The inevitable narrative after a presidential election is that the losing side is on its way to extinction. In 2008, the argument was that the GOP had become a regional party of white southerners. We’re seeing a variation on that this time around, with the claim that Republicans can’t win an election because minorities and women are eclipsing the white male demographic:
The Los Angeles Times is leading the charge with a story headlined “Obama’s reelection marks a turning point in American politics: With the growing power of minorities, women and gays, it’s the end of the world as straight white males know it.”
Even more than the election that made Barack Obama the first black president, the one that returned him to office sent an unmistakable signal that the hegemony of the straight white male in America is over. …
Exit poll data, gathered from interviews with voters as they left their polling places, showed that Obama’s support from whites was 4 percentage points lower than in 2008. But he won by drawing on a minority-voter base that was 2 percentage points larger, as a share of the overall electorate, than four years ago.
The president built his winning coalition on a series of election-year initiatives and issue differences with Republican challenger Mitt Romney. In the months leading up to the election, Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, unilaterally granted a form of limited legalization to young illegal immigrants and put abortion rights and contraception at the heart of a brutally effective anti-Romney attack ad campaign.
The result turned out to be an unbeatable combination: virtually universal support from black voters, who turned out as strongly as in 2008, plus decisive backing from members of the younger and fast-growing Latino and Asian American communities, who chose Obama over Romney by ratios of roughly 3 to 1. All of those groups contributed to Obama’s majority among women. (Gay voters, a far smaller group, went for Obama by a 54-point margin.)
There are two ways conservatives can respond to this analysis. One is to devolve into a Buchananite frenzy that the White Male is under siege and the country is being hijacked by minorities and women who are fundamentally at odds with the Republican Party. Not only is that unhelpful, it also buys into identity politics in a way that runs counter to the conservative and American message.
Instead, why not challenge the notion that people vote primarily based on their allegiance to an identity group, rather than their individual interests? It’s supported by the statistics. While immigration is an important issue for Hispanic voters and can have a big influence on their vote, their biggest individual concern in 2012 was jobs and the economy. The same goes for women voters and abortion.
Just look at the Jewish vote. The overarching issue that connects American Jews is Israel, but as a bloc they vote reliably for the party that has a weaker record on Israel because it is liberal on social issues.
The point is, people don’t always vote based on their primary identity interest. There are, however, group sensitivities that need to be considered. A Democratic politician who sounds like Tom Tancredo isn’t going to win over Hispanic voters, just like Jewish voters aren’t likely to support Charles Barron, no matter how liberal he is on abortion and welfare programs.
It was these sensitivities that Obama exploited. He was able to use his presidency to indulge identity groups in small but concrete ways, while arguing that Romney would set back their interests if he were elected. Hence, the executive order on immigration, the “evolution” on gay marriage, the birth control insurance mandate, the auto bailout, and so on. This was helped along by Romney’s hard line on immigration during the primary, Romney’s inability to support gay marriage, controversial comments from Republicans about abortion, and Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout.
But that strategy isn’t going to be as easy for Democrats in 2016. First, the Democratic candidates won’t be able to distribute these handouts before the election. And second, Republicans aren’t likely to give Democrats as many opportunities to demagogue them on immigration and women’s issues (at least not if they learned any lessons from this year).
Rather than pander to different groups, it’s more helpful to find common ground between identity groups and broader national interests. For example, the GOP isn’t going to become a pro-choice party anytime soon, and it doesn’t need to. The majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion to some degree — just not in cases of rape and incest. Pro-life politicians would be smart to focus on the former and steer clear of the latter. Even if they personally oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest, there’s no need to bring those controversial personal views into the policy debate.
Tone is just as important here as policy. It didn’t matter that Romney wouldn’t have governed as a hardliner on immigration; Democrats were able to use his comments from the primary to portray him as anti-immigrant. And it didn’t matter how many times Romney’s campaign insisted he wouldn’t support an abortion ban — Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock set the tone for the entire party.
