Ask Not Why Hillary Lost, But Why Barack Won

Now that pundits have exhausted themselves asking and answering the question, "Why did Hillary lose?" it's time to turn to the much more important question, "Why did Obama win?" Asking that question encourages a look beyond the tactics of the just concluded primary campaign to the broader strategic and historical trends that made him victorious.

Examining those trends, which we did for our book, Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics, demonstrates that the 2008 election is a realigning event marking the end of one political era and the start of another.

Historically, when these types of realignments or makeovers occur, they produce changes in the voting coalitions that support the two parties, and this year's political transition is no exception. For example, the previous realignment in 1968 shifted the South from the Democratic bastion that it had been for well over a century to a solidly Republican region, while at the same time former GOP strongholds in New England, the upper Midwest, and the Pacific Coast moved toward the Democrats.

Despite the clear historical evidence that these makeovers, which occur regularly about every forty years, are as American and normal as apple pie and baseball, many observers seem unable to recognize the changes in party coalitions that are a part of this year's political dynamic. As New York Times columnist, Frank Rich, perceptively noted, this sometimes leads commentators to ignore their own polling data. NBC did this recently when it emphasized the unwillingness of most white males to support Democrat Barack Obama -- in spite of the fact that the last time a majority of white men had voted for a Democratic presidential candidate was in 1964, prior to the last political realignment.

What NBC and others seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge is that the Democratic coalition (indeed that of both parties) continues to evolve. As the title of a recent article by Alan Abramowitz put it, "This is Not Your Father's (Or Mother's) Democratic Party." The Democratic coalition is no longer the New Deal coalition of the Deep South and urban white blue-collar workers assembled by Franklin Roosevelt. It is now a coalition heavily comprised of both the most downscale and upscale ("gentry liberal") voters; ethnic minorities, not only African-Americans, but also the rapidly growing Latino and Asian populations; and young people. Geographically, at this early point in the general election campaign Barack Obama has a solid lead in the East and Pacific Coast blue states, more than hold his own in the "swing states" of the Midwest and Florida, and is even competitive in a number of formerly red states in the upper South (Virginia and North Carolina) and West (Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada and Alaska).

What is underpinning the newly emerging Democratic coalition and propelling the unfolding political makeover are the same two elements that have produced all of America's earlier realignments: a new generation of voters and a new communication technology that mobilizes that emerging generation. The 2008 realignment is being fueled by the Millennial Generation, born 1982-2003, and the social networking communications Millennials use so well. The Millennial Generation is the largest in American history. There are nearly 100 hundred million Millennials, about 40-percent of whom will be eligible to vote in November. This will give the Millennial Generation the capacity to have as much impact in 2008 as that of the more frequently touted senior citizens (those age 65 and older).

Like their GI Generation forbearers who fueled FDR's New Deal realignment, the Millennials are a "civic" generation, focused on basic economic and foreign policy matters, rather than the cultural wars of the Baby Boomers. In the economy, Millennials are "liberal interventionists." In foreign affairs, they are "activist multilateralists."

Upwards of seven in ten Millennials agree that "government should take care of people who can't take care of themselves," favor "a bigger government that provides more services," and believe that "government should guarantee health insurance for all even if this requires raising taxes." Two-thirds of them favor increased environmental protection even at the cost of higher prices. While, like other generations, most Millennials have now come to believe that the Iraq war has hurt the fight against terror, virtually all favor active American participation in world affairs. However, they believe that such activism should be based on building international ties rather than relying primarily on U.S. military strength.

As a result of these attitudes, Millennials identify as Democrats over Republicans by a greater than 2:1 margin according to a March 2008 Pew survey. Barack Obama led John McCain among Millennials nationally by a similar ratio (54% vs. 34%) in a June 2008 Rasmussen tracking survey.

Obama and the Democrats may be assembling a new majority voting coalition, but recent surveys indicate that important numbers of some groups important in recent Democratic victories, such as white suburban women, have not yet fully warmed to the Obama candidacy. And while Obama and the Democrats hold the advantage on most issues, national security and John McCain's military and governmental experience offer McCain opportunities to win over the Millennial Generation -- if he can break decisively with current Republican Party orthodoxy. His vice presidential choice and the role George W. Bush will play at the Republican national convention in September will reveal just how much political courage this war hero will bring to the fall campaign.

Focusing on the broader historical and societal trends that helped propel Obama to victory in the primaries also makes clear the strategic path that he must take to be victorious in November. Who he chooses for vice president and how he orchestrates the Democratic National Convention will reveal whether his own campaign understands, and is willing to ride, the wave of change that has lifted his candidacy so far. A new political tide is rising. Whichever side takes advantage of the changing tide will claim victory in November -- and political dominance in America for the next four decades.

Comments

[frustratedinohio]

I think the main reason Obama has done so well is because he is new. He appears to have a clean slate, but that is only because he hasn't been around very long. Of course that's not the only reason he's been so successful, but I believe it's the biggest reason. Using that logic it would be wise for any young, good-looking, charismatic, intelligent politician, still wet behind the ears, to run for the presidency. They certainly do stand out against the same ones we see year after year.

