Democratic coalitions are built with low-income voters, not just affluent liberals and the netroots.

[NJSecularist]

Low-income voters are an essential part of our coalition. They are usually the reason why we win the presidency, and when the Republicans pick up larger than average support from these voters, it is the reason why we lose.

Let's look at 1996 for an example:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

Less than $15,000 – 11% of the electorate: Clinton 59, Dole 28
$15000-$30,000 – 23% of the electorate: Clinton 53, Dole 36
$30000-$50,000 – 27% of the electorate: Clinton 48, Dole 40

These low-income voters were 61% of the electorate in 1996. Clinton carried 53% of them. Dole carried 34% of them. With just these low-income voters, Clinton won 33% of the vote. He won 49% total in the 1996 election.

Now, let's look at the $50,000+ coalition, the Republican coalition, also the coalition that Obama is putting together in the primaries:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html
$50,000-$75000 – 21% of the electorate: 47 Clinton, 45 Dole
$75,000-$100,000 – 9% of the electorate: 44 Clinton, 48 Dole
Over $100,000 – 9% of the electorate: 38 Clinton, 54 Dole

These voters, considered more of the higher end in our society, consisted of 39% of the electorate. Clinton won 43% of their vote, Dole won 49% of their vote. Bill Clinton earned 17% of his total 49% with these voters. For all intents and purposes, these voters are part of the Rethug coalition. We can reasonably expect around Obama to earn 15% of his total vote from these high-income voters. But that is not good enough. This is not our coalition. It never has been.

Our nominee needs to be able to tap into the low-income voter. Kerry earned 57% of their vote in 2004. Bush earned 43% of the low-income vote in the same election. Bill Clinton won the low-income vote by 19% and Kerry only won it by 14%. We need a nominee who will get us closer to 19% than 14%. What does it say about our chances when we have a frotrunner who has showed very little ability in the general to tap into our main coalition? It's nice that Obama can appeal to affluent liberals, activists and the netroots, but they are a small part of our coalition. He also needs to appeal to Latinos and Asian-Americans too, constituencies that Obama has had a hard time courting. The only support Obama has been able to court consistently has been latte-liberals, blacks and party activists. That is simply not good enough. If Obama bleeds support from our core constituencies, we could be heading to a McGovern-esque blowout.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1. Whatever you say, jackson_dem.

[guyanakoolaid]

11. Are you saying the original poster is a sock puppet of jackson_dem?

?

[melody]

16. If they aren't, I am n/t

[jefferson_dem]

28. Bingo.

[BootinUp]

30. Someone who easily accuses another of sock puppetry

stikes me as a probable offender.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. Without the AA vote, Hillary cannot win. Sorry.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Some people apparently think you can't have both - at least not with Obama.

[NJSecularist]

5. Who are they going to vote for? The Rethugs?

With 12% black turnout, even if they break 70-30 towards Hillary, she will still win the election.

[GarbagemanLB]

7. They will sit out. You don't understand the current situation, apparently.

This is an historic primary, and Obama has essentially sealed the win in terms of pledged delegates. An overturning of that will rightfully be seen as a stealing of the nomination. Good luck getting AAs (not to mention youth) to turn out in such a scenario.

[NJSecularist]

10. 10% of blacks will turnout out regardless.

Even if they vote 70-30 Hillary, she will still win the election.

Are you telling me 0% blacks will show up on Election Day? In your dreams.

[GarbagemanLB]

12. You are telling me that if only 10% of AAs turn out, plus a drastic reduction in youth turnout, plus

Hillary's already SKY HIGH negatives, those factors will lead to a Hillary win? Sorry, but you are dreaming.

[NJSecularist]

15. We won in 1996 with 17% youth turnout.

We can survive without their large turnout. They should be at 20%, but they never are.

[GarbagemanLB]

17. What exactly were Bill's negatives in 96?

[NJSecularist]

20. Most likely just as high as Hillary's.

You guys keep hanging onto that negatives meme. It's really the only electability argument Obama has.

[scheming daemons]

35. Bad analogy.... 3-person race.... Ross Perot got 11%

The Big Dawg doesn't win big in a 2-person race in 96.... and doesn't likely win at all in a 2-person race in 92.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. You do realize Bill Clinton never won a majority of voters?

He won by pluralities both times, thanks to 3rd party candidates.

[smiley_glad_hands]

3. I'll leave you to your post, you obviously spent some time on it. eom

[dorktv]

6. My mom should not be forgotten, neither should my sister.

Senator Obama also has little appeal for me (never found him all that interesting in person, still do not and his supporters have driven me away.)