The only way the Democratic Party can keep its identity-based coalition together in 2016 is if Republicans give them enough fodder to do it.
not at all. there's no permanent Democratic majority in the offing. n nhad the Republican Party not gone simple and needlessly alienated Hispanics, women and the political centrists, they would have won an election that they should have won. n n
You write: nBut that strategy isn’t going to be as easy for Democrats in 2016. First, the Democratic candidates won’t be able to distribute these handouts before the election. And second, Republicans aren’t likely to give Democrats as many opportunities to demagogue them on immigration and women’s issues (at least not if they learned any lessons from this year). n nAlso: Barack Obama will not be running in 2016. Somehow his poor leadership and internal contradictions didn't hurt him the way such failings would have devastated a mere mortal. Put differently few people are better at pandering to grievances (even mutually exclusive grievances) better than Barack Obama. More perverse, somehow many see this cynicism as being enlightened.
When you say that "his poor leadership and internal contradictions didn't hurt him the way such failings would have devastated a mere mortal," it suggests to me a different take — that he gets away with it because of MSM spin that has never been so in the bag as for anyone else. Like, when he gives a speech on the Congresswoman's shooting, the MSM hails the speech and then ignores all the Dem hate and incitement that follows. Or the beer summit — rather than explore everything Obama did wrong, the MSM was all, "What a guy!" And, no matter what idiocy Obama has said, if the Obama people explain it's been taken out of context, the MSM jumps on lying Republicans making an issue out of nothing. My point and fear is that now that the MSM sees this as normal for the media, the next Democrat will get the same protection.
Keith, I do fear what you do. But would they do it for just any Democrat? nI like your examples, but the example that really bothers is Obama's "More perfect union" speech in which he supposedly addressed the issue of Rev Wright. The media couldn't get over its brilliance. But at its center were two arguments. n1) If you adopt my policies, people like Rev Wright will let go of their bitterness. n2) Don't judge on account of a 20 year association I undertook of my own free will. nIt wasn't an especially inspirational or honest speech. It was, in fact, exceedingly cynical. nWould the media have given the same adulation to a white politician in similar circumstances? Even a Democrat?
Certainly there's a double standard to issues of race between a white and black politician (and it's not necessarily unfair when it's a matter of life experience, for sure), but if you look at the Wright subject as a "church" issue only, then Bush and Romney weren't treated as roughly as they could have been, considering the MSM's view of practicing Christians (or what could have been made of is Romney's faith a cult stuff?). n nI still think MSM bias is a matter of if the media agrees with the talking point or the reasons for a policy position, it satisfies all their curiosity and the matter is dead (while, it's always going to be good fun to see if you can bait a Republican with a question concerning abortion in cases of rape). n nAlso, since my comment, I've been considering that it goes back to Clinton and didn't start with Obama, just became blatant for Obama. What I remember specifically is in a Gingrich-Clinton budget battle Gingrich proposed increasing the school lunch program by a couple to a few percentage points and Clinton proposed increasing it by a couple of percentage points more — and then told the media (and the logic was that Gingrich's proposed INCREASE was less than Clinton's) that Republicans proposed a CUT the program. The sense for me was that the MSM listened politely as it was explained that Republicans had actually proposed an increase in the program, and then ran headlines about Republicans cutting the budget on school kids, starving poor children, etc. n nMaybe what Obama introduced was the straw man so that one doesn't need facts and examples, made up or twisted to mean what you want … because "everyone knows" Republicans want to starve poor kids and so on and so on ….
I really like your second paragraph (about "agrees with the talking point") as it underscores part of the hypocrisy of the media. They loved to mock George W. Bush for being "incurious," but when it comes to their sacred cows, they are unquestioning. n nYou are also right about Clinton. I remember that well. While I can't quantify it, I still think that they are more protective of Obama than they were of Clinton. Maybe it's because they have to be. Clinton was politically savvy enough not to get sunk by leftist ideology; in Obama's case they have to defend someone they know is clearly out of the mainstream. (Well maybe at the NYT they don't recognize this; but at the WaPo a number of folks do realize that. They just won't come clean about it.)
Yes, the proper way for Republicans to make it back would be to better pander and skew to latinos and women. Let us say, for instance, that they put an Uncle Tom like Rubio in for the next election and they hold onto their majority in the House. Latinos will vote overwhelmingly to put one of "theirs" in the Oval Office despite the fact that it would be entirely against their interests. Republicans have convinced poor white America that it is in their best interests to make things as easy as possible for the wealthy, they could do the same easily enough by pandering to racial pride. Would they have to abandon their core racist voting block, though?
