More On The Emerged Dem Majority

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:54:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

To follow up on this post, I want to point you to John Judis' terrific piece on the same subject. A flavor:

This realignment is predicated on a change in political demography and geography. Groups that had been disproportionately Republican have become disproportionately Democratic; and red states like Virginia have become blue. But underlying these changes has been a shift in the nation's "fundamentals"--in the structure of society and industry, and in the way Americans think of family, job, and government. The country is definitely no longer "America the conservative." And with the Republican Party and big business identified with a potentially disastrous downturn, it could become over the next four years "America the liberal." That's what makes this election fundamentally different from 1976 or 1992. Unlike Carter and Clinton, Obama will be taking office with the wind at his back rather than in his face.

I just fear Obama does not realize it. More . .

If Obama and the Democrats in Congress act boldly, they can not only arrest the downturn, but also lay the basis for an enduring majority. As was the case with Franklin Roosevelt, many of the measures necessary to combat the recession--such as spending money on physical and electronic infrastructure, adopting national health insurance--will also help ensure a Democratic majority. The rural South remained Democrat for generations because of Roosevelt's rural electrification program; a similar program for bringing broadband to the hinterland could lead these voters back to the Democratic Party. And national health insurance could play the same role in Democrats' future prospects that Social Security played in the perpetuation of the New Deal majority.

. . . [A]s Roosevelt discovered when he was elected, a national crisis creates a popular willingness to entertain dramatic initiatives. Obama and the Democrats will also not face the same formidable adversaries that Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton had to face. The Republican Party will be divided and demoralized after this defeat. Just as the Great Depression took Prohibition and the other great social issues of the 1920s off the popular agenda, this downturn has set aside the culture war of the last decades. It wasn't a factor in the presidential election. And the business lobbies that blocked national health insurance in 1994 will incur the public's wrath if they once again try to buy Congress.

If, on the other hand, Obama and the Democrats take the advice of official Washington and go slow--adopting incremental reforms, appeasing adversaries that have lost their clout--they could end up prolonging the downturn and discrediting themselves. What could have been a hard realignment could become not merely a soft realignment, but perhaps even an abortive one. That's not the kind of change that America needs or wants--and, hopefully, Obama and the Democrats understand that.

Amen.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama's Win and Judges | Coleman: I'm Too Important For A Recount >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

More On The Emerged Dem Majority | 58 comments (58 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Judis and Teixeira are really smart (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:00:35 PM EST

The other thing we have to talk about is the solid northeast. It was Obama's best region by far, just as it was Kerry's best.

The Democratic establishment backed (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:35:09 PM EST

Obama as the Democratic nominee precisely because, once elected, they had ever intention to:

take the advice of official Washington and go slow--adopting incremental reforms, appeasing adversaries that have lost their clout...

Evidently, that is also the "mandate" supported by corporate America, the mainstream media, and the A list political blogs (PB 1.0).

So, what's the probability of an Obama administration choosing to enact a definitive progressive agenda, in keeping with the mere will of the people?


Let's just hope he's reading that ... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:41:16 PM EST

article and understanding it.

But this is Obama's great internal conflict. Part of him champions the type of actions that FDR took. And part of him believes that playing footsie with the right is the way to hold power.

I'm not sure he fully sees the political advantage in following the FDR model.


I hope you are wrong. (none / 0) (#15)
by hairspray on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST

: I didn't predict anything... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM EST

I merely stated that the Democratic establishment worked to ensure Obama's nomination because they hoped, and assumed, he was the candidate who would govern in a centrist, if not center-right, manner.
I don't think many people refute that premise. It remains to be seen whether Obama will govern as expected by his establishment backers; or as expected by the voters.
There is a considerable schism.
But, right now, corporate media interests are frantically trying to convince us that the voters also want tepid, centrist governance.
I hope they fail to sell that meme. And I hope Obama governs as a greater progressive than he's ever promised to be.

