent had an approval of less the 1/4 of the people against a joke opponent. I do applaud the increased black turnout. However, Obama, like Kerry got demolished in the white vote, and in Appalachia and even the "new south" like AR, MO, and LA, which all went Clinton twice by sizable margins. So is Obama's map sustainable? He won because he did amazing in the young vote and Latino vote, but who did not turn out in a higher rate than 2004. By 2012, when Obama is not something new or "change," will he be as appealing to young voters? If the GOP uses gay marriage to get Latino votes, as they approved prop 8 in a year where the Dem won the state in a landslide, what does Obama have left? With few whites, he may be in need to reach out to them. Is Obama's coaltion sustainable? Is the electoral map undergoing a potential long term change, or flash in the pan?

[Danger Mouse]

1. He did not get 'demolished' in the white vote.

He broke even with McCain there, as far as I remember.

[Blondiegrrl]

20. Not only that -- he got MORE of the white vote than either Kerry, Gore or Bill Clinton.

From an AP story:

"Nationwide, Obama collected 44 percent of the white vote, more than John Kerry, Al Gore or even Bill Clinton, exit polls show."

[Whoa20]

33. in 1992, there were

three viable candidates with money and ads, whcih explains why Clinton's percentage in a vacuum was smaller in 1992 and 1996. But he did not lose by as much compared to his GOP counterpart. Elections are not about %'s in vacuums. The only people who do that are people looking to spin. Also, I'll remind you exit polls in both 1992 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DB1F3FF936A35752C1A964958260 and http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html 1996 showed Perot did NOT take from only the GOP. Clinton had as much of the white vote in a three way race in 1996 as Obama in a two way race. Obama got rocked amongst white voters.

[fujiyama]

51. white vote: 55 to 43

But that's an improvement over Kerry of 2 points.

[Juche]

59. South vs non-south white voters are 2 different animals politically

The white vote is not monolithic. In the south the white vote preferred McCain by 30-90 points. I believe in Mississippi the white vote was 90-10 for McCain.

However outside the 13 southern states the white vote is and always has been pretty evenly divided between democrats and republicans, if not slighly in favor of the GOP.

This myth that all white people prefer the GOP by 20 points is not true. Southern whites prefer the GOP by 70 points, and whites outside the south are either evenly split or prefer the GOP by <10 points. Average it out and it come to about a 20 pt gap.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. YES! He's been so built up as a huge bogeyman by conservatives

that when he turns out to be a pretty decent fellow after all and truly interested in moderation, he will convince the "Doubting Thomas" African Americans who sat out this time, and he'll win over more moderates and independents.

He will CRUSH the competition as incumbent in 2012. I predict over 400 electoral votes next time around.

[melody]

3. Naw, it's all over ... we're destroyed ... may as well go on to the next liberal forum

We'll just sit here pining for what might have been. :)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. heh

[sniffa]

9. Word

:hi:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. Best avatar ever, sniffa!

[Starlight]

4. We (the Democratic Party) need to continue with Dean's 50 State Strategy.

[Mz Pip]

6. Winning while Black.

and then some.

[happychatter]

50. I'm sorry, Sir..... you're under....

a roof

the WHITE HOUSE roof

did you notice the OP said "kudos to...." and then acted as if President Obama had NO virtues and was just the happy beneficiary of temporary demographics?

[Eric J in MN]

7. Re 2010: In midterm elections, usually the party NOT in the White House gains.

We need to fight that trend in 2010.

[Marsala]

21. That trend has been lessened in recent years

In 1998, the Democrats picked up a few seats, and in 2002, the Republicans did. The huge losses in 1994 and 2006 were reactions to the poor performances of the parties in complete power.

I think that, unless the Democrats govern very poorly, we shouldn't do too bad.

[tritsofme]

25. Democrats may be at a ceiling in terms of flipping seats in Congress.

After two absolute drubbings in 2006 and 2008, there just aren't as many vulnerable Republicans left.

A status quo election of either side picking up an insignificant amount of seats in 2010 would be wild success for Obama and Democrats.