As long as everyone stays poor helpless and entitled then yes. Because that's the target demographic. It's not just about rustling up every black, gay, Mexican, Muslim, single mom, drug addict, ex con or anarchist who just hates the world on their iPhone.
trudy, the hatred seems to be pouring out of you rather than from anywhere else.
An important thing that the GOP can do is to pass some form of immigration reform.
Alana, just today Sean Trende published an analysis in which he posited that the big drop off in votes from McCain to Romney was due to whites staying home. He doesn't dismiss the potential unpopularity with the Republican brand and Latinos, for example, but points out that the Republicans may not have had a refined enough message for these folks who didn't like Obama. He very effectively shows declines in turnout in poor white areas in Ohio. Obama's slamming Romney's wealth and professional background worked by preventing these anti Obama voters being motivated to vote Republican.
perhaps you would be so good as to put up a link to that.
ldubinsky, nThis is where the article can be found. Hope you find it as edifying as I did. nrealclearpolitics. com
I read Sean Trende's excellent analysis, with map this morning. Yes, a lot of white voters stayed home. nIn fact, the lower national turnout versus 2008 is the real story. n nAs a registered Democrat, I have been appalled at the descent of the Obama version into identity politics. n nBut, if we are stuck with two parties, I would really appreciate one of them becomes the party for fiscal conservatives, and not beholden to ideologues, whether it is Grover Norquist or the abortion warriors on both sides. n nObama has divided us by AGE, race, gender, religion. n nBut the GOP really has to stop handing the Dem's #1 GOTV weapon: abortion. n n
thx much for the link. it WAS very interesting, even if it seemed to have been penned rather early. n n nHaving followed the discussion among Republican Evangelicals prior to Romney's nomination, and having watched the course of the Republican primaries, it did seem to me that Romney was not going to generate the enthusiasm from crazy folk declaring that a vote for a Mormon would make God unhappy as well as some others. n nTrende's thoughts about the Republican's failing to provide a clear and positive message struck me as being spot-on and more important than anything else. n nvery edifying and many thanks.
well, first of all, around….you were right in your pessimism about the election. Apologies for my great optimism but then, one has ot be optimistic to stay alive.._Thanks for the link. At last , a sane voice amongst the din of the press. I heard that Tuesday evening , that Romney had three million votes LESS than Mc.Cain and then I checked the numbers and in the two critical states of Ohio and Virginia, he had less votes than McCain- enough votes lost to give him the win!! Now, that is unfathoable and so, maybe we will have to look in the mirrror and see that e defeated ourselves. If all those ultra conservatives would not have cut their noses to spite their faces, we might have won!! it is enough for me to turn one's back on all those righteous people who thought Romney ywas too moderate.Ok, so now you got Obama! good luck!
No. I take it a different way. Perhaps like an alcoholic, both the country and the GOP had to "hit bottom" before any change was possible. For the past 30 years, the not-so-rich white males have been told to shut up and vote for whom we are told to vote for because "the Dems are worse." And this is why the turnout is down, we stopped caring. n nSure Romney would have been a little bit better than Obama, but still….. n nAnd the demographic issue the GOP needs to worry about is its base…
I'm anti abortion(rape, incest, life of the mother the exceptions), but in very political terms, I understand how this issue must be finessed. When it is not, the loons, like Murdouck and Akin, trip over it and become not only embarrassments to themselves, but to the entire party. But it's not abortion, per se, that hurts Republicans. It's the fools who are nominated, who are anti abortion, but do not know how to talk about the issue. Look, American political parties are coalitions and some parts of that coalition are more important than others. Evangelicals are probably one-third of the Republican voting base. Their concerns cannot be ignored, but they must, if they want their issues to succeed, learn how to speak to the public about them. Many have. Unfortunately, some have not. On the abortion issue, look at which party is more intolerant of those within it that oppose its majority opinion. Clearly the Democrats.
Conservatism sounds extremist. They need to re-event themselves or lose.
He is running in 2016. Not on the ballot, of course (unless he amends the Constitution). But he will be there, like Vladamir Putin was to Medvedev–a far more potent power broker than Bill Clinton. He will have tremendous power over who the next president is in 2016. We will actually have to run against both Clinton and Obama in 2016. Could be even harder than 2012.
According to the DNC, in effect, the problem with the GOP is that it exists and if it simply imploded and adopted all the DNC group thinks it would survive. Which in a cold toxic way is technically accurate. After all, all one party states have a single monolithic totalitarian view of the world.