I really do not like the headline of Ron Brownstein’s new piece in the National Journal, but I think it is still an outstanding article. The headline says that Obama is giving up on attracting right-leaning white voters. A more accurate headline would say that the Democrats have a governing majority that doesn’t need to pander to right-leaning white voters anymore.

I encourage you to read Brownstein’s piece, even though it is quite long. I think it is important to familiarize yourself with the facts and statistics that Brownstein has assembled. If I can summarize his piece as concisely as possible, it argues that the Democrats no longer need to have a Blue Dog wing in order to dominate national elections. As a result, the party is more unified, more progressive, and more alienating to the white working class and rural, religious voters than ever before.

I think that is accurate. But there is a debate about what it means going forward. Some think that Obama had an unnatural and non-replicable appeal to minority voters. A future Democrat won’t be able to win the same percentages or achieve the same turnout, which will force them to find ways to appeal better to right-leaning whites. Others think that this very polarization is only going to become more magnified as the Republicans continue to alienate the ascendent demographics of the electorate.

I have a different theory, but it’s also a question. I think a successor to Obama who is white will immediately get a hearing from a large chunk of the white electorate who simply won’t consider supporting Obama. I think Obama got elected (the first time around) in large part because his race inspired a lot of people to vote who would have otherwise stayed home. But I think his race has hurt him once in office, at least in terms of his poll ratings. I believe that Obama would poll much better in the South and in much of Appalachia if he were white, even if his policies were identical. In other words, I think likely Democratic candidates for president in 2016 (who all happen to be white) can expect to start off with Obama’s coalition, plus a bunch of other people who don’t like Obama because he’s black. Someone like Hillary Clinton would also add all the PUMAs who dropped out when she lost, and a lot of other women, too. The Clintons used to be popular enough in Appalachia to win. That might not be possible anymore, but Hillary would certainly do much better in Arkansas and West Virginia than Obama did.

One premise in Brownstein’s piece is that the Democrats are aggravating right-leaning voters by pursuing things like gun control, immigration reform, climate legislation, and gay equality. If he’s right, then the party’s problems in the South and Appalachia are not specific to Obama, and they are growing. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

I think the president’s skin color acts a lot like the moon on our oceans. In some situations, it makes his popularity crest, and in some situations it sucks everything out to sea. Take away the tidal motions created by the president, and you get a clearer picture of where the Democratic Party stands against the Republican Party in their quest for the allegiance of the white working class voter.

I think the GOP has succeeded in maximizing their share of the white vote by playing on the president’s blackness. I don’t think they can be as effective with that against Clinton or Cuomo or O’Malley or Biden or Mark Warner, or whoever you can think of as a plausible 2016 nominee.

I think most of Obama’s coalition will turn out for his successor, as long as they feel that his successor is going to continue on the same path.