[fujiyama]

53. '98 and '02 were anomalies in many ways

There were other factors involved. In '98 people were mostly angry about the impeachment.

In '02, this was barely a year after 9/11 and national security trumped all else.

But your last statement is key. The next election will be above all else, a referendum on the economy. If things look like they are picking up by then, Dems will have a decent shot of keeping things relatively even. I don't see Dems increasing their majority by much larger numbers though regardless because as trisofme stated it looks like many vulnerable republicans have been kicked out over the last two elections.

[4lbs]

8. He only won 9 red states, including 3 southern ones. Nothing major.

;)

[Whoa20]

29. but did he make permanent

or semi-permanent(4 or more election cycles) changes in the map? Nevada, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico are typically won when Dems win an election. They're stock swing states. But if he could have carried WV, KY, MO, AR, and TN, because its a region with a simliar ideology, then he could have molded them, like Hillary woulda won them with an economic populism that would resound there for a while, not just hope and change, as she was polling well in those states. Obama just won the blue states, and your run of the mill swing states

[MadBadger]

35. Since when are VA, NC, and IN run of the mill swing states?

And yes, I think VA is a state we can hold on to

[4lbs]

36. I don't think you can call Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina run of the mill swing states.

First of all, how many times in the last 60 years have they gone blue? Very few. Each of them usually go red. Thus, the fact that they went blue this time, for the nation's first major party minority presidential candidate, is significant. I expect them to remain blue, and go even "bluer" in 2012 with a good Obama performance the next 4 years.

In addition, Obama lost in some red states by fewer margins than either Kerry or Gore. For example:

Obama lost Montana by only 3 points, where Kerry and Gore each lost by 15+ points there.
Obama lost North and South Dakota by 8 points each. That may be a lot until you realize that Kerry and Gore lost each by 22+ points.
Obama lost Georgia by 5 points, where Kerry and Gore lost by 12+ points.
Obama lost South Carolina by 9 points, where Kerry and Gore lost by 16+ points.


I chalk these up to many of the voters being worried about the experience or associations with Ayers and Wright, regardless of how much Obama tried to assuage those concerns. In 2012, when Obama is up for re-election and our economy is on the right track, I expect those close red states to go for Obama, meaning he'll expand the map even further.

Furthermore, the status of Missouri is still up for grabs, even though initially it went for McCain. However, the margin is less than 6,000 votes. A full recount, which will include some provisional ballots, has a decent chance of making up that difference and eventually giving Obama the state.

[HughMoran]

10. Whoa! You made it higher than 20 posts!

Congratulations.

[Capn Sunshine]

31. I'd like to second that

is this the latest wave?

[VADem11]

11. It's sustainable

Democrats have been losing whites since 1964 and we seem to be doing just fine.

Young voters will likely stay with the Democratic party, they are much more liberal than other generations.

Obama made major inroads across the country. He got 47% of the vote in Montana, 47% in Georgia, and even 44% in Texas. He also did way better than any Democrat has in states such as Utah and North Dakota. Obama got more votes than Kerry in 78% of the counties in the country and we won an electoral vote in freaking Nebraska. As of now, the GOP is largely confined to the deep South and the plains states. Yeah, we did worse in AR, TN, and LA but Lousiana has lost thousands of Democratic voters since Katrina and as for the others, well, we can't win them all. I'll point out that Obama won the biggest victory of any candidate in California in decades. He did even better than Reagan in 1984. in that state. He also got 60% or more in CA, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, DE, MD, DC, HI, and IL.

And I can assure you that VA and NC are not true red states anymore. Demographic chances are helping the Democrats in those states and indeed nationally. The minority population is only going to increase until we are a majority minority country. Gay marriage will lose its potency as more and more young people become eligible to vote. And regarding Latinos, the GOP will lose their votes as long as they remain virulently xenophobic. I don't see that happening in four years.

[fujiyama]

54. Excellent summary

Another thing to keep in mind is the electoral vote count will shift in '10, which in some ways makes things a little more difficult for us, but not completely. It is expected that many of the blue NE states will lose at least rep or more (and hence an electoral vote). Industrial rust belt states like PA, OH, and MI are guaranteed to lose several.