Well, it's hard to argue (none / 0) (#28)
by BrassTacks on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM EST

That the will of the people is very progressive when Obama ran as such a moderate, opposing gay marriage, among other things and still got only 52% of the vote. That means nearly half of the people wanted someone else. I am thrilled that he won, but 52% is hardly a mandate for massive changes. If we move to hard too fast, we could lose everything in two years.


Too fast? (none / 0) (#32)
by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:21:37 PM EST

Pelosi, Reid and Obama speeding through hairpin legislative turns?

I just don't see it. It's not their style.


I bet most of the people who voted for (none / 0) (#36)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:29:39 PM EST

Obama, believed that he was running as a centrist but would govern as a progressive. Even the MSM espoused that meme quite a bit.


: I don't know. I think (none / 0) (#40)
by dk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM EST

most republicans (who did not vote for Obama0 believed this , and most fauxgressives (who were a minority of Obama votrers) thought that way. But I would posit that the majority of Obama voters actually took the guy at his word, namely that he would govern as a centrist (with regard to economic, social, and foreign policy). And not BTD's Centrist=Center-Left. I mean dead center.

Except that Texeira once wrote in the (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by hairspray on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:44:10 PM EST

National Prospect that the Democrats should fight for the south politically, expending money there. The south stayed insular once again and it will take hands on physical changes in the way those people work and live to change their ways of thinking about the "other." Lofty words won't change that.


: He did? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:07:21 PM EST

Well, that's clearly wrong. I think the investment in border states like Virginia (and now Florida) was wise. Georgia remains a lost cause, however.

His best points are when he compares ... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:15:28 PM EST

UHC to SS and expanding broadband to the TVA.

I'd also add Obama's ideas on an infrastructure fund, and the creation of "green collar" jobs.

All of these things could allow Dems to make serious inroads in rural areas.

But whither HOLC? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:16:42 PM EST

That's first hundred days stuff, imho.

Broadband? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
by Dadler on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:20:12 PM EST

That's nice and I have no problem with it, but Obama needs to lead on producing lots of jobs that pay more than a bare living wage, and he needs to do so quickly while talking about how valued work equals dignity, how the janitor's labor, the factory worker's, the cashier's, all of it, should be appreciated and compensated with respect (because without that, the stability and prosperity of the nation is impossible in the long run); and if the private sector, in its single minded focus on profits for a few, keeps eliminating jobs and taking them overseas, then a government of, by and for the people will act as such and use the people's money for the benefit of the people as they work hard to repair our tattered seams.

In doing so, not only will people be put to work, but the value of money itself will be radically and positively transformed.

If we want it to be, that is.

Paradigms are hard to break.

But bold and aggressive, I couldn't agree more, Tent. I fear nothing more than a passive Obama acting more like mediator than leader.

I think broadband is ... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST

as important as rural electrification. Certain areas cannot create businesses that can be competitive because they don't have access to adequate bandwidth.

Also the bringing of broadband to rural areas in and of itself will create jobs.

And one cannot discount the power of being granted access to the world that those in cities take for granted.


I agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by liminal on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:55:59 PM EST

Broadband is the rural electrification of the 21st century.


um, not just rural! City prices are (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:57:51 PM EST

ridiculous.


Satellite is always an option. (none / 0) (#34)
by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:23:14 PM EST

If you think broadband is too expensive.

(Yes, I do know how much satellite internet access costs.)


Well, I understand that internet (none / 0) (#41)
by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:46:36 PM EST

costs are MUCH lower in Europe.


: I don't think my cable (none / 0) (#43)
by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST

would reach that far!
;-)

NPR did a bit (none / 0) (#47)
by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:33:45 PM EST

on some guy who moved out to hicksville from the city. Has his own business that he needs internet access for. Where he moved to only has dial up, so he has to drive into town to use wifi there in order to upload and down load large files.

