Breakdown of 2010 vote- Obama's dilemma with white voters

Looking at the results of the midterms, it looks like Democrats were only able to attract 37% of whites. Blacks voted 9 to 1 and Hispanics 2 to 1 in favor of democrats.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1790/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-hispanic-vote

There is no way that Obama can win in 2012 without attracting more support from whites. The dilemma is how? If he veers too far left, he will lose even more white support, but this at the expense of his base. That is disaster.

My opinion is that he needs to strike a populist tone, clearly and unequivocally against corporate bailouts. This includes FNM and FRE. Moreover, he has to stay clear of any bailouts of state governments, whether for schools and the general fund.

I predict that he will have a perversely seminal moment to strike such a pose when it comes to California. California owes the federal government about $8 billion with respect to its unemployment benefits fund. Additionally, Californians passed prop 26 which limited the ability to raise taxes AND fees unless by a supermajority. In short, California is on the fast track to insolvency.

Since California's electorate is demographically favorable to Democrats, such a stance will do little to injure him there. The groups frankly have shown no inclination to vote anything but Democrat, so their vote is assured. As Obama stated, voters are tribal when under "siege". In short, he can let California upheave, stand resolute as it does so and in the end, he'll still capture California's electoral vote. In the eyes of white mid-westerners and southerners, his stance is a clear winner.

"If he veers too far left, he will lose even more white support, but this at the expense of his base. That is disaster."

:rofl:

n/t.

going against the republican party

Even in 1994, Dems only lost to Republicans by 16 points.

This past Tuesday, they got beat by 22 points.

This is why the Republicans won such convincingly across local, state and federal offices.

Those who liked segregation for example. They turn out disproportionately in every midterm and they don't like Obama. In the 2008 primaries, OH and PA for example, 65+ whites tured out overwhelmingly for Hillary The reverse was and is true of 18 -29s who skip the midterms.

was the makeup of the electorate. This year's electorate split their vote between Obama and McCain two years ago even though Obama won that race by 7 points.

EOM.

42% would probably be enough to win, given the ever growing number of Hispanics in the electorate.

No Democrat has won an outright majority of the white vote since LBJ.

Welcome to DU.
:popcorn:

As DaveinMD pointed out, the changed electorate was the sole story in 2010. In a presidential year, single white women and young voters will crawl out, boosting Obama's white share even if economic conditions do not improve much, if at all.

However, I should caution that 39% still equates to a loss, given logical distribution elsewhere. The tipping point is 41%, perhaps 40.5% if Hispanics surge in the same percentage as 2004 to 2008. I always try to be cautious in those projections.

Obama's problem is he doesn't have two full years. Anyone who says he has two years is prancing along with flawed conventional wisdom, oft repeated in the media. Obama has 18-20 months. Every model that ties economic indicators to presidential outcomes screams the focal point is early to mid summer, not early November. Voters have long since made up their mind about an incumbent and his economy in the fall. An incumbent with his party in power only one term has enormous benefit of a doubt, but not at 9.5-10% unemployment.

We can't rely on a GOP nominee with masochistic tendencies, imploding down the stretch.

And I hope Plouffe and Axelrod grasp the urgency of early. Like Obama, they seem to show up late and think it's swell. Primaries can be tilted down the stretch. They've never demonstrated any understanding that their 2008 success was ridiculously over hyped. The base was determined to distrust Hillary due to her Iraq vote. Anyone can play with that type of edge. The winner flumed into the most pro-Democratic general election wave in generations. This time you tame public opinion in 2011 and early/mid 2012, or not at all.

It really depends on the economy. If the housing market stabilizes, and job growth picks up a bit by early 2011 President Obama will be fine. He'll attract enough of the white vote to win reelection. If things stay like they are currently--or even get worse--then he's going to be in trouble.

It's midterms and they have the whole day off to go and vote. Those who grew up liking segregation won't vote for him.

When he is, he'll do just fine. His ratings are higher than the Congresspeople and Senators who WERE on the ballot.

That would have been back in 1964.

:eyes: I'll be sure to report to a re-education center first thing in the morning.

And will gladly vote against their best interests to keep status quo. Thank goodness for the young vote...even if it is unreliable.
Obama might be in trouble for '12...most of those young people have lost that hope because Obama has been more corporatist and not about real change.

and your evidence for this is?

How do you know how many young people voted? Do you have to put your age on your ballot?

While the evidence is in, that we clearly did not have the voters that we did in 2008, obviously.
One cannot make any assumptions with that whatsoever.
The Midterms NEVER have the turnout that General Elections do.
If as you say it's about Obama, well he wasn't on the ballot.