But I think VA will gain some. NC likely will. So will OR. CA will lose one I think. NM, NV, and CO will likely gain.

But TX will get a big gain, which hurts in the short term...

What I am going by is by a map I saw a while back. I'm not sure if it was just a projection. We will see in the next two-three years how redistricting goes.

Demographic shifts will likely keep some of the states blue or competitive/leaning blue for some time - mainly I believe VA, CO, and NC. The industrial mid west will ultimately hinge on the economy...They are really hurting out there.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Hey, is Colorado chopped liver or something?

:shrug:

[rogerballard]

16. No FrenchieCat........

We are the fillet mignon in lemon, pepper and garlic with asparagus spears and a twice baked potato, Jefferson County had record turnout second only to Denver County, the only time Jefferson County put in a Democrat was FDR and LBJ, proud to be a Jefferson County democrat in Lakewood, Colorado!

[vixengrl]

18. Dang, I forgot to include CO in my post!

Which is also meaningful--it's one state, surrounded by an area of red, but it shows what thinking "Big Picture" can do!

We aren't red states and blue states, but the United States: Obama's message is loud and clear in how he ran!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. Hell Yes. When you get states like IN that have been Red for generations,

plant the flag in TWO of the biggest Southern states with VA not having voted Dem in decades, and turn a third of the biggest Southern states (GA) into a battleground (which might have been won with the same kind of campaign focus as in VA and NC), as well as winning CO, NM and NV by DOUBLE DIGITS which had all gone Republican in recent times or if Dem, by a hair, that's a major change in the Kerry-Gore map that has defined the last decade of presidential politics. That's not to even mention winning BOTH of the megabattlegrounds of OH and FL and not being seriously challenged in the states of the old map.

Whether something can be sustained is not an answerable question based just on the performance in the actual election. It's really all based on how Obama performs and is perceived in his first term. You can't extrapolate that at all from the election itself, only time will tell. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton won a lot of Southern states too, which went right back to voting GOP after they were done.

There's no question if Obama performs reasonably well he will solidify his map for the following reasons:

1 - he will be running for reelection based on his record as president, and all the stupid "he's a secret Muslim/maybe he's a terrorist" smears that were half or more of McCain's campaign will be worthless once he's spent 4 years running the country and not blowing it up

2 - There are a lot of people who have doubt about Obama, both legitimate (young and less experienced) and illegitimate (subconscious feelings that primarily based on race). We're talking about people who have doubt but are willing to give him a chance, not unregenerate wingnuts or racists. If Obama has a credible or good first term, he will win over some of these voters and increase his margins further, particularly among whites.

3 - Right now the GOP is doing NOTHING to win over Hispanic voters with their orgy of Tancredoism. Clearly beating the anti-abortion and anti-gay drums isn't getting it done just because of Catholicism when they lose the Hispanics at a 2/1 ratio - pocketbook issues are clearly most important, also the Hispanic voters respond poorly to a (correct) perception of racist resentment against them from the GOP. The GOP MUST stop this trend or they will continue to be locked out of NM and possibly AZ next time, and TX will become a battleground. I don't get your point about prop 8. The GOP used it, and yet CA Hispanics voted for Obama overwhelmingly, over 70 percent for both men and women. Aside from everyone's unhappiness over the Prop 8 result, where is the problem for Obama? Are you assuming the GOP will somehow use Prop 8 issues more effectively next time? Wrong answer. The GOP is figuring out from THIS election that their bag of tricks has exhausted its effectiveness and they can't rely on things like Prop 8 to win them states.

You have to consider that Obama did better among whites than any Dem candidate since Carter (yes that includes Bill Clinton although there's a caveat since he and GHWB split votes with Perot), and he only stands to increase that with a credible first term. If he is perceived to be a disaster, then he will likely not be reelected, as would normally happen with any incumbent except GWB in 2004.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. dupe deleted

[vixengrl]

17. I'm going to argue--maybe it'll last without being a coalition--

Welcome to DU, by the way.

