Feb. 7, 2016 SIGN IN | REGISTER

This Is Not Your Father’s Democratic Party

For anyone old enough to remember Bucky Dentís memorable home run in the 1978 Yankees-Red Sox playoff, the current makeup and political strategy of the Democratic Party has to seem very odd.

No, this isnít your grandfatherís (or even your fatherís) Democratic Party, and while that was an asset in 2006 and 2008, it very definitely looks like a problem in 2012.

Just four or five decades ago, Democratic strategists could count on an army of working-class voters and union members to turn out to support the partyís nominees, tapping on a deep party loyalty that developed out of the Great Depression. While WASPs and the rich hated President Franklin Roosevelt, that animosity didnít drive American politics.

But over the past few decades the New Deal generation passed away, President Ronald Reagan transformed our politics, the union movement shrunk noticeably, white voters as a percentage of the total electorate dropped significantly and both economic and social issues evolved.

How those changes have affected our politics becomes stunningly clear after talking to Democratic operatives and strategists, who see their best opportunities in 2012 as centering on states and Congressional districts populated by Hispanics, African-Americans, upscale white liberals, suburban voters and the young.

Even after Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblinís narrow victory in West Virginia last week, Democratic strategists seem to acknowledge that their party has lost downscale white voters ó particularly those in rural areas ó for 2012.

President Barack Obama, of course, did relatively poorly with those voters in the 2008 Democratic primary race against Hillary Rodham Clinton, and he continued to underperform with those same voters in the general election.

As a terrific New York Times graphic showed after the 2008 elections, the GOP presidential vote increased by more than 20 percent from 2004 to 2008 in a swath of counties stretching roughly from southwestern Pennsylvania down through West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, much of Tennessee, Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma, all the way to northeast Texas.

The same pattern showed up in northeast Alabama, northwest Florida and parts of Georgia. Itís probably no accident that the Democratsí best chances of winning GOP-held Senate seats are in Massachusetts and Nevada, while the GOPís best chances are in states such as Missouri and Montana, swing states with substantial rural voters. Both states have been moving toward Republicans in recent decades.

The Democratsí problem with downscale whites is even more apparent in the presidential race. If states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan really are in play, as many now believe, it is because it is precisely those voters who are likely to defect from the Democratic ticket next year.

After years of talking about the partyís opportunities in the South (and crowing about victories in 2006 and 2008), Democratic insiders now appear lukewarm to the partyís prospects in a huge swath of the Southeast beginning just south of Virginiaís Washington, D.C., suburbs through the Carolinas and Georgia to Alabama and Mississippi. Tennessee, Kentucky and Louisiana also fall into that category. Even Arkansas remains a question mark.

Instead, Democratic insiders suggest that the fight for the House will rest in suburban districts, including Republican-held seats in the Philadelphia, Chicago and New York suburbs, where the president may be more popular and a wide range of issues may benefit Democratic candidates.

comments powered by Disqus




Want Roll Call on your doorstep?