Quoting David Edenden: There has never been another Catholic elected President since JFK ... a 50 year term.

Will Obama be the only black president in our lifetime?

Discuss!

We still have not had a female POTUS – women are the majority (~ 52%), yet we've still not had anyone like us to represent us on the presidential level. There has been a Catholic POTUS and now we'll have a Catholic VP so I'd say Catholics have had far more representation than women have ever had. Btw, I wouldn't be surprised if the first Hispanic POTUS is Catholic, so I'm sure you won't have to wait much longer for another Catholic POTUS. As for a female POTUS, I'm very pessimistic about how long we'll have to wait. And what about Asians, Native Amercicans, atheists, LGBT, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc? The reality is that the US is filled with many minority groups, while there's only 2 presidents a decade. We can't choose every POTUS based on their minority status. If blacks and Catholics have one president for their lifetime, then perhaps that should make them happy enough. I doubt women will have more than one female POTUS in their lifetime (and we are the majority, not minority group). And I have no idea when/if we'll ever

Great diavlog. I really enjoy this pairing. First off, thanks to Will B (and Ross D) for being able to put their partisan/ideological concerns aside for a brief moment to join the celebration of the election. They were both very gracious about the outcome, even though their guy lost. That sort of class, shows the true value of "country first" as more than just a slogan. And when many from the conservative side are being far less humble, and threatening to revolt or move to Mexico (adios) it's nice to see some that can see a bit of light in an outcome that was not their first choice. Bill totally cleaned Will's clock on the tax segment. If Obama was running on a "conservative" tax cut philosophy, why then did the GOP continually push the meme (and voters agreed in polls) that Obama was going to raise their taxes? Just look at some of the wingnut comments on this site alone. Conservatives are screaming bloody murder about how Obama is going to raise taxes. If he ran as a tax-cutter (as a philosophy), I think the vast majority of voters didn't get the memo. I'm growing

1. I applaud William Beutler for voting on policy principles, but is "liberal" the new "black"? Will "liberals" get more party invitations and better women now? 2. Sneaky with the Goalposts: Firstly, President-Elect Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel indicates a moderate, New Democrat orientation, not a progressive mandate. The goalposts might have moved leftward, but that's a simple reading. What about a left-libertarian orientation? Scher mentions FDR, but in 1932 FDR split the difference between conservatives and union leaders, like John L. Lewis. I'm glad "progressive" is now decriminalized, but I don't want full-bore progressive policies, the opposite of the Gingrich revolution. Also, on the financial regulation issue, it's not a matter of re-regulation, but rather a matter of regulation that reflects the complexity of curent international financial system and the services banks have innovated in the last quarter century.

Well-put! I won't speak authoritatively for Native Americans, but as long as SCOTUS upholds some kind of autonomy, the Seminole Nation's ownership of The Hard Rock Cafe and casino jurisprudence is about as much contact with America as Native Americans can stand right now. Yet, both the Dems and GOP broke many of the ceilings you mentioned. And, there's talk of Bobby Jindal for the GOP in 2012. Perhaps, change comes slower than some want, but in 1992 came the first boomer prez, and now in 2008 comes the first post-boomer, mixed-race man with a foreign father and a single parent. That's more than enough firsts for now. Also, I would argue the Clintons (and I would call this a team effort) lost because they tried to out-maneuver the GOP on the class and cultural fronts by going after the Appalachian vote. I think McCain's loss shows that strategy is profitably left to the GOP to its ultimate marginalization as a regional party. Instead of looking for candidates, I'm putting my hopes into party realignment to assuage interest groups. Can the white professional-minority-women Democratic coalition survive the next two years?

Instead of looking for candidates, I'm putting my hopes into party realignment to assuage interest groups. Can the white professional-minority-women Democratic coalition survive the next two years?

As Ross described yesterday, Repubs. will be pursuing wedges over the next 2-4-8 years. It will be interesting to see what they can come up with because the task before them (given their resources and constituencies) seems extremely difficult. Only an Obama disaster will favor them. With a little bit of luck it will take them 50 years to realign. Of course, you never know what real life will bring. Who could have predicted that a mediocrity like GW Bush would defeat Gore? But it happened thanks to a president impeached for getting blowjobs in the Oval Office, lying about it in court and to the entire nation, a third party candidate who sucked up votes, and a once-in-a-century close call in Florida which led to cheating, disenfranchisement and a politicized 5-4 Supreme Court.

