Election Aftermath

Well now. There’s a thing.

I have spent the day so far corresponding with friends about last night’s historic win for Obama and the Democrats. Here’s a synopsis of my thoughts thus far:

1. America has changed, and is changing more. The Republicans were trounced wherever they ran up against a diverse voter base. Obama won astonishing margins amongst hispanic voters. In some places his margin of victory within that demographic was 90 – 10. Nationally his margin was 75 – 25 of latino voters. Given that this is the fastest growing demographic in America the importance of this cannot be understated. It was the hispanic vote that won him Virginia, Nevada, and Florida and ended Romney’s chances. Add to this the enormous advantage Obama had with both women and under 40 voters and the electoral college map looks grim for future Republicans. If Florida and Virginia steadily drift into the Democrat’s orbit because of the hispanic demographic, it is hard to see where the Republicans could gain an offset.
2. This is particularly true if the ‘rust belt’ states remain solidly blue. One of the major stories this election was the perception that Obama’s weakness with white working class voters would make the ring of rust belt states – Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan – a vulnerability. The auto-bailout put an end to that. Indeed Ohio’s economy has recovered more quickly than that of the nation, giving Obama a key advantage Romney could not overcome.
3. The steady mantra that Obama would lose the white vote was wrong. It broke differently in a region al pattern. In the more liberal Northeast Obama won a majority within the white population. Elsewhere he tied or lost it marginally. Only in the deep south did he get thoroughly beaten. He lost the white vote there by an astonishing 50 points. Clearly the racially charged Confederacy lives on.
4. Social conservatism and the so-called cultural wars will ebb. Right across the country a series of plebiscites and lesser elections produced defeats for social conservatives. Pro-life and right wing religious candidates for the Senate lost in erstwhile solid Republican states. Gay marriage initiatives won in three states. The Tea Party and its extreme activists have now cost the Republicans – by my count – at least five winnable Senate seats since 2010. Given that the Democrats now have a 55 – 45 majority in the Senate, it is fair to say that extremism has cost the Republicans dearly. A day of reckoning within the party is due.
5. Worse for the Republicans: whereas earlier this year they were widely tipped to win control of the Senate they actually lost ground, and – this is what stings them the most – a few of the new Democrats are more liberal than the people they are replacing. The tone of the new Democratic caucus is to the left of its predecessor. This is especially obvious in Massachusetts where a Democrat, Elizabeth Warren beat out a Republican incumbent. She is, as we all recall, the most vocal pro-consumer voice in Washington. That she now has a Senate presence is a blow to plutocracy and a boon to bank reformers. She is also, given her academic background, the Senate’s foremost expert on the economic and social issues facing the middle class.
6. As a portent of things to come: For the first time in 80 years California has a the same party with super-majority advantages in both it state Senate and House. The Republicans were trounced on the back of the Latino and minority votes. Only 30% of the population aligns with the Republicans – the lowest level ever recorded. The astonishing and steady collapse of the GOP in California is something we all need to think about. At one point it was the model and poster child for Reagan era policy making. It led the tax revolution. It was the first state to destroy its education system via deliberate defunding. It’s tax cutting was legendary and has produced an epic budget problem of Greek/Spanish proportions. And now that has all changed.
7. As for issues: it is startling to read the polls tell us that fewer than one in ten of voters worry about the budget deficit. Those who were worried about jobs voted strongly for Obama. All the media and elitist focus on the so-called fiscal cliff just doesn’t resonate with voters. They are focused on more immediate problems and want to see the deficit addressed after jobs. Likewise there is a palpable unease about inequality. The exit polls showed a decided concern about the perceived loss of opportunity and the bias in recent policy making towards big business and the wealthy. These opinions open the door to a much more progressive second term for Obama should he take the opportunity.

The sum of all this has both short term and long term implications.

The immediate focus in Washington is going to be on the fiscal cliff. This is, in my opinion, both foolish and unnecessary. Any number of legislative tricks are available to punt the problems down the road so that a more considered discussion can take place. First in that discussion ought to be the recognition that the deficit needing to be addressed – if at all – is much smaller than the total. As the economy recovers the deficit will decrease of its own accord. The big problem is within health care, and the recent reform looks set to hold that under reasonable control. Elsewhere Social Security is much less of a problem and thus the fix also less. My concern is that, in an effort to build consensus, Obama trades away unneeded reform of entitlements for tax increases or tax reform. Fortunately the leftward shift in the Senate will act as a brake on any such machinations. We are not off to a good start. This morning, Mitch McConnell already announced his implacable opposition to compromise. He put the entire onus on Obama as if the Republicans had won.

Plus ca change?

The longer term is more speculative obviously. But that demographic shift is undeniable. It will force the Republicans to be both more urgent in the near term to reach their radical goals, because if they fail, which as I have indicated is likely, they will be pushed into giving up parts of that agenda. This will cause a soul searching and a bout of ideological infighting the upshot of which may well be a series of further election losses until the extremist wing of the GOP no longer dictates to the rest of the party. I don’t think we have arrived at a moment of such reality. The more likely scenario is that the Tea Party presses for more control with a stress on allowing only ‘pure’ Republicans near the national ticket. The combination of shifting demographics and continued losses will eventually recast the Republicans – America has already changed, eventually even the GOP must catch up.

Until then the coast is clear – or clearer – for a definitive new era to emerge. The Reagan/Clinton/Bush era is now behind us. What the major characteristics of the new era will be is yet to be determined, but yesterday’s election gives us the direction in which we will move.