Click on the video to activate live chat.
Most of us for too long have bought into the traditional media’s assertion of an Obama coalition. The Huffington Post article “Republicans Plot To Shatter ‘Obama Coalition’ In 2016” got me to thinking. Is there really even an Obama coalition?
President Obama won the presidency twice. Each time he won he did so by substantial margins. His 2008 winning percentages were 43, 95, 67, 62, and 66 for the white, black, Latino, Asian, and other groups respectively. His 2012 winning percentages were 39, 93, 71, 73, and 58 for the white, black, Latino, Asian, and other groups respectively.
Historically, blacks voted almost exclusively Democratic after the Dixiecrats became the core of the Republican Party (after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Younger blacks do not hold that loyalty even though their current propensity is still almost exclusively Democratic or not voting at all.
Latinos and other ethnic and cultural minorities while having a propensity to vote Democratic do not have the same type of attachment to the party based on legislative history. George W. Bush’s 2004 election is probative. His 2004 winning percentages were 58, 11, 44, 44, and 40 of the white, black, Latino, Asian, and other groups respectively.
The above numbers are electorally balanced given today’s realities. It should put a fear in every Democratic presidential candidate’s psyche. Just like Karl Rove was wrong about a permanent Republican majority in 2001, those who claim some sort of Obama coalition that guarantees a 2016 Democratic president are wrong. The “Bush coalition” of 2004 actually looks much more balanced and sustainable than the mythical Obama coalition.
All Republicans need to do to replicate the 2004 Bush coalition is to simply not act crazy. A few months back I wrote the piece “Don’t laugh but Rand Paul could be our next president” that had many calling me naive. This even as we are a country that elected an articulate actor (Reagan) and a less than intellectually competent “Yale” graduate (George W. Bush):
Rand Paul does not need to blow up the Obama coalition to win. He simply needs to skim the fat. His little excursions into the liberal base can do just that. His base is much more committed to winning and voting than our base. The Florida-13 election was probative.
It would be irresponsible if liberals do not start taking serious steps now to be inoculated on the populous flank. This will help not only in the presidential race but in every district.
The biggest fear is that if there is a coronation of a select few, many potential candidates remain undeveloped. Worse is the inability to recover from an unknown. The fact that Ronald Reagan and George Bush were elected presidents of the United States means it is not farfetched that Rand Paul could be our next president.
Rand Paul has much to say about the imbalance in incarceration rates of minorities, a subject most Democrats ignore. He has had much to say on various other issues that affect many within the “Obama Coalition.” Politico reported the following about a statement Al Sharpton made:
The Rev. Al Sharpton says Rand Paul’s efforts to engage black voters could present a strategic challenge for Democrats: If the Republican senator runs for president, fewer African Americans may be motivated to show up and vote against him.
The civil rights activist and TV host had breakfast with the Kentucky senator last week, and the pair discussed the need for criminal justice reform before disagreeing over how to deal with the immigration system.
Democrats have traditionally done well among African American voters, especially with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket. In 2016, Democrats will “need maximum black turnout in a lot of states,” Sharpton told POLITICO.
“What I think is more dangerous for Democrats is, if a guy like Paul is out there, if he becomes the nominee, for argument’s sake, he … does not generate a turnout against him” among African Americans, Sharpton said. He added, “If he’s able to neutralize his past image on civil rights, if he becomes the candidate … and if you don’t get a huge black turnout saying ‘We’re afraid [of him],’” that could be a pitfall for Democrats.
Rand Paul does not even have to be the Republican nominee; He just needs to make a few of our low information voters less apprehensive of the Republican Party. That diminishes their urgency to vote. As was evident in 2014, it does not take much.
The Democratic nominee better take on issues directly that solidifies the Democratic base. Prosperity likely will not have trickled down by November 2016 even with a seemingly good economy. The Democratic nominee will have to be unabashedly populist and anti Wall Street, the arbiters of capital extraction.They must be the embodiment of our just lost liberal orator Mario Cuomo. The nominee must bring back to life the essence of Cuomo’s 1984 keynote speech and FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights.
As elitist Democrats continue the coronation of some with the expectation that the Obama Coalition is static for their taking, a big surprise might just be in the making. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. One hopes the lesson will be learned in due time.
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