I think Obama's strength did mostly lie in people feeling they had a reason to vote for him: he was consistent on the message of change and hope, and it took hold. But a vague message alone doesn't seal the deal, I think what we saw at work was an ability to express people's needs in the form of : If this is your problem, I have this solution. People want to feel represented. They want to hear that their issues are heard. Obama is not just a good communicator, but he is also a good listener. I think he used his time well in talking issues, being positive, and letting people know they had the power to effect change. He also let them know voting for him would be a good way to do that.

I am a little puzzled by the notion that John McCain was a "joke opponent". While he did make a joke of his "straight-talk" image and "mavericky-ness", reducing himself in the end to cartoons like Joe the Plumber and Sarah the Hockey Mom, the fact is that Senator McCain was a long-time senator who has the additional cache of having been feted as a war hero. He had long been considered by many (not me, exactly) as being something of a big deal on foreign policy. He had credibility--he simply failed to run on it, having, quite possibly, the stupidest campaign staff to ever live. Many people retained respect for John McCain despite the lousy campaign message, on the basis of past work.

I also must question whether we can discount gains in NC, VA and especially IN, not to mention that one voting district in NE. Having OH and winning PA handily also suggest a certain thing--here it is:

He ran strategically. Winning whole regions is not the way to go because it's not feasible. Watch a Republican try and go after the New England States. That's a Dem trying make GA, TN, AL, and the like, break for them. You only have so much time. You don't "win the South" or "win the West" or "win the southwest." You figure out who you can get. IA, IN, NC, VA, and especially getting OH called in his favor early, which had led to me actually catching a few hours' sleep Tuesday night--it's meaningful. They aren't a specific region--but they are places we'd have been doubtful about getting before. He showed it was possible to bring people around to voting Dem, and made the "L-word" a little safer for people to own up to.

Retaining it all will come down to: performance, performance, performance, though. And also maybe thinking less in terms of Red & Blue states, and more about trying to seize the Big Picture:

Find the things people want to see, and motivate them to be it.

I think the "map" is changed in that it's understood to be a little more "purple" than it was before.

[Lord Helmet]

19. Right, Obama is a flash in the pan. What were we thinking?

:eyes:

[Sinti]

22. Well, like every other elected official, he ran on a platform

He said he planned to do certain things. If he does those things, he will maintain the loyalty of those who voted for him the first time. If his plans and ideas tend to be good for everyday Americans his margin among them will likely increase - meaning people who voted for McCain, or didn't vote at all, are more likely to vote for him for a second term (see Clinton's second term run - his percentages went up). Obama could/would likely get a majority of white votes for a second term - the many that would have voted for him, but he was too inexperienced, they didn't know enough about him, etc.

Additionally, odd as it may sound, his blackness will have worn off some. It may sound funny, but some people are mildly racist, i.e., they don't like black (or Hispanic, Asian, insert minority here) folks they don't know - the ones they know it's a whole different story. At least I know this to be the case in VA where I used to live. The "Hussein" part will also have worn off, along with the "socialist" and "he will take your money and give it to lazy people".

"Obama's coalition" is every American who wants their country to live up to its promise. Long term change, however, is only possible if, via open government, he can get and keep people involved in civic life. We've got a very rough patch of water to tackle before back to where we took the bend at Shrubville - it's going to take everybody rowing in the same direction to get through. It's not something a certain leader, or group of executives, can do on their own.

Personally, I think the chances for a second term look better than the first did - as long as he does the job he said he would do, and keeps the best interests of everyday Americans in his heart. Until he proves me wrong, I'm going to believe that that's exactly what he intends.

and Welcome to DU :hi:

[Occam Bandage]

23. If you consider winning more whites than Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, or Mondale being

"demolished in the white vote," then I'm not really sure we can have a reasonable conversation.

[Whoa20]

27. its about margins

and the margins between Clinton and his opponents were small with white voters. With Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, and Obama, they were large.