Secondly, I have to agree with Geraldine Ferraro, being black has helped him. It's given him a kind of novelty appeal. It's helped him in another way to stand out against the typical white guy. It also garnered for him the best press and media immunity that anyone has ever seen. Whether out of fear or sympathy, he has been handled with velvet gloves. I know that will sound racist to some, as it did when she said it, but I believe history will settle on this perspective.

[orangepetal]

Obama won because of the money , the media infactuation, and the public anger for President Bush.
He is a projector, he has mentors that I pray will not be honored guests in the White House and requested to councel on matters of public policy. His campaign pushed lies to young voters and he really has no experience to be making the kind of decisisions he will be expected to make daily. Decisions that will effect the daily lives of millions.

[Danigirl65]

Media infatuation?? I suppose Reverend Wright and "bitter" was media infatuation? Weeks were spent on these topics during major (Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania) primary contests. Show me the media infatuation with Obama past February. While you're at it, explain Teflon John and the inability for the media to exploit his flip-flopping mis-speaks. Talk about media infatuation!!

While you're at it, explain the lack of experience Obama has. I've grown tired of this argument. Does being only 46 give him lack of experience?? Although he is a junior U.S. Senator, he served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years. Yes, I realize that still puts him behind McCain in years served but experience does not necessarily signify wisdom.

[frustratedinohio]

Inexperience definitely signifies a lack of wisdom.

[mengwise36]

You need to pick an argument and stick with it. Are you arguing FOR more experience or AGAINST it? Or is your argument "Obama has the perfect experience therefore any thing more than his is too much and anything less than his is too little"?

Obama's lack of experience is such: He spent about 8 years on the IL State Senate but 6 of those 8 years saw Republican control and he did not accomplish much regardless what he claims. In the last year when the Democrats took control, the party elder gave other people's proposal to him so he can push them through, with or without Republican support. That is how he built his resume, 8 years worth of "accomplishments" in 1 year.

Close your eyes and imagine you have such a co-worker: He does not work hard to get things done but the boss takes your project and let him finish it and claim his own because the boss wants to give him a promotion. He gets promoted and immediately starts to work on the next promotion instead of doing the work he was supposed to do. Would you support him?

[hopeless277]

Obama won by LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT HIS SUPPORT FOR THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Evidence? FISA.

[SixtiesRebel]

Your caretaker didn't come in yet? Help is on the way!

[Russycle]

I agree with hopeless. If Obama caves on FISA, and it sure sounds like he will, I don't think I can support him.

[chitown8]

What's your alternative Nader, Mccain. He told us that we will not be pleased with him and might not like some of the decisions he makes but if we stick with him threw the long haul it would be worth it. He can not go left of the Dems in the House he would be outsted ASAP.

[MrKINOKO]

Just checked your profile.....never seen so much useless banter and rhetoric together in one sitting. Almost made my eyes bleed. Shouldn't you be fetching Karl Rove his pipe and slippers or something?

[Syco]

do you need a hug???

they have jackets for that

[MBryant]

Obama's best qualification for chief executive, commander-in-chief, and leader of the free world is the extremely well-planned, perferctly executed, and mostly high-road campaign. He has been patient and upbeat. He has responded attacks and brushfires, but not been forced into anything. He played the "game" better than the Clintons who were thought the masters and out-fund raised, out-registered, out-caucused and out-everythinged them. There are numerous stories about his telling his staff and key supporters to stay on target and keep patient. He has used proxies well. It is already one of the best campaigns I've ever seen or heard about.

By contrast McCain has always been a campaign stumbler. He stumbled into this one by being the least problematic and most moderate of a very weak Republican field.

In the end, this one won't be about the California-style moderate Republican turned NeoCon vs. the liberal Chicago machine guy turned SLC moderate Dem, or about the old guy vs. the black guy, or maybe even about the war, or healthcare or the environmnet or the economy. I expect Obama to just win this thing by just doing it better.

If he can beat the Clintons, McCain should be cake...

[mengwise36]

He beat the Clintons by being ultra liberal, black, and "agent of change". That got him the left-wing votes, the black votes, and the young votes.

Against McCain, it will not be a cake walk. It will be Dem against Rep. Since most of the swing voters voted for Hillary, he will have a tough time getting them back. All McCain has to do is play the "bitter" comment in OH and PA over and over to win those and the Rev. Wright thing in the south, including VA. If he can hold the south including VA and OH, PA and FL, he can afford to loose some of the Mid West states and still win.

Never under estimate your opponent. The Clintons did with Obama and lost.

[coolmama4obama]

I like your thinking - just doing it bettter. It has been so long sincd we had an example of any leader doing their job better! Obama's campaign and choice of staff and mentors is indicative of hopw he will run the White House when he is elected.

[Tommygun264]

Now there you go again - interjecting well considered opinions and facts.

[Danigirl65]

Very well thought out and executed response MBryant. Don't see many of them and have to applaud them when I see them.

Well done!!