If you figure in the Hispanics whose contribution to him was roughly, by memory, 80% of 12% or 9.6% of the electorate, that means that Obama got about 34 % of the non-African-American, non-Hispanic vote. I have no idea how much of this 9.6% Hispanic vote is likely to defect. In order to get our 3.7 points, one third of Hispanics will have to defect and I think that is unrealistically optimistic.
Jews, 3% of the population, produced a 70 to 80% result for Obama which means 2% to 2 1/2 points. Despite Israel, we are dealing with a stiff necked bunch of generational liberals and I don't see too much movement there.
We can turn the equation over and say that of Obama's 34% non-African-American, non-Hispanic vote, of which he can afford to lose nearly 4% (3.7 points), the Jewish vote for him is probably relatively stable. The Hispanic vote for him is probably relatively stable. Between the two groups it is anybody's guess how much attrition Obama will sustain. 1%, 2%, 3%? Relative stability is not good enough for Obama. He cannot expect those numbers to hold, the question is how much attrition will sustain?
So let us look at the 34% of the white vote that Obama got last time. How stable is this? Can we find 3% 2% 1% here? I think so. In other words Obama's share of the white vote can go down to 30% but not, I fear, much less. In addition to Jews who traditionally vote Democrat and can be counted on to do so again, despite Israel, there are gays, another 3% of the population, who are unlikely to desert Obama, and women. Unmarried women, especially unmarried women with children, are in the Obama camp but might they might actually be the ultimate battleground in the election. Can Republicans find a few percentage points among unmarried white women, or even unmarried Hispanic women?
I think that has a lot to do with how women in this class regard the healthcare issue. Certainly, they are a lot less worried about socialism than they are worried about their kids. It is the women of America who must take care of grandma at the end if they cannot afford a home. Women are preoccupied with healthcare to a far greater degree than men. I think it is important for Republicans not to neglect the security side of the healthcare debate which influences this demographic. Somehow, Republicans have got to find the vocabulary and the metaphor that appeals to unmarried white women with kids and apply it to the healthcare debate.
Returning to the numbers, white women make up about half of the 34% white vote that Obama got or 17%. I don't how many of these are unmarried with kids but I would wager that a disproportionate amount of them will be found to have voted for Obama. Can 1%, 2%, 3% be found here? Can one say that if the issue can be phrased correctly to appeal to unmarried white women with kids it ought to apply with some effectiveness to unmarried Hispanic women with kids?
Before we leave off thinking about the numbers, we have got to understand that none of this is static. The shape of the electorate will have changed by 2012 with more and more immigrants being naturalized and voting Democrat. In addition, there is no gauging right now what the intensity factor among whites will be in 2010 or 2012. The intensity factor was maximized for African-American voters in 2008 and it is unlikely that that fever pitch will be maintained in 2010. On the other hand, depending on how the rats cope with their debacle in healthcare, whites are now increasingly energized and the momentum is in that direction.
I think there is something to the argument that the healthcare uprising is a symptom, a metaphor, for the disapproval of spending and nationalization which is out of control. If that is true then the Obama brand is in trouble and the Democrat brand is in trouble and it will be very difficult to put the Humpty Dumpty of healthcare back together again because that is not the whole problem. A good portion of the electorate now feels that it has been defrauded in a bait and switch and one cannot put lipstick on healthcare and change that basic conviction.
I said before the last election that Barack Obama had to be morally destroyed if we were not to be overwhelmed at the polls in 2008. John McCain shrank from that imperative. The Republicans in general have shrunk from that imperative. Only talk radio has taken up the crusade. Oh, and one more player, Barack Obama himself has done a great deal to undermine the top-heavy construct that put him in office. White guilt which got Obama that precious 3% to 4% of the white electorate is evaporating by the second. It has now at last become possible to criticize Obama and even to talk of black racism, although one continues to run a risk, albeit reduced, of social oblique. The guilt is being replaced inexorably by resentment. That is a sea change which Obama and the Democrats can never undo, certainly not by tweaking healthcare.
That is what I mean by morally destroying Barack Obama. The electorate must be brought to understand that their generosity of spirit over the issue of race in America as embodied in the person of Barack Obama was cynically presumed upon and betrayed.
This game is an endlessly changing and fascinating enigma.
