Sam Roberts has a New York Times report on a new Pew Research Center analysis of November election voting data. The Pew Research Center analysis adds some interesting detail to what was known about the historic election. First, the African American vote and turnout:

The longstanding gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year…Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record….for the first time, black women turned out at a higher rate than any other racial, ethnic and gender group.
Despite widespread predictions of record voter turnout last November, the overall rate was virtually the same as in 2004. But the composition of the electorate changed. The turnout among eligible whites declined slightly, by 1.1 percent, but rose by 4.9 percent among blacks…In 2004, the gap between white and black turnout rates was nearly seven percentage points. It was less than one percentage point four years later.

But it isn’t just the Black vote that turned the election;

…The number of eligible Hispanic voters has soared by more than 21 percent since 2004, a reflection of population gains and growing numbers of Hispanics who are citizens. Their share of eligible voters increased to 9.5 percent, from 8.2 percent four years earlier. In 2008, for the first time, the share of white non-Hispanic eligible voters fell below 75 percent.

And the current electorate looks like this:

The Pew analysis found that whites constituted 76.3 percent of the record 131 million Americans who voted last November. Blacks accounted for 12.1 percent, Hispanic voters for 7.4 percent and Asians for 2.5 percent. Together, black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up 22 percent of the voters, compared with about 12 percent in 1988.

All of which is close in keeping with the arguments advanced by TDS co-editor Ruy Teixeira and John Judis in their book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” and in a more recent book edited by Teixeira, “Red, Blue, and Purple America: The Future of Election Demographics“. Some may argue that the ’08 election was an exception because of the uniqueness of the Obama phenomenon, leading to a sort of ‘chicken and egg’ argument. But even after conceding his effect on increasing turnout among people of color, Obama didn’t create the demographic trends that made his election possible.
In a recent interview with Teixeira posted at the Center for American Progress web pages, he had more to say about demographic change that benefits Democrats:

There are a variety of ways in which America has changed demographically and geographically in the last 20 years that have sent things in a more progressive direction. One of the biggest changes is the decline of the white working class, which is the most conservative element of the population, really. According to exit poll data, the percent of white working class voters is down 15 points in the last 20 years, whereas minority voters who lean pretty heavily progressive are up 11 points, and white collar graduates who have been shifting progressive rapidly in the last couple of decades, they’re up four points. So that’s a big change. Other changes that are important are the professionals, which is a growing occupational group, have shifted pretty heavily toward progressives. Single women, another growing group that has shifted toward progressives, and of course there’s this burgeoning millennial generation, which is adding about 4 million people to the eligible voter pool every year. These are people born after 1978. They’re very heavily progressive, as we saw in the last election. They voted 66 to 32 for Barack Obama. So those are just some of the changes that, in a demographic sense, are making the country much more progressive.

Teixeira explains that it’s not all about demographics, because much of the electorate is to a great extent tiring of the GOP’s insistence that the ‘free market’ is the panacea for all America’s problems. Teixeira cites a growing belief among the electorate that government can help address some social and economic problems. But he holds that demographic trends will continue to favor Democrats:

if we look at these demographic trends and how they’re unfolding, you don’t see very much that actually strengthens the conservatives’ case or the conservatives’ prospects. Pretty much all the demographic trends are going to continue moving in progressive directions for the next 20 years. Just as one obvious example, we’re going to become an increasingly diverse society over time. By the year 2023, the majority of children will be minorities, people under eighteen. By the year 2042, we’ll be a majority minority nation… We’re going to see continuing increases in the proportion of single women; we’re going to see even the millennial generation, as I mentioned earlier, adding about 4 million eligible voters to the voter pool every year until the year 2018. So I think if you put these things together…the potential is there for a durable and pretty strong progressive majority looking pretty far out into the future.

If President Obama and the Democratic majority of congress can secure needed reforms that produce significant progress for Americans of all races — admittedly a big “if” — the demographic trends that are in motion should insure growing majorities of American voters supporting Democratic candidates in the years ahead.