Actually, what Ross Douthat was saying did influence what I was arguing. It will take a few reruns to peel that dense diavlog with Robert Wright. I'm resisting using "superficial" to describe debate about politicians and their personalities and positions. I know full well what President-Elect Obama does will affect the fortunes of each party. But, there have been these demographic and ideological trends for decades, since at least Nixon's 1972 landslide victory consolidated his new strategy, that have survived the quadrennial dramas. As Douthat/Wright also mentioned, now that 9/11 is over, perhaps these realignment trends will accelerate.

As Douthat/Wright also mentioned, now that 9/11 is over, perhaps these realignment trends will accelerate.

Could be. Or it may be that "security" voters are moving toward Dems. People who vote their fear of terrorists may be won over to the Dem. security argument: to provide security we need a level-headed guy like Obama and not pointless wars, axis of evil rhetoric, Giuliani-McCain-John Bolton bluster, Guantánamo and torture. I don't think McCain inspired a lot of confidence on security despite his rep. He sounded like a lunatic on Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran and "We are all Georgians now." The Repubs also really blew it bigtime with Latinos. Bush had made serious inroads with conservative Latino voters, but when he began to pander to the Minuteman types and unleashed ICE, the party was perceived as racist. I don't see how they can bring those voters back without losing the anti-immigrant/xenophobe base that they also cultivate.

Historic turnout for the recent election: 121 million voters. 2004 voters: 121 million. Hmmmm. Sure, the Republicans are down and have a lot of negatives going into this election and many are rooting for their downfall. That said, this should have been a 1984 Reaganesque route on the presidential end (the one where Mondale only carried his state Minnesota and D.C.) and it wasn't. John

Bill and Will, just so you know, your mic was picking up alot of room noise (paper shuffling, things being thrown in waste-baskets etc.) Not sure which side it was coming from, but at times it made it difficult to hear the points you guys were trying to make. Just a note for next time. Good diavlog.

Quoting Wonderment: Could be. Or it may be that "security" voters are moving toward Dems. People who vote their fear of terrorists may be won over to the Dem. security argument: to provide security we need a level-headed guy like Obama and not pointless wars, axis of evil rhetoric, Giuliani-McCain-John Bolton bluster, Guantánamo and torture. I don't think McCain inspired a lot of confidence on security despite his rep. He sounded like a lunatic on Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran and "We are all Georgians now."

The Repubs also really blew it bigtime with Latinos. Bush had made serious inroads with conservative Latino voters, but when he began to pander to the Minuteman types and unleashed ICE, the party was perceived as racist. I don't see how they can bring those voters back without losing the anti-immigrant/xenophobe base that they also cultivate.

Patriot Act, Gitmo, and other anti-terrorist measures implemented by G.W. I predict will not be altered by President Obama. Stay tuned. John

I'm not sure why the American electorate voted the way it did on Tuesday. Renewing a subscription to an APSA journal thick with wonky poll case studies might be prudent now. I worry an Obama administration will start alienating its supporters from day one as President Obama starts making actual decisions and reacting to congressional action. An Obama coalition could just be a matter of who's standing after his administration endures its first year. On immigration, I think it's black and white: Dems don't want it; GOP does. There has to be a compromise. I've always supported a general policy, without waivers for states, of allowing only educated immigrants with white collar skills and encouraging foreign student to study in the US. I'm undecided on families and tenure, because I want immigrants to return to their home states to spread their skills and experience. Most of the issues facing agricultural and manufacturing workers can be addressed by reforming US agricultural welfare and free trade.

Victory, especially one without glaring legal disputes - and those provisional ballots are a problem I agree - is a relief enough for me. I'm not mourning for a cold plate of revenge. I hope Obama is the first president in a while someone doesn't try to assassinate. Speaking of demographics, it seemed Obama had strong support from urban areas, while McCain captured the rural areas. I think urban voters want help, but that kind of reform takes time: infrastructure, transportation, jobs. I fear those voters have no patience. I hope the stimulus package comes with infrastructure reform, and maybe the Dems can benefit in two years.

A bit more on the fictional historic turnout. Youth vote '08: 11% '04: 11%. The only discernible uptick was African American voters: 11% to 13%. This news conference today with Obama after meeting with his economic team he seemed to