[Occam Bandage]

30. I disagree. 46% is quite strong for a Democrat; it requires only a modest victory in

the Hispanic vote (which rampant GOP xenophobia has hand-delivered delivered to us) to lock in a victory.

[VADem11]

32. So?

The percentage of whites is shrinking among the population. It's not as important how well Obama did among whites. Obama still won by 7 points, more than Clinton did.

[Whoa20]

37. Bush Sr.'s approvals were only in the low 40's

when the election rolled around http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush%20(G.H.W.) whereas Bush II's approvals are in the 20's. So Obama's margin of victory isn't all that impressive in 2008 compared to Clinton's in 1992. Also, Obama did not win by 7, he won by 6.5. The vote is 52.6-46.1. Also, Obama did not have to deal with Ross Perot who was shown to http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DB1F3FF936A35752C1A964958260 not be a "spoiler", and just hurt Clinton's momentum in 1992, as before he came back into the race, Clinton was ahead by 20 points in the polls http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2DE143CF931A1575AC0A964958260 and it was like this from July until the end of September 1992, when Perot returned after dropping out.

The white vote matters because chances are Obama will not be as "fresh" in 2012, meaning his youth vote may drop, or the GOP may start courting hispanics, as gay marriage may help them do the trick. In turn, Obama needs to improve with whites even just a little big to fall back.

[MadBadger]

38. Do you have a Clinton Fetish?

Reading some of your comments, I think ive had it with taking you seriously. You trump what Hillary could have done in WV, TN, blah, blah, blah, but you dismiss IN, NC, CO, and VA as run of the mill swings states.

I aint buying any of your bullshit anymore.

[Whoa20]

40. I'm not dismissing IN, NC, VA, and CO,

but I wonder if he can win them again. He won them this time because of young voters with hope and change and Bush, but when he's running as the incumbent President and Bush is gone, its not gonna be hope and change. What will keep those states blue next time?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

46. Duh. The answer is "let's continue what we started". If he has a successful term,

and the good will of the people.

Insurgents run on change. Incumbents run, hopefully, on a successful record.

Bill Clinton ran very much on a hope/change kind of message first, then on a "continue prosperity" message for reelection. If you have prosperity during a first term you'd be crazy to run on anything different, unless you have some specific other narrow agenda to push.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. The incumbent wasn't on the ballot in 2008

If Bush had been on the ballot Obama would've won by at least double what he did.

[Whoa20]

43. same principle,

if the party in the white house is unpopular, then their candidate will loser, be it incumbent or not incumbent. When Carter and Truman had approvals under 35, the nominees in both 1952 and 1980 lost by 10 points. And Stevenson was not the incumbent, Carter was.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Eisenhower was a national hero and Stevenson was a horrible campaigner

Yes it's a drag to be on the ticket of the party with an unpopular incumbent president but not the same as being an unpopular incumbent. Johnson had approval ratings in the 40's, yet Nixon barely beat Humphrey in 1968.

[ShadowLiberal]

24. His coalition is sustainable ONLY if he has a successful presidency

I think Reagan is a good comparison here to help explain this.

While I wasn't even born when he was first elected, so I can't say this from "I lived through it" experience, if you ask people today they'll generally agree that Reagan was a successful, or successful enough at least, president to keep his new coalition he formed of stuff like Reagan democrats intact, and win in landslides both times.

Obama has won over what you could call Obama republicans, or republicans who have lately become disgusted with the GOP and their current direction. If Obama can have a successful presidency that convinces those Obama republicans that his policies are the right ones since they were successful, then it's highly likely that a lot of them will end up becoming democrats. It also certainly wouldn't hurt if the GOP continues to pursue an agenda that helped drive away those moderate republicans that have become 'Obama Republicans'.

But if Obama gets seen as a failure 4 years later, then his coalition will probably not be very sustainable, unless the GOP really screws it up bad.

