I'm seeing more people talking about this, but not enough given that I think it spells trouble - namely, what happens if, despite large declines in support among white middle class voters, especially white men regardless of socio-economic standing, Obama wins in November because of his near unanimous support from blacks and his very strong and growing [see amnesty pander] support from hispanics? It's obvious people don't wanna talk about this issue because it sounds racial - and for sure, if a conservative dare bring up this issue the New York Times will call them a racist the next day - but it needs to be discussed, if only to mitigate or prepare ourselves for the discontent that could be unleashed if the above scenario plays out - and as polls stand right now the above scenario is how things are gonna play out.
Between them the black and hispanic vote will account for about 20-22% of the electorate in November - black support for Obama is near unanimous, hispanic support was at about 70% but with the amnesty pander polls suggest that number could climb to 80% and counting - and yet, what are the motivations of these two groups, what criteria drive this entirely skewed support? Does Obama's performance as president matter at all to them? Is it that they're convinced after careful consideration that by and large his policy positions are good for the country? Is it that they find Obama's mantra of blame Bush, blame Wall Street, blame rich people, blame Europe etc etc etc absolutely credible as an explanation of current troubles? Or is it that an extremely narrow focus on extremely narrow issues of great importance to them but of little or no importance to anyone else - and indeed viewed with some hostility by the opposition - make the choice not only obvious but an imperative?
If you garner near unanimous support from blacks simply because you're black - well, and also too because you espouse the glories of big gov't all aflutter with the kinds of social programs the poor like [meaning, Condi Rice would not garner unanimous support from black voters were she the minority candidate in this race] - and you garner support encroaching on unanimous from hispanics simply because you're viewed as a fellow minority who's soft on immigration - and also again because of evinced deep love for big gov't etc etc - but your support from the white middle class craters because you basically... well, basically because you suck as a president, to put it crudely - and you manage to win reelection because of the former and despite the latter - does anyone really think that's not gonna lead to problems? Or put another way, does that sound at all like a healthy democracy serving the interests of the common weal? Sounds highly problematic and bloody dysfunctional to me.
As I've said before, look for the social contract that makes democracy possible to come under threat when elections are viewed as existential - that is, when the losing side does not simply feel that they've lost the ability to effect positive change but rather feel that they're lost the ability to effect a change that is absolutely vital to the survival of the republic - and when this destabilizing result is seen to have been caused by a flawed system that has failed to serve the interests of the nation as a whole against the limited interests of a disgruntled, misguided few [well, one fifth of the electorate ain't exactly 'a few' - rather, a minority raised to an unjustifiable significance by a confluence of disconcerting factors - I mean, it's probably impossible to poll a question like this, but if you could poll it I think we know what the answer would be - that is, given his performance, would Obama have any chance of winning this election if he wasn't black?]
[now of course poor minorities will vote liberal regardless of the race of the candidate, and the need to appease this core constituency is part of what causes liberal thinking to be so foolish and misbegotten - any polity that is guided by the needs of its weakest elements is doomed - which is why the most important constituencies in a democracy are the business and entrepreneurial classes and the tax paying, consumerist middle classes, regardless of race - asians fit perfectly into this demographic and although I haven't seem poll numbers on them I'm guessing they lean right - so the question is will the concerns of the latter be trumped by the needs of the former simply because the race of one of the candidates skews the numbers just enough to make it so? And in an environment where elections are viewed as existential, shouldn't we expect there to be significant fallout if such comes to pass? Certainly the press is not gonna report on this dynamic - the New York Times will publish articles on how a few old bigots in Kentucky will in no way vote for a colored boy - but you're not gonna see an article from them on how Obama can't possibly win without the support of people who will vote for him simply because he is black - and this failure on the part of the fourth estate to address the obvious problem here will only serve to feed the sense of anxiety among those who will believe, should Obama win, that this system is broken]