TDS co-editor Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin, both senior fellows and co-directors of the Progressive Studies Program at the Center for American Progress (CAP) have a co-written post up at The American Prospect, discussing new studies by CAP’s Progressive Studies program which debunk the conservative myth that the U.S. a ‘center right’ nation. The two new studies, “The State of American Political Ideology, 2009” (See also Andrew Levison’s two part TDS strategy memo on this study here and here) and “New Progressive America,” address beliefs and demographic trends. In a core graph, the authors note:

The 2008 presidential election not only solidified partisan shifts to the Democratic Party, it also marked a significant transformation in the ideological and electoral landscape of America. In two major studies of American beliefs and demographic trends–the State of American Political Ideology, 2009 and New Progressive America, both conducted by the Progressive Studies Program at the Center for American Progress–we found that the president’s agenda reflects deep and growing consensus among the American public about the priorities and values that should guide our government and society. Not surprisingly, conservatives are the ones who are out of line with the values of most Americans

The studies indicated that the U.S. is essentially an evenly divided nation in terms of political ideology, segmented into roughly equal ‘liberal/progressive’, ‘moderate/other’ and ‘conservative/liberarian’ thirds. Interestingly, however, only 35 percent of self-decribed conservatives rated the term ‘libertarian’ favorably and follow-up questions to moderates indicate they lean equally toward progressive and conservative views. So much for the “America is a center-right nation” meme. Halpin and Teixeira also provide a revealing analysis of responses to a series of 40 statements reflecting conservative and liberal ideas:

Nearly 80 percent of Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth.” Overall, the unanimity of opinion found on this issue is rare, showing that conservatives are out of step with the rest of the country in opposing new government investments. More than two in three Americans agree that “government has a responsibility to provide financial support for the poor, the sick, and the elderly,” while 15 percent are neutral and another 15 percent disagree. Democrats remain almost unanimously supportive, and independents lean strongly toward this progressive position. A slim majority of Republicans similarly agree.
While conservative elites have long held government regulation as an impediment to economic growth, nearly three in four Americans disagree, believing instead that “government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers.” Once again, there is surprising partisan and ideological harmony among Americans, with agreement topping 60 percent among both Republicans and conservatives. Seventy-six percent of Americans also agree with the president’s argument that “America’s economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar,” with 12 percent neutral and just 11 percent who say such a transformation is not needed. A major pillar of Obama’s economic vision, and the key to his cost-containment strategies, is ensuring affordable health coverage for all Americans. Nearly 65 percent of Americans are on board with this goal, including 44 percent who strongly agree that “the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American.”

The authors’ demographic analysis is all good news for Dems:

The share of black, Asian, and Hispanic voters in presidential elections has risen by 11 percentage points, while the share of increasingly progressive, white, college-graduate voters has risen by four points. But the share of white working-class voters, who have remained conservative in their orientation, has plummeted by 15 points. This pattern is repeated in state after state, helping to send these areas in a progressive direction. For example, in Pennsylvania the white working-class population declined by 25 points between 1988 and 2008, while white college graduates rose by 16 points and people of color rose by 8 points. And in Nevada, the white working class is down 24 points over the same time period, while voters of color are up an astounding 19 points and white college graduates are up by 4 points…By 2050, the country will be 54 percent people of color as Hispanics double from 15 percent to 30 percent of the population, Asians increase from 5 percent to 9 percent, and African Americans move from 14 percent to 15 percent.

But it’s not a slam-dunk future for Dems, note the authors, inasmuch as

…Voters are often fickle and prone to significant shifts in opinion if their demands and desires are not met or if leaders fall short of their expectations…The economy, public spending, and the financial bailouts are the most likely issues to trip up progressives; they are areas where our study found clear undercurrents of anti-corporate, anti-bailout populism across many segments of the electorate.”

Teixeira and Halpin nonetheless believe that the survey points strongly to a “marvelous opportunity” for progressives which could lead to “a real and durable political realignment” benefiting Democrats. By carefully addressing demographic change and rapidly-evolving political attitudes, Dems are in a strong position to make the coming decade a new era of progressive transformation in America.

