Democrats are the majority party. I don't care what the talking heads say on Fox News, we are the majority party. We have lost the last two election cycles because of a) fraud, b) high conservative turnout, and c) weak Democratic campaigns.
But we can change that. This diary is not going to be another one about how we need to move left, or move center, or move right, or who's the best man (or woman) in 2008. This is about something bigger, something that will have a big impact on 2006.
That is this: what's the future of the Democratic coalition?
More below the jump...
There have been a lot of changes in our party's coalition during its existence. From the Civil War through the 1920's, we had a pathetically small, but loyal, coalition that mostly consisted of southern whites and western libertarians. We would lose the national vote badly, but goddamit we'd win South Carolina...boy would we win South Carolina, with literally 99% of the vote sometimes.
Then, Roosevelt changed things. He knit together a brilliant (though fragile) coalition consisting of the traditional southern base, the big cities of the North (traditionally Republican territory during the Gilded Age), Big Labor, and minorities. It was perfect, and Roosevelt won landslides all four times.
During the 1950's, the nature of the coalition changed. Franklin-mania was done, and Americans were getting nice and comfy with their daddy, Eisenhower. The suburbs, especially, trended Republican, leaving the Democrats with the Deep South, Labor, and a few really big cities, but mostly in the wilderness everywhere else. This is when Sun Belt migration and white flight began. Eisenhower managed to win Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, and Virginia - all traditional Democratic strongholds - in 1952.
1960 again reshaped things. The presence of a New England Catholic at the top of the ticket meant inroads into Republican territory. Kennedy managed to win much of the moderate Northeast (though not deep red Vermont, New Hampshire, or Maine) and 78% of the Catholic vote, and set up the new state of Hawaii as a Democratic stronghold. Yet Nixon's southern strategy (employed even more aggressively eight years later) chipped away further at the South and handed the California Republican Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Kennedy also did badly in the West. He ended up eking out a victory on fraud in Illinois and Texas (sorry, that's what happened!).
By 1968, the South was surely trending GOP, with Humphrey only managing Texas and West Virginia. But, Humphrey's strength up North (in the Great Lakes especially) kept it close.
The 1970's largely continued previous trends, except that the Midwest began trending Democratic - Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin established themselves as the hub of Democratic strength in the heartland.
1980 was realigning not only in Reagan's win, but in other things. Reagan made big inroads into Catholics and Jews, but '80 also provided the first noticeable gender gap, with women picking Carter by a tiny margin and men picking Reagan hugely.
Finally, 1988 and 1992 brought us where we are today, with Dukakis showing convincing strength among Latinos and in western states, and with Clinton bringing us states we hadn't seen in a long time - California, Vermont, New Hampshire, Nevada, Illinois, etc. - as well as making big inroads with suburbanites and the educated.
The coalition today is not much different from 1992 except that it is much weaker. Catholics have moved to Republicans slightly, but only slightly. Jews, Latinos, women, and blue-collar types have gotten more Republican. Blue-collar types have in fact moved to the GOP column (not necessarily permanently though), but the others have simply gotten less Dem:
Jews - 79-19 for Gore, 74-25 for Kerry
Latinos - 62-35 for Gore, 53-44 for Kerry
Women - 54-43 for Gore, 51-48 for Kerry
All this said, what is the future of our coalition? How can we return to the glory coalition of 1932, or at least 1992?
It seems to me that this is one case where we should look to the past for inspiration. Rather than try to win the impossible (evangelicals, rich people...), why not simply reassert dominance with our base? There is evidence that Latinos and women, two groups that got wimpy in 2004 (Latinos only 53-44 for Kerry despite being 62-35 for Gore, and women 51-48 for Kerry but 54-43 for Gore), are coming back - that "security moms" are coming back to being "soccer moms". I think that the key to doing well in 2006 is this:
- big turnout in the cities
- 55% of the female vote and 60% of the Latino vote
- inroads into Catholics, suburbanites, and the middle class
But beyond 2006, the key may be closer to home - in the labor unions. Unions, once the backbone of big city Democratic machines like Chicago, NYC, and Kansas City, have been so weakened in the last 40 years that it has badly hurt Democratic power. But unions have proven to be excellent conversion machines, and they were the most important element of Roosevelt's win. Union members voted 61-38 for Kerry last year. But there are so few of them now that it had little impact. So what do we do?
It is a long-term issue to get the power back into unions and away from big business. Without big business, would Bush have had enough $ to steal in 2000 and 2004? No.
So, reversing the union situation would be very helpful in money raising and conversion. Also, it could get our party a lot more organized.
Therefore, I believe we must a) reverse the union situation, b) do better than we've been doing with our base demographics, and c) make inroads into GOP-leaning swing groups like Catholics and suburbanites.
Thoughts?