Brian Beutler says that conservatives won’t let Mitt be Mitt, while Ron Brownstein points out that Romney can break the record for winning white support and still lose the election. Somehow, those two things kind of melded in my mind.
Beutler is referring specifically to the collective conservative freak-out that occurred when Romney spokeswomen Andrea Saul simply pointed out that, thanks to RomneyCare, no one in Massachusetts misses out on cancer treatment just because they lose their job. In a more general sense, Beutler is talking about the right’s desire to constrain and control Romney, reducing him to nothing more than an auto-pen that will sign their legislation.
Brownstein delves into the demographics of the country and comes to a surprising conclusion:
Polls at the time found that whites gave from 56 percent to 61 percent of their votes to Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Ronald Reagan in 1980, and George H.W. Bush in 1988.
For each of those men, those crushing margins among whites translated into an electoral landslide. Each won at least 426 Electoral College votes and cruised in the popular vote.Yet this year, Romney could win as much as 60 percent of the white vote (or, amazingly, even slightly more) and still lose. The reason is the electorate’s changing composition. When Reagan was first elected in 1980, whites cast about 90 percent of the votes; even in Bush’s 1988 victory, whites represented 85 percent of all votes and minorities just 15 percent.
But by 2008, after two decades of steady growth, minorities cast 26 percent of all votes. One recent analysis found they represent 29 percent of eligible voters for 2012. Even if the minority vote share remains flat at 26 percent, should Obama hold his 80 percent of it, he can win a national majority with slightly less than 40 percent of whites.
The fact that Romney could roughly equal the towering performances of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush among whites and still fall short ought to alert Republicans about the dangers of an electoral strategy so dependent on those voters alone. “If Republicans are going to be competitive at the presidential level over the next 10-20 years they have to do better among nonwhite voters, especially Asians and Hispanics,” says GOP pollster Whit Ayres. “[If you] basically win a landslide among whites and still lose, the handwriting is on the wall.”
It doesn’t look like Mitt Romney is going to win this election, but he still has a puncher’s chance. His problem is that he is boxed into running as the champion of white conservatism, and this is probably the last nationwide election in which such a strategy will have even a theoretical potential for success. Brownstein explains:
But because the GOP now relies so heavily on support from the white voters most uneasy about demographic change (primarily older and blue-collar whites), it has almost completely lost the capacity to court Hispanics or other minorities—as Romney demonstrated during the primaries by pummeling any opponent who deviated from conservative orthodoxy on immigration issues. A dominating Romney showing among whites that produces at best a narrow win, and at worst a defeat, would reveal that insular approach as a dead end for the GOP—though more Republicans are likely to heed the warning after a defeat than a victory.
Let’s be honest. If you have played around with the Electoral College Calculator, you know that Romney can perhaps win, but he can’t conceivably win by more than the narrowest of margins. And the reason is simple. There simply are not enough states where white conservatives constitute anything close to the majority of the electorate. If the door is not already closed to the kind of campaign Romney is running, it is certainly in the process of closing. And we should think about what that would mean for a Romney presidency.
Having been elected by the narrowest of margins, he would face the prospect of certain defeat in his reelection campaign unless he pivoted hard to appeal to people of color. But there is no chance that his Republican colleagues in Congress would countenance such a move, and he would surely invite a primary if he attempted it. Romney’s presidency would be stillborn.
People wonder what Obama’s poll numbers would look like if the unemployment level was much lower, but they should also wonder what his poll numbers would look like if he wasn’t black. Would Hillary Clinton be incredibly unpopular all throughout Appalachia? How about Andrew Cuomo or Mark Warner or Martin O’Malley, or Joe Biden? Without the racial issue driving down Obama’s numbers in parts of Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, would a Republican still have a chance anywhere on the East Coast? If so, it won’t be for long.
This election is still in doubt, but we are witnessing the last stand for a certain brand of conservatism. They must adapt in a major way or they will soon discover that they simply have no route to an Electoral College majority.