Do check out David Waldman’s Daily Kos post, “GOP descends further into sick cynicism,” a body slam really, of the right-wing blowhards (in an excellent video montage) who were trying to nail twisted versions of the GOP’s traditional “weak sister” meme on Obama for his handling of the pirate attacks. Problem was, they were all taped at about the time that Navy Seals were engaged in a heroic rescue of Captain Phillips — on orders from President Obama. Should be fun watching the Republican mouthpieces equivocate their way around their comments in the days ahead. Here’s one of the juicier quotes from Waldman’s post:

While all of these pampered fops were sitting, doughy asses-in-chair and having their pusses painted up in TeeVee make-up, so that they could come on the air and go all in against America, actual heroes were at that very moment doing the real dirty work of executing that rescue.

In terms of political strategy, the rescue should give Obama some cred as a decisive commander-in-chief, who is clearly prepared to order a genuinely needed military operation, even though he didn’t don a flight suit and “prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier,” as General Wes Clark once described the theatrics of his predecessor.

TDS Co-editor Ruy Teixeira has a post up at the Center for American Progress noting that complaints about too much government spending aren’t finding much of a sympathetic constituency, while a healthy majority of Americans believe creating jobs is the better way to “balance the budget.”

In a late March Democracy Corps poll, 61 percent agreed that, “In order to balance the budget in the long term, it is more important to make investments that will lead to new jobs and industries and create economic growth,” rather than, “In order to balance the budget in the long term, it is more important to limit the amount government spends on costly new programs” (37 percent).

Nor is the “Obama is trying to do too much” meme generating a lot of support:

And the public doesn’t buy the conservative line that Obama is trying to do too much by pursuing health care reform, clean energy, and a 21st-century educational system (as he does in his budget) when he should be focused only on the economy. In the same poll, 63 percent agreed that, “The challenges America faces are too big to ignore. President Obama is right to seek solutions on health care, energy, and education while still making the economy his top priority.” That’s compared to just 33 percent who thought that “President Obama is trying to do too much. He should put his entire focus on the economy and deal with health care, energy, and education when we’re through this crisis.”

The “blame Obama” for our “economic situation” meme isn’t getting any traction either, and an even more significant majority is very clear about who caused the current economic mess, as Teixeira notes:

According to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, the public has not forgotten Bush’s culpability—not by a long shot. When asked how much blame the Bush administration should be assigned for the country’s economic situation, 70 percent said “a great deal” or “a good amount.” The analogous figure for the Obama administration was just 26 percent.

All of which adds up to a pretty solid mandate for the Obama Administration and the Democrats.

Alan Abramowitz has a post just up at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball on “Diverging Coalitions: The Transformation of the American Electorate.” His topic is the demographic changes that led to Senator Obama’s election and why President Obama can push a more progressive agenda than other recent Democratic presidents.
While it is no revelation that Obama benefitted from the rapid growth of the non-white population of the U.S. in recent years, Abramowitz sheds fresh light on the dramatic increase in non-white voters, including,

…it has accelerated in the last quarter century. It is a result of increased immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America, higher birth rates among minority groups, and increased registration and turnout among African-Americans, Hispanics, and other nonwhite citizens. Moreover, this shift is almost certain to continue for the foreseeable future based on generational differences in the racial and ethnic composition of the current electorate and Census Bureau projections of the racial and ethnic makeup of the American population between now and 2050.
…In the 16 years between 1976 and 1992, the nonwhite share of the U.S. electorate increased only slightly–going from 11 percent to 13 percent. However, in the 16 years between 1992 and 2008 the nonwhite share of the electorate doubled, going from 13 percent to 26 percent. Helped by an aggressive Democratic registration and get-out-the-vote campaign in African-American and Hispanic communities, the nonwhite share of the electorate increased from 23 percent in 2004 to 26 percent in 2008 with African-Americans going from 11 percent to 13 percent, and Hispanics going from 8 percent to 9 percent.