Also, how you say that Obama got demolished in the new south states I think has more to do with racism then anything. Politico posted a map a few days ago of what counties voted for McCain by bigger margins then Bush in 2004 (percentage wise), and found around 20% of the nation did. Some of those counties were in McCain and Palin's home states, so they're home state boosts. But the rest were in southern states (like almost all of West Virginia was between 5 to 20 percent redder then before). AR also had a lot of counties that went much heavier for McCain then for Bush in 2004, and democrats control almost all statewide offices in that state. In LA we lost a large number of democrats from Katrina which made the state become a lot redder then before.

[JCMach1]

48. Exactly, American voted for COMPETENCE not ideology

[AllentownJake]

26. The map changes every 8 year or so

Indiana staying blue depends on a succesful Obama presidency however, states like VA, CO, NM, and NC have been more open to democrats since Bush's re-election. It isn't as much Bush as it is more liberal people living in those states. Georgia due to more people from the north east with their ideas moving down there is likely to be the next to turn blue.

[ROh70]

28. Good question - and yes, it is sustainable.

A lot depends on what happens in the next four years with the Obama administration.

But, also, demographic changes and redistricting in 2010 will help to solidify the Obama coalition. The northeast and west are now dark blue country. The midwest is getting there. Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa are or will become become deep blue states. Ohio and Missouri are already purple states, and Indiana has a chance to become a purple state.

As for the mountain-west states, the Latino vote will help keep the coalition together - New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona are blue/purple states, and Texas is trending there.

As for the south, North Carolina and Virginia will turn solidly purple as those states gain more and more out of staters moving in, and as they become younger.

Then, you have states like Georgia and Florida that are trending blue as well, as those states' demographics change as well.

[BluegrassDem]

34. Concern troll 2.0...the New Edition

I guess this is the new wave of concern trolls. It never ends! :argh:

[workinclasszero]

39. One way to sustain Obama's coalition is a pathway to citizenship

for 12 million undocumented immigrants. Latinos broke big for Obama and the dems.

Will they be rewarded or get a kick in the ass? These people will be a solid dem vote for Obama and the party plus many would be union members as well.

It just seems to be a win-win situation to me. The repigs will fight it of course which makes it even better for us.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. OMG It's a Rovian trap, the Republicans wanted us to elect an un-electable candidate

:rofl: :rofl:

[fujiyama]

55. Hell, if defining a successful president is one that wins a second term

Bush was great!

I don't understand the OP's premise. S/he keeps going on about the 22% that voted more republican.

The fact is 78% voted more Dem. That says something. We have an opportunity here. If we lead and deliver results we succeed. If we fail to do so, well...that really isn't an option, is it?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

45. The premise of your post is silly. "Change the map", meaning long term, is unknowable right now.

We'll know the answer 4, 8, 20 years from now. It's primarily predicated on a successful presidency (however that may be defined) and many other factors.

Clinton won Southern states, and was re-elected. Did he change the electoral map? By a long view definition, apparently not, since Democrats were not able to win those states immediately after his terms, even with a white male Southern candidate on the top and then VP spots.

So the short term answer to your question is "of course he did" simply by winning several "red" states including VA and IN which had been "red" for generations. He couldn't do more than that, you have to start by winning. Obama has given the party that start.

The remainder will be based on how he does and how he is perceived. Bill Clinton had a very successful presidency but was not PERCEIVED to have done so by most Republicans due to irrational hate and his sex scandal, and as a result, his electoral achievements were not enduring.

[Awsi Dooger]

47. You make plenty of fantastic points

It was guaranteed they would be rejected.

Let me look at many factors:

* Obama, along with Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, will be the most fortunate politicians in the past 50+ years. All 3 took advantage of exactly the same thing, running in an incredibly favorable situational environment for their first term. Carter's approval rating was in the tank and the economy and hostage situation made Americans itching to change course. Bush 41 was the third straight GOP term, which is a negative in itself for the incumbent party, and his approval slumped when the economy did. I don't have to mention much about Bush 43 and his remarkable 30ish approval rating post-Katrina, and disastrous war.

Consequently all 3 received more credit than they deserved for winning office in the first place. In track and field terms, it would have been wind aided well beyond the allowable limit.