The Republicans are caught in a vise of their own making. Their ownership of the Christianist right depends on continued dogwhistles — without the racism, those voters will head back to the rocks from which they came. This would be a blessing to the country, but it would also negate whatever inroads they might hope to make among minority voters, at least over the short-to-mid term.
IOW, they are screwed for a generation at the Presidential level.
Nah, they’re just screwed period.
The strongholds of these survivors of my youth are the Empty Quarter, Appalachia and the Real Old South. Lots of land, cows out the Wazoo and shitpot loads of oil/gas $$$. Strange thing, tho, not too many people. Can you say WY, MT, ID, AK?. And there are strange things going on in Appalachia Democratic circles.
The analysis shown above would indicate that if the Democratic candidate is a white male (a rather common occurance in national politics) the R’s would have a good shot at not having a snowball’s chance in HELL in OH, PA, WV, Western VA, Eastern TN.
I have no idea who the favoured candidate will be in 2016. The BooMan has decided that the D’s have the deepest bench. Right now, that bench is composed mostly of white men. Scary thought … for Republicans.
Assuming the good news of 2016, by 2024 the old, white racists who respond best to dog whistles will mostly be dead.
This election is still in doubt, but we are witnessing the last stand for a certain brand of conservatism.
I think you’re right on with this entire post. I imagine it’s why we’re now seeing trial balloons like the recent Young Republican stuff with “we want to vote Republican without all the culture war baggage.” That is, the first step is to pretend that the party isn’t entirely about white conservatives.
That’s my guess for the R Party’s direction in the near future – plan to vote and govern exactly like they have been, but use less hate to sell it.
It seems that some Republicans are adapting already. It’s the Goldwater generation that is dying off.
Young Republicans Erase Lines on Social Issues
The real change comes when it changes from being tactical to being authentic. That will happen when they realize that they are losing because people have sniffed out their phony commitments.
You and I definitely agree, then – glad to see it. I’m curious to see if there ever is a sincere conversion, or if they just fiddle with their PR.
The interest groups they are trying to court will figure out if its bullshit fairly quickly. Some nonetheless will do the Log Cabin Republican thing and stay affiliated with the party and mildly supportive of certain candidates in order to try to reform the party from within. You know that gays are accepted in the Republican Party when the Log Cabin Republicans are picked for national candidates and have public non-token positions of leadership.
As I Tweeted to that reporter: “It’s all well and good, but they have zero control over the party. Wake me up when they aren’t just talk.”
He doesn’t even have a puncher’s chance, Booman.
Why?
How?
Let us count the ways:
1-He has no punch. He can’t even frame a sentence well. (Or choose not to read the badly constructed sentences he is given by his speechwriters. I am quite sure hat he doesn’t even know the fdfference.) Simply put, he’s too fucking stupid to use words well, and words are most of what a political fighter uses as his or her weapons.
2-He has no defense. Anybody who gaffes regularly on his level is rendered indefensible every time it happens. From the $10,000 bet during the debates right on through his recent wonderful European adventure, he make G W. Bush look like some kind of diplomatic/linguistic prodigy. He might as well walk into the ring with his hands hanging down below his hips to face Muhammad Ali during Ali’s prime.
Hell, Ali could probably take him now.
3-The referee and judges…the media, in his case…have been absolutely, positively bought and sold. Even if he does manage to throw a lucky punch or two he will be in some way penaltied and/or disqualified, and he most certainly doesn’t have the power to throw a knockout punch. The only way that he can possibly win is if Obama somehow fouls out. And Obama isn’t about to be caught biting anybody’s ear or low-punching…at least, not often enough to get disqualified. Bet on it.
He’s through.
It’s over.
Start looking at the hows and whys of this obviously fixed fight if your political jones is too strong to take you away from kvetching at various forms of bought and sold
judges…errr, ahh, I meancritics…awww hell, you know what I mean!!! Media assholes.Pin the fixers.
Maybe you’ll get lucky yourself and expose a Blinky Palermo or two or three.
They won’t be nearly as…colorful…as was ol’ Blinky, but what the hell. He was small potatoes compared to these motherfukers and thus he could afford to be plainly and openly as crooked as a snake with a broken back.