Regarding strategy inside the poltiical parties, Abramowitz adds,

…Along with liberal whites, nonwhite voters constitute the electoral base of the modern Democratic Party while conservative whites constitute the electoral base of the modern Republican Party….Moreover, evidence from national exit polls indicates that both parties’ base voters have become more loyal over the past 32 years. In 1976, Jimmy Carter received only 74 percent of the vote from white liberals and nonwhites while in 1992 Bill Clinton received 81 percent and in 2008 Barack Obama received 85 percent. Similarly, in 1976, Gerald Ford received only 73 percent of the vote from white conservatives while in 1992 George H.W. Bush received 82 percent and in 2008 John McCain received 89 percent.

Moderate whites are stil a key constituency for Dems, explains Abramowitz:

Moderate whites are the swing voters in presidential elections. They generally split their votes fairly evenly between the Democratic and Republican candidates, shifting slightly toward one side or the other depending on short-term factors. According to the 2008 national exit poll, Barack Obama received 53 percent of the vote among moderate whites. This was similar to the results for other newly elected Democratic presidents: Jimmy Carter received 49 percent of the vote of this group while Bill Clinton received 57 percent.

Abramowitz crunches the data and sees a profound change in the Dems’ base:

The Democratic base has gone from the smallest of the three voter groups in 1976 to by far the largest in 2008. When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, moderate whites made up 45 percent of voters, conservative whites made up 30 percent, and liberal whites and nonwhites combined made up only 25 percent. Sixteen years later, when Bill Clinton was elected, these proportions had changed only slightly–moderate whites made up 43 percent of voters, conservative whites made up 27 percent, and liberal whites and nonwhites combined made up 30 percent. By 2008, however, the electorate looked very different–conservative whites still made up 27 percent of voters but moderate whites made up only 32 percent, and liberal whites and nonwhites combined made up 44 percent.

In addition to the base, he notes a transformation of the “electoral coalition” that undergirds the Democratic party:

Evidence from the American National Election Studies displayed in Table 3 shows that over time the Democratic electoral coalition has become less white and more liberal while the Republican electoral coalition has become less moderate and more conservative. Moderate-to-conservative whites made up 59 percent of Jimmy Carter’s electoral coalition, but they made up only 33 percent of Barack Obama’s electoral coalition. And conservative whites made up only 48 percent of Gerald Ford’s electoral coalition but they made up 61 percent of John McCain’s electoral coalition.

In terms of policy, Abramowitz believes “President Obama cannot afford to ignore the views of moderate-to-conservative white voters,” but he will likely “pursue a more liberal policy agenda than earlier Democratic presidents” who were more anchored by “the support of moderate-to-conservative whites.”

Just about anyone interested in American politics will find Charlie Cook’s most recent ‘Off to the Races’ column at the National Journal of considerable interest. Cook works his wizardry, tapping the latest pollls, in a succinct, but convincing “it’s all about independents” argument. First the numbers:

President Obama’s job approval rating among Democrats in last month’s Pew polling was 88 percent, with just 27 percent of Republicans approving. The 61-point gap exceeds that of Presidents George W. Bush (51 points in March 2001), Bill Clinton (45 points in April 1993), George H.W. Bush (38 points in May 1989), Ronald Reagan (46 points in March 1981), Jimmy Carter (25 points in March 1977) and Richard Nixon (29 points in March 1969).* Partisanship is alive and well, even in the era of Obama.
An obvious way of measuring partisanship is in terms of the enormous gap between how die-hard Democrats and Republicans assess political leaders. In the case of President Obama, the difference was night and day in the March Pew poll. (He received a 57 percent approval rating among independents.) Obama got similar numbers in Gallup polling last week, with a 90 percent approval rating among Democrats, 27 percent among Republicans and 60 percent among independents, with a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points.

On how the data plays out in congress:

…On one side, there are Democrats sticking with Obama at a very high rate, and on the other side, Republicans are staying with their leadership at a similarly high rate. Don’t lay all of this on Republicans; both sides are holding firm.
On the GOP side, many of the moderate and swing-district members who would be likely to stray from the party lost re-election in either 2006 or 2008. The remaining Republicans, who fundamentally disagree with much of what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do, are overwhelmingly from safe and very conservative districts.
Then there is the question of those Republicans who have fairly senior committee positions, and whether too much fraternization with the enemy could cost them their ranking slot. Given the magnitude of GOP losses in the last two elections, the remaining GOP members have little tolerance for cavorting with the opposition.

On Obama’s strategy going forward:

When it comes to Obama, however, it’s imperative that he keep his approval rating up among independents. With 36 percent of all adults last year identifying themselves as Democrats, he can have the enthusiastic support of every Democrat in the country and still have an approval rating that would be just a bit better than impeachment level. To keep his approval rating in the high 50s and low 60s, a level that maximizes his clout on Capitol Hill and helps him hold the political high ground, Obama needs strong support among independents as well.

For more insight into the growing clout of Independents and their impact on Democratic legislative strategy, Cook’s entire column merits a read.

Hilzoy, writing in the Washington Monthly, quotes an outraged commentary from respected legal analyst Scott Horton:

“Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public…It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward. (…)

Noting that this strategy dovetails with a conservative smear campaign against the two nominees, Hilzoy quite correctly calls it “completely appalling”. As he says:

The slurs on Koh and Johnsen are vile. They are widely respected legal scholars.
Besides the ugliness of the attacks, what the Republicans are doing is really unprecedented. First, the President has traditionally been given deference in the choice of his advisors. If some President wants to have someone in his cabinet, the presumption is that he ought to be able to do so, absent illegality or some sort of manifest incompetence. For the Republican Senators to hold these appointees up not for those reasons, but because they disagree with their policies, is just wrong; if this happened every time a new administration came into office, the opposition party would filibuster half the nominations and no one would never govern at all.
Second, what the Republicans are trying to do is to dictate to the President a matter that is purely his prerogative: deciding whether or not to unclassify documents. This is insane: it’s as though Obama threatened to withhold funding for the Senate unless Mitch McConnell fired some staffer he didn’t like.
And the combination — holding appointments hostage while trashing people’s reputations in order to keep Obama from making a decision he plainly has the right to make — is unconscionable.

It appears the Senate Republicans in question may have overestimated their latitude here, as evidenced by some great comments following Horton’s blog at The Daily Beast. As a commenter with the handle ‘Ultrahop’ responds:

Bring it on! Why back down? Let them filibuster. The public reaction would be rather decisive, I would think. Not every Senate Republican is going to stand on the side of torture. Does Olivia Snow believe in using torture? I think not.

And another who goes by ‘cbl99201’ adds:

I have to agree that these memoranda should see the light of day. This is one worth fighting over. Even Mcain would support it !!

And ‘pennsyskid2000’ notes perceptively:

I can’t wait to see attack ads against Repubs in 2010 for defending the Bush policy essentially advocating torture. I also don’t think filibustering will necessarily work in the long run. Senate Repub leader Bill Frist and other Repubs threatened to change the rules several years ago and require only a majority to confirm appointments, so the Dems can do the same and point to that Republican precedent to justify it. Once again, Republican short-sightedness will turn out to bite themselves in the ass.

Perhaps the best one comes from ‘fblevens’:

Full disclosure and impeachment are necessary only when sex acts are being performed within 20 feet of the Oval Office.
International war crimes? No worries.
Remarkable.

And Digby warns about the precedent that could be set:

Let’s hope Obama stands up to them. If he shows weakness with the Republicans on this, there will be no end to it when it comes to judicial nominees. And it is vitally important that Obama balances out the courts after the past 25 years of centrist to far right appointments.

Clearly President Obama is being tested by the more malevolent elements of the opposition. How he handles this one will indicate the limits of his tolerance for political blackmail — and perhaps his prospects in future confirmation battles.