And winning in the first place meant they slotted into the most favorable situational terrain imaginable for their second campaign, an incumbent with his party in power only one term. I've mentioned that dozens of times. Obama is a massive favorite to be re-elected in 2012, and probably by wide margin.

Only Carter '80 failed in the past 10 tries in that situational boost. So you have to give Reagan some credit for overcoming that trend, although he did it with the economic factors at his back. I don't think it was a big coincidence that the one-term dynamic kept Carter alive for the majority of that race, then the only debate convinced the nation it was safe to change direction.

* Indiana and North Carolina are hardly blue states. They are red states we astutely prioritized and narrowly carried in a greedy opportunity once a wide national margin was possible. If we had chased those states in 2000 or 2004 we would have been laughed away at the state border, even if it had been Obama instead of Gore or Kerry.

Indiana was 20% liberal, 36% conservative in the 2008 exit poll. North Carolina was 19% liberal, 37% conservative. Compare to the national figures, 22% liberal and 34% conservative. That category always trumps subjective crap. There is no way you can force a state where it doesn't want to go, unless the nation as a whole is tilting that way by even greater margin. We essentially inherited Indiana and North Carolina as part of a national mood. They will be more difficult in 2012. That is guaranteed. The GOP slept on those states this cycle but will fortify them immediately, while we sleep. Obama will require a greater national margin to yank those states in 2012. That's what happens when a state is newly emphasized. Florida from 2000 to 2004 was a great example. The GOP realized it had gotten away with overlooking Florida for 2000, and took registration and emphasis steps for 2004.

* Virginia is another matter. Unlike Indiana and North Carolina, Virginia was hardly won by emphasis alone. That state is legitimately moving in our direction, steadily swallowed in blue from the north. It was 21% liberal, 33% conservative in the exit poll, an honest to goodness 50/50 swing state. Hardly a shock it virtually mirrored the national percentage. In 2012 it should be slightly in our favor, meaning the state margin will be more blue than Obama's national margin.

* Ohio depends on the national number. It was still slightly more red than the nation. Very predictable. Basically unchanged from 2004.

* Florida may have been the most disappointing state in the country. I say that as a native Floridian. In a few weeks I'll post the partisan index numbers for every state, state in relation to national margin. Florida slipped away from us again, moving to about 4% more Republican than the nation. That's back where it was in the mid '90s. In 2000 it was obviously 50/50 with the country, then 2.5 points red in 2004. I'm not sure if it was Obama comparative weakness in the state, or it has indeed become more conservative. Many factors to evaluate.

* The West looks awesome. My state of Nevada went from 77% whites in the 2004 electorate to 69% this year. That is the national trend that is sinking the GOP. Obama is taking advantage of the "Emerging Democratic Majority" finally taking hold, delayed by 9/11. The country is down to 75% whites in the electorate, from 85% in 1988. The slide is 2% per cycle, dooming the GOP. Let's see, when a party is content to forfeit 90+% of the black vote, and is losing 2/3 of the Hispanic vote, and its base of married whites is shrinking all the time, including later average age to get married, that's a brilliant combo if I've ever seen one. Bill Clinton won twice in an era with the white vote still over 80% of the populous. Obama would have no chance in that type of environment, but we don't need to worry about that. By 2012 the white vote should be down to 73 or 74%.

In 2006, New Mexico revealed 24% liberals in the exit poll. That's always the number that hints the state has moved out of swing state status and into our camp. Colorado is more troubling. We take it for granted at our own peril. The Colorado exit poll was shocking. Moderates pushed us well over the top, 63-35. But the state had a bizarre shift from 22% liberals and 35% conservatives in 2004 to 17% liberals and 36% conservatives in 2008. Frankly, I'd like to see verification of those percentages. I've been following this closely since '96 and that stands out as making no sense, in relation to both the exit poll expectation and the statewide outcome.

* Obama proved we can build a coalition to win minus white women, who rejected us by surprisingly high margin, 53-46. Granted, we did okay in the swing states. The white females in southern and deep red states dismissed Obama by higher percentage than I expected. But overall if we could find a way to return white women to their '90s or even '00 tendencies, national victory would be a snap. Clinton carried white women by 5% in '96, and Gore lost by only 1% in 2000.