I wanted to headdesk when I heard that. I lived in a rural area growing up. I became familiar with the phenomena of city folks moving out to the country for whatever reason and then being all shocked and dismayed that all the conveniences of urban life did not magically follow them. Dopes.

Mister Nouveau Country guy could probably gotten satellite internet access. (Heck, the prices have about halved since I last checked - about ten years ago.)


Fabian ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:44:21 PM EST

I lived in a rural area growing up. I became familiar with the phenomena of city folks moving out to the country for whatever reason and then being all shocked and dismayed that all the conveniences of urban life did not magically follow them. Dopes.

I sometimes feel this way in Brooklyn.

;)


: Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:51:10 PM EST

I guess you can find them everywhere.

I think you overestimate the impact (none / 0) (#18)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:54:05 PM EST

of broadband. I live in a rural area that is mostly covered by high-speed internet, and it helps farmers and their suppliers marginally economically, but not dramatically.

Rural electrification literally transformed people's day-to-day lives. No comparison at all.


How should Obama go about creating (none / 0) (#25)
by BrassTacks on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM EST

Higher paying jobs?


: For starters, raise the minimum wage... (none / 0) (#33)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:22:28 PM EST

That isn't "job creation", per se. But maybe if all jobs paid a living wage, people would only need one job. i.e. Many people who are now working two jobs could afford to leave their second job and free it up for somebody else.

This is. . . (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:26:19 PM EST

Unlike Carter and Clinton, Obama will be taking office with the wind at his back rather than in his face.

correct. But this:

and red states like Virginia have become blue.

is wrong. In the midst of the perfect storm we barely squeaked out a Presidential win (Warner is a special case). That's progress, but I'd hardly pin a movement on it. Better to say that Virginia is purple.

2 Senators, Governor (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:43:12 PM EST

majority of the House members.

If that is purple, then we need more purple.


BTD, I think in Virginia ... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:55:14 PM EST

the Civil War is finally over.


Nah, Virginia's just seceding (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:06:25 PM EST

from the Confederacy, as Chuck Todd put it a couple of years ago. Or more correctly, the north is reinvading--just as with Florida.


Hey, weren't you ... (none / 0) (#27)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:11:35 PM EST

trumpeting the "new south" just a week ago?

Or do you just enjoy putting pinpricks in everyone one of my statements?

I subscribe to Schaller's argument (none / 0) (#29)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST

that we should "whistle past" Dixie (essentially, the deep south). Border states like Florida, Virginia, and--apparently--North Carolina are worth putting money into. What distinguishes those states? Lots of yankees and midwesterners have moved there.


MO's a border state too ... (none / 0) (#35)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:26:18 PM EST

we have some work to do there as well.


: Yup (none / 0) (#37)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:30:47 PM EST

Majority of house members (none / 0) (#26)
by BrassTacks on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:11:08 PM EST

In Virginia are now democrats? Woweee.........I didn't see that last night. Since my district is still solid republican, I need to look into this!


Actually (none / 0) (#39)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:40:46 PM EST

whether Dems control a majority of the House delegation depends entirely on whether we succeed in knocking off the odious Virgil Goode in VA-05. The last report had him down by a mere 30 votes, so that will have to get sorted out.


: Clearly (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by CST on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:47:53 PM EST

He should step down now for unity's sake :)

true (none / 0) (#7)
by mpBBagain on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:27:59 PM EST

virginia is purple... so is NC... any idea when they are going to call NC for Obama?


Great Article (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by squeaky on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST

My favorite line says it all:

Obama will be taking office with the wind at his back rather than in his face.

I feel the breeze and wow, it feels great. Even though I was sure Obama was going to win, I am shocked about how different it feels today now that reality has set in.

Sail on.

I really hope we don't see (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by BrianJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 04:27:39 PM EST

More ritual demonizing of the Clintons. Between the Family Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act (with a lot of help from the VP-elect), the Brady Law, and the 1993 tax law, Bill Clinton did an outstanding job of delivering social goods and benefiting the country with center-left proposals that he got passed into law. The one failure was the health-care plan, and S-CHIP partially redeemed it a few years later.