These guys?
Butter wouldn’t melt in their bank accounts.
If of course those accounts could even be found.
Straight-ahead politcal blogging is so over, Booman. How much can one say about a good cop/bad cop movie, really? The new blogging frontier?
It’s what goes on behind the scenes of that movie.
You’re still talking about the actors as if they are real.
Naivete squared.
Pin the fixers and you;ll be famous.
If you survive, of course…
Remember Gary Webb. I do every time I put something like this online.
So it goes.
Just as it has always gone.
Be careful out there, Booman.
But go out there anyway.
It’s good for the soul.
Bet on that as well.
Later…
AG
Sure looks like Sheldon Adelson has bet his casino on a loser. Is that it, AG?
I keep thinking that yes it’s bought but those doing the buying are not buying the same guys and not buying them for the same reasons. And some of those reasons are in direct conflict with each other. So there is a partitioning of interests among the candidates. And there is a mix between the buyers’ national and more local interests–which plays out in splitting tickets in contributions. And then there are the hedge bets on the guy they hope doesn’t win in order to have at least a little leverage.
But the people have to do their part by fulfilling their roles in the ritual of legitimacy by going to the temple of democracy and making their mark, clicking in a box on a computer screen, or flipping a lever. In a consumer society, consumers have to have choices, ya know.
And remember…human beings are complex mixtures of good and evil.
Adelson sure did bet on Newt, didn’t he?
Precisely.
AG
Yes, Tarheel. That is it exactly.
He has bet his casino on a loser.
Why?
How?
Because a certain level of successful criminality doesn’t necessarily call for a great deal of intelligence.
Bet on it.
AG
Presidential Elections In 21st Century and Gary Webb
The big question is whether they can shake the frat-boy approach to political tactics. It is not just ideology but the entire win-by-any-means necessary style that has corrupted our political processes.
And the opening to Asians and Hispanics would argue that Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, and Marco Rubio are the new face of the Republican Party. I think that those three are tokens, and they have not yet found the ethnic Indian, Cuban, or Mexican leaders who will be more than tokens. Democrats have the same problem in the Senate–barely have incorporated women candidates into the mix.
Democrats have the same problem in the Senate–barely have incorporated women candidates into the mix.
The DCCC actively recruits gay-hating, and anti-women, candidates. Even now.
Goes back to my argument about the necessity of changing the political culture. And the necessity to have state-wide popularity to be elected to the Senate. In only certain districts is it possible for women and minorities to help fund their and other campaigns–a not insignificant requirement for a candidate at some point. (Why it took Kissell a second run to get considered by the DCCC and he was a white working-class Baptist male.)
Or, you could say the conservatives have made todays’ GOP the party of death, their health care policy and goal being aptly summarized, “Let them die!”
And, yeah, every Republican candidate ought to personally be made to shoulder the blame for every death of every uninsured American, in this election from now on out, all the time, until the Democrats are driven to support and the Republican driven to accept truly universal health care in the United States.
And the more the whine, the better.
THAT’S THEIR POLICY.
“But by 2008, after two decades of steady growth, minorities cast 26 percent of all votes. One recent analysis found they represent 29 percent of eligible voters for 2012. Even if the minority vote share remains flat at 26 percent, should Obama hold his 80 percent of it, he can win a national majority with slightly less than 40 percent of whites.”
Of course, they’re working very hard on pushing that non-white share back down.
Acorn.
Voter ID.
The flap about state efforts to register welfare recipients in Massachusetts.
And conservatives have already been saying for some time that people on the low end of the social pyramind should not be allowed to vote at all because they favor redistributive policies.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Romney could win 65% of the white vote. Of course, if Obama won most of the non-white voters me could still beat even that.
If Romney gets 65% of the white vote, I will look at my fellow white Americans in a new and suspicious light.
“People wonder what Obama’s poll numbers would look like if the unemployment level was much lower, but they should also wonder what his poll numbers would look like if he wasn’t black.”
I have no doubts if Obama was white and had the same political skills his numbers with white voters would be higher. That same question is also why I think, despite the changing demographics, the Democratic party goes back to a nominating a white man in 2012, probably with a female or Hispanic VP. More than likely one of the governors. Schweitzer or O’Malley are my top picks.
2016 ?
There is Deval Patrick, but you are right that the Democrats probably cannot yet have two non-white candidates back-to-back
This is going to be a change of generations in the Democratic Party in Congress. Unfortunately for this cycle, the Senate is stuck. So who are the 50-something Democratic Senators who could claim a national following? Yep, it’s likely to be a governor who makes himself known to the rest of the nation over the next four years. O’Malley is already out there getting himself known. Schweitzer’s been becoming nationally known since 2006. Cuomo is beginning to posture on financial industry accountability.
Time for a woman, really, don’t you think?
Not Hillary.
Too much hate for her inside the Democratic Party and out.
Somebody younger and, we have to hope, further left.
I don’t know who that is.
But I didn’t know who Barack Obama was in 2004.
That’s the thing about moving up somebody young.
Maybe a minority woman, but somebody who, like Obama, would not be perceived by everybody as a race candidate.
sheeeeeeeetttttt
if Barack Obama were WHITE
and had
I’ve said it before and will say it again:
Willard would have long been laughed off the stage as the clown candidate that he is.
Also, Obama would not have had as much difficulty with his own Congressional caucus.
While we Progressives seem comfortable analyzing the facts of a situation and digging into its meaning, it always amazes me how Conservatives have to experience something first or 2nd hand to recognize reality.
This week I had the misfortune of having a lightning strike 1/4 mile from my place. It was up on the hill, the winds were fractuous, the fire started racing. Less than 15 minutes later a spotter plane was up, 5 minutes later smokejumpers were on the scene, 9 DNR red F350 trucks rolled up the hill with crews, home protection was set up within 1/2 hour, 17 firecrew got on site, helos appeared and their buckets of water were dropped. Did I mention that I LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT!?
My point is, that just as important as the unemployment drop would be, the ACA once experienced will, by results, awaken the skeptics to approve of Obama. This is a race to get the people to recognize good policies before the election; to translate them into their own lives.
Another fire is being fought just above me that started last night. My neighbors and I met down the road this morning to talk about helping with evacuations and to a one the comments were examples of how we love DNR, the Smokejumpers and the govt that asks them to go into harms’ way to protect us.
If I understand the latest psychology research correctly, the two facts are directly related.
You must not understand these people – voter suppression is just the opening salvo. These are people who applaud the Russians’ resolve and tactics in torching Moscow before Napoleon could enjoy the benefits of occupying the city.
This isn’t the last stand – this is the first major battle of a new war…
Napoleon’s invading army – wrong analogy. in your analogy democrats are Napoleon’s army. I don’t think so.
The Right applauds conviction in the face of obvious defeat – that’s the only point there. My analogy has the Democrats as the Union army who thought that they would march across Bull Run and have a little walk to Richmond and put an end to that little rebellion thing, troops that got their arses handed to them in “The Great Skedaddle” and who then spend the next three years trying to find a competent general to lead them; troops who may well have lost the war if Stonewall Jackson hadn’t found out the hard way that friendly fire isn’t.
My point is that far from being the GOP’s last stand, after this encounter they will fight dirtier and much more desperately, possibly to the point of actual arms. Politics is war by other means (Clausewitz had it backwards), such that when the other means prove useless the fig leaf of civilization is removed and we find ourselves flat in the middle of Hobbes’ world.
I know this sounds insane – it is – but like I said, you would really have to understand these people. They will not give up “their” country without a fight – actual, up close and personal, fight.
By the time Napoleon got to Moscow his army had been severely weakened by the Battle of Borodino. The burning of Moscow was part of blocking Napoleon’s ability to benefit from it, and preventing his resupply. and that eventually defeated him. I understand what you’re saying about white supremacy. just the analogy doesn’t work.
I guess I should say white conservatives that I am interpreting as supremicists