[happychatter]

49. invalidates every success-ascribes success to "young people" then for the finale'

gay, latino, gay, black, white, black, blah blah blah

I wonder how much they pay you fuckers

I could certainly do it better

obvious much?

[Perky]

52. To sutain the coalition he has to have stron support in IN, NC, OH and VA

To do that he has to govern effectively and be willing to find common ground with republicans where he can., The chief thing is he can not let them try and demonize him.

[fujiyama]

56. Your premise itself is odd. The map WAS changed.

We don't know if this coalition is sustainable or not. No one can read the future. It's all about performance at this point.

Can Obama deliver on some of his promises? Will the economy improve under his watch over the next four years?

What international threats will the nation face? What external events will occur? Will we see any acts of terrorism domestically or overseas? God forbid.

Will Obama withdraw troops from Iraq? Will it be orderly?

What scandals will occur (hopefully none, and I have confidence in Obama himself but he can't control everyone around him) in four years?

Look, we don't know what will or will not happen. For now we can look at the only indicator that will change the electoral map in the future, which is demographics and population shifts.

We have the advantage here. The youth vote of today is the middle age of tomorrow... If we do well among this group now by delivering jobs, affordable health care, and better education, we'll continue to do well. Social wedge issues will be less and less effective. My generation won't be driven to vote or not vote based on gay marriage. Abortion will be brought up here and there by the religious right, but a majority of people understand that safe and legal abortion ultimately will not and should not be made illegal.

When it comes to racial demographics, another thing to note is that in this election, whites made less than 80% of the total vote. That will only continue to decrease (ooh the racists will go crazy hearing that). And guess what? If Obama does well, he'll do better among whites as well. Many people were taken in by "He's not Christian. He's a Muslims, he's a scary socialist, he'll take your money away".
They said the same about Clinton (except in his case he was a draft dodger and a cheat and oh of course a socialist). And he won reelection and he won big. His presidency is generally seen as a success (though he got off to a rocky start in his first two years), except for the Lewinsky mess, which of course is due to personal failings.

Also, we know that people are either migrating south from industrial states and Appalachia (which is also losing population or not keeping up with the rest). The New South isn't what you mention, but rather VA and NC, which have generated high paying jobs in hi-tech, IT, biotech, etc. We also know that with an increasing Latino population, the Southwest is important for us. We need to keep doing there. The industrial rust belt and northeast need jobs and the automotive industry is key to some extent. Can it be saved? People don't realize how many jobs rely on this industry from the OEMS to the suppliers.

If we are talking energy and green jobs, then OK, NE, and other praire heartland states have potential with wind power jobs.

We'll see what happens.

[Zynx]

57. Yes, the map changed. First, AR, MO, and LA are not the New South.

VA, NC, and GA are the New South. He made gains in each of those states that will not soon be erased. Also, the Latino vote did turn out in bigger numbers than they did in 2004, hence Obama's unexpected and outsized margins in NM and NV. He locked in the Latino vote as a Democratic bloc, reversing the slide that we had seen. He also made huge gains in fasting growing suburban areas. He cut Republican margins in the suburban and exurban counties around nearly every city in the country by vast amounts and expanded Democratic margins in those counties we win by huge amounts. While it is true Obama lost in rural areas by some times even larger margins, he won in the growth areas of the electorate which are professionals, young people, and minorities. McCain did better among the old and the rural poor which are disappearing.

[tekisui]

58. Did you pay attention to the WEST?!??!?!

CO, NM, NV. That is a new Dem region. MT and ND were close. Those pick-ups will be lasting.

Not only that, Obama will expand his wins in 2010 and 2012.

With the latino vote going strongly in our favor, Texas is within recah for 2012. Yes, Texas.

[snowbear]

60. Evidently not... The OP is CRAZY as a loon.

Sorry.

But they are NUTS. ((((( )))))

[JeffR]

61. gee you're on to something

what this country needs is more sucking up to white people
:eyes: