In 2008 Barack Obama won the presidency by over 7% (52.9% to 45.7%) despite the fact that he lost the white vote 55% — 43%. In 2012 he won re-election by a margin of almost 4% (51.1% — 47.2%) despite getting clobbered among the white vote by almost 20% (59% — 39%). In 1988 Michael Dukakis won only 40% of the white vote, but instead of winning like Pres Obama did, he got destroyed, losing the vote 53% — 46%. And the reason for this is simply the changing demographics of this nation.
In fact, let’s compare the vote breakdown according to race in 1988 versus 2012.
RACE |
Dukakis 1988 |
Obama 2012 |
WHITE |
40% |
39% |
BLACK |
89% |
93% |
latinx |
70% |
71% |
ASIAN |
- |
73% |
OTHER |
- |
58% |
Those are very similar numbers right? Almost shockingly similar. The difference of course, is the relative makeup of the electorate.
RACE |
1988 |
2012 |
WHITE |
85% |
72% |
BLACK |
10% |
13% |
latinx |
3% |
10% |
ASIAN |
- |
3% |
OTHER |
- |
2% |
White voters made up only 72% of the vote in 2012, the smallest share of the electorate in history. In 2016 whites are likely to make up an even smaller percentage of the electorate — with their share of the electorate projected to fall to 69%.
So here the democrats have a relatively simple path to victory in presidential elections as quite clearly demonstrated by President Obama. Don’t get annihilated with the white vote (losing by 20% is still okay), and win about 90% of the black vote and about 70% of the latinx (and Asian) vote. These are numbers that are relatively easy for a democrat to achieve, especially against the modern republican party (if the republican party ever stopped being so beholden to its white, nativist base, then that may change in the future).
So why then should we be concerned about Trump “outflanking” Hillary? Trump is not appealing to minority voters, Trump is appealing specifically to the segment of white voters who feel threatened by multi-culturalism, globalism and the fact they they no longer have the level of influence in this country they had decades ago. There is a simple reason why Hillary Clinton doesn’t have to worry about Donald Trump outflanking her: mathematics. If she is able to turn out the Obama coalition and achieve the level of support among minority voters that Obama did in 2008 and 2012 (or even as Dukakis did in 1988) then Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.
Does the democratic party need to stop being as attached to the donor class as it has been recently? Yes. Would trade agreements be better if multinational corporations weren’t able to exploit them for obscene profit margins as they currently do? Yes. But that is a very different situation than saying we need to appeal to the angst and fears of the white working class who feel threatened by the changing global economy. America is not going back to the world where manufacturing jobs were the dominant sector of the economy. And here’s the risk of making explicit appeals to the white working class as a rear guard action against Trump — Trump’s supporters are racially animated in a way no other candidate’s supporters are. Trump appeals to them through the use of hints towards white supremacists. Appealing towards these voters on the basis of economic anxiety is foolhardy since a good deal of their support for Trump is racial based. Instead, appealing to these voters would risk alienating aspects of the Obama coalition. For example, how do you make the economic anxiety of the white working class the priority while making it seem to the much more economically disadvantaged racial minorities that you are still sensitive to their concerns?
Instead of trying to win a long lost demographic, the democratic party should instead be trying to focus on maximizing the turnout of its base.