[emilyg]

24. You're not alone.

[JI7]

8. when liberals themselves start using terms like "latte liberal"

yeah , that really helps.

[guyanakoolaid]

9. Exactly. Capital E.

:puke:

[cliffordu]

13. I just love threads treading on the edge of out and out racism

without having the balls to just say "cant win cause he's black..."

Oughta be ashamed of yourself. I am.

[ClassWarrior]

14. The adjective is Democratic. The noun is Democrat. We use proper English here.

Unlike other sites.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

18. Wow, that was a quick edit! Can't let anyone suspect anything, can we?

:evilgrin:

NGU.

[Kool Kitty]

19. Could you please explain to me what "Latte Liberal"

is exactly? I am a liberal that likes latte. Is there something wrong with me?

[NJSecularist]

22. I changed it to affluent liberal if it offended anybody.

A latte liberal is an affluent liberal in my mind.

[Kool Kitty]

23. You don't have to be affluent to drink latte.

Since you're from NJ, like me, then you may know that you can get latte at any Dunkin' Donuts. (Unless you're not from Jersey, than I apologize for assuming that from your nick.) I certainly am NOT affluent, that's for sure. I think the problem with the phrase is that it is one that Hannity or Limbaugh might use to describe liberals, like it is a curse.

[GoldieAZ49]

26. it references the Liberal Elite - it does not mean all latte drinkers

In the United States, the lifestyle of the liberal elite is often considered noteworthy.<1><2> The liberal elite are often characterized as having an affinity for coffeehouses and European cultures, especially the culture of France. French cheeses and wines, expensive coffee<3>, and foreign films are often associated with the liberal elite. This association can be applied to suggest that someone is unpatriotic, and disdainful of American life and culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_elite

[Kool Kitty]

39. Good. I'm glad to know that it doesn't

refer to me. I won't take offense to it anymore. I just hate to hear the right-wing talking points used to refer to Democrats.

[Muttocracy]

21. If you're going to try to make this argument you need to consider 2 more things

1) Perot in 1996 (some of your categories above sum to << 100%)

2) Some data supporting your assertion that Obama is the candidate of the higher income voters. I've seen some of that in exit polls in some states, just saying that you should back up your argument with the data.

[GoldieAZ49]

25. They also do not 'owe' the party their vote

They are not and will not be held hostage to the party if they do not like the candidate.

The 'hold your nose and vote for the nominee' is only applicable to party loyalist, which is not the majority of voters.

[datopbanana]

27. HOW DENSE CAN YOU BE? lol.....

The "Democratic coalition" is also built on AA support.

Because HRC can't win the AA vote in the primaries, does that mean she won't win them in the GE?

geeeeeeeeeeeez............

[FrenchieCat]

29. Your argument goes to the wayside...with the article in Thursday's NYT.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5661889

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Demographics have changed since 1996

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Under $50,000 was only 45% of the electorate in 2004. Kerry won under $50,000 by 11 points and lost over $50,000 by 13 points.

Kerry also lost every education demographic except for no high school diploma (he on that one by one point) and people with post-graduate education.

[NJSecularist]

32. Well, it will likely change every 4 years.

I chose the last election that we won. I suppose I could have chose 2000 instead, however.

We can't afford to break even in the lower than $50000 demographic. Increasing the margins of victory in that demographic is how we win elections.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. If Kerry had kept Clinton's margins in the $50,000 demographic he would've gotten 50.6%

If he had kept Clinton's margins in the working class demographic he would've gotten 50.2%.

[democrattotheend]

34. Kerry earned 57% of ALL low income voters. He lost the WHITE working class.

Whites making under $50,000 favored Bush 53-47. Kerry also lost white women, Catholics, and seniors, groups that the media has falsely been calling "core Democratic voters". I am not saying Obama doesn't need to do well with these groups in the fall, but Axelrod was correct in pointing out that they have not always voted Democratic. For more analysis, check out the blog post I did on this: http://purplestatepundit.com/blog/election08/is-clinton-really-winning-core-democrats/

At some point I will go back and do the same analysis for 2000. I realized after the fact that that might be a better comparison, since Gore won the popular vote.

[nichomachus]

36. Another scenario

If Obama bleeds support from our core constituencies, we could be heading to a McGovern-esque blowout.

Or, if the Hillary Corps trashes Obama enough with Rovian slime and Swift Boat tactics, which she's already started, he could be defeated, which would then leave way for her to try again in 2012.

[ProfessorPlum]

38. Democrat-IC coalitions

Please use the proper form for the adjective. Thanks