I hope Obama does as well; I'm not very optimistic.


Demonizing? (none / 0) (#51)
by squeaky on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 04:35:48 PM EST

Where did you get that from? If anything the wind has shifted and both Clintons will benefit from that as well.


I've been rather disturbed (none / 0) (#52)
by BrianJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:10:42 PM EST

During both the primary and the general election campaigns, about the "Year Zero"-ism of many Obama supporters. They seem to believe that there was nothing in Democratic politics before Obama, there is nothing besides Obama, and only he can lead them to some ill-defined utopia. Obama seems to believe this some of the time; he resisted even talking to the Clintons while his lead evaporated this summer and again until mid-September (when the financial crisis propelled him to victory anyway).

I apologize for having something of a hair-trigger about this, but it's important for the sake of the country.

Put bluntly, liberal Democrats are still well short of a majority. Only a handful of new liberals will enter the House, and maybe none at all in the Senate. Change is going to have to be incremental, as with Clinton's successes. Radical change is unlikely to succeed, and with the lack of domestic savings to borrow against, probably couldn't be funded even if politically possible. And millions of people simply cannot afford any extended period of fumbling and failure.


: Oh, I See (none / 0) (#54)
by squeaky on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:02:58 PM EST

Hair trigger. Nothing to do with my comment, BTD's post, or the Judis article.
A habit worth kicking, at this point, imo.

I like Juris. I didn't read the whole piece, but (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by hairspray on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM EST

certainly demographic population shifts are important too. Look at NC and the influx of the northeastern educated and skilled workers and the changes there. South Carolina on the other hand is not yet seeing that change.

: I meant Judis! (none / 0) (#17)
by hairspray on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:52:28 PM EST

Krugman on Fire! (5.00 / 0) (#45)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:19:06 PM EST

From his blog:

.... for the past 14 years America's political life has been largely dominated by, well, monsters. Monsters like Tom DeLay, who suggested that the shootings at Columbine happened because schools teach students the theory of evolution. Monsters like Karl Rove, who declared that liberals wanted to offer "therapy and understanding" to terrorists. Monsters like Dick Cheney, who saw 9/11 as an opportunity to start torturing people.
And in our national discourse, we pretended that these monsters were reasonable, respectable people. To point out that the monsters were, in fact, monsters, was "shrill."

This is how hubris is born (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by ChrisO on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:34:03 PM EST

The triumphalism of the blogosphere never ceases to amaze me. Obama has a great opportunity now, based on his win and the electoral ascendancy of Dems nationwide. But I really believe that advantage comes from the uniqiue circumstances of this election, as much as any changes in demographics. Demographic shifts are important, of course. I live in Massachusetts, and have seen New Hampshire shift dramatically in a relatively short time. But, as I have said before, if we had been going through a national security crisis, rather than an economic one, this election would look very different. Obama would probabaly have won, but it wouldn't have that tidal wave feeling. The shift in the polls once the downturn happened was dramatic, and it didn't happen because a bunch of voters suddenly changed their values. This election is hard to really analyze, because we saw a particularly powerful candidate who energized his support, but one who was also running against the most failed Presidency in memory, and an opponent who turned out to be a shockingly bad campaigner.

None of this is to diminish Obama's achievement. Although I am still bitter about Hillary's treatment, there's no question Obama earned every bit of this victory. But to say this election signals a monumental change in the electorate is overreaching, IMO. I think all things being equal, Hillary would have won pretty handily, as well. But what happens the next time, even perhaps in 2012, when it's not quite so exciting,and young people don't feel like trurning out in droves to volunteer? What happens if the next Dem candidate isn't black, and black voters don't turn out in record numbers and give 95 percent of their vote to one candidate?

I'm not arrogant enough to think I can provide all of the answers here. But I'm not sure anyone else can at this early stage, either.

demonizing Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by disappointed on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:04:32 PM EST

I agree with the comment of Brian above. The NYT editorial this AM could not justly celebrate Obama's wonderful accomplishment, it had to say how he defeated "first Hillary Clinton, who wanted to be president so badly that she lost her bearings". Why this cruelty in the third paragraph. I will never understand the malice directed at her by Rich, Dowd and the editorial board. As happy as I am for Obama's great, great achievement--why is it necessary to denigrate her and her accomplishments. I, a middle-aged woman & lawyer, feel such pain over this undeserved calumny.

I hope Obama (none / 0) (#5)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:22:35 PM EST

speaks to the American people and spells out clearly the big proposals he will no doubt make. I know Bush is going to do "Something" for the middle class regarding foreclosures...But what is it? What direction are the talks going in? On this important matter, Bush's dialogue with the public is absolutely zip. He doesn't care what we think and he doesn't care if we care about what he's doing.

Kevin Drum wrote a great article in Mother Jones on this subject. It's here.

Obama's executive communication skills will be key.

: For a great model of this ... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST

he should listen to FDR's first fireside chat.
You can read it and hear it here.
I think Gordon Brown listened to this before presenting his banking plan. Some of his language was very similar to FDR.
Listen to how FDR carefully explains what he's going to do and why. And listen to how he skillfully calls for political support, and makes the public part of the solution.
One of his last sentences is this:

We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system, and it is up to you to support and make it work.

Well, the perfect... (none / 0) (#19)
by mike in dc on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:55:11 PM EST

...political ju-jitsu would be to have the reputation/appearance of being prudent and cautious, and at the same time rapidly advance bold, necessary and meaningful progressive change. Obama has a real opportunity to shift the perceived political center leftward, possibly for a whole generation. He can advance that by presenting progressive policies in a moderate light, so that the general public will say "yeah, actually that makes a whole lot of sense".

I'd also point out that infrastructure investment, alternative energy "green jobs", and UHC are all core components of his policy "package", so perhaps the worry about his approach is misplaced. I mean, he's done a pretty good job to this point. ;)

a pretty good job of what exactly? (none / 0) (#31)
by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST

That was a joke, right?


A pretty good job of getting nominated/elected... (none / 0) (#38)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST

He does that pretty well (none / 0) (#44)
by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:16:08 PM EST

but there's more to the job than that...


: Agreed. That's what I meant. (none / 0) (#46)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:32:24 PM EST

Did anyone read the comments posted (none / 0) (#53)
by 1040su on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:58:55 PM EST

in response to this article? Some of them were frightening & this one was down right disgusting & evil:

Posted by Disgruntled
17 of 77 | warn tnr | respond
To paraphrase Mrs. Obama, this is the first time in my life I have questioned the greatness of this country. The founding fathers would be shocked to see how liberals have tortured their beloved 1st Ammendment to hide the truth about Barack Obama. Now the Bad Oder will invade the White House. Thank God the founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment...

When I see these kinds of things, I get a sick feeling in my stomach. I pray every day for the Obama family & the people assigned to protect them. I think the person who wrote this should be sought out & investigated at the least.

By winning, Obama has already peaked (none / 0) (#57)
by pluege on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:37:46 PM EST

Between Obama's insider inclinations and the soon-to-be re-emergence of the Clinton howling beast stalkers as the Obama howling beast stalkers doing everything in their power to undermine Obama, and not to mention the republicans having left Obama and the Democrats the biggest pile of dung imaginable to try and cleanup after having stolen all the resources needed for the cleanup for themselves and republican cronies, its hard to fathom Obama actually accomplishing much of anything even if he wanted to.

Judis and Virginia (none / 0) (#58)
by Ellis on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:29:55 AM EST

I don't think Virginia can really be considered blue yet. It's probably more like purple and heading blueward, but it's switch to electing Democrats is still too recent (and Obama's margin too small) to say anything definitive about the future. The trend is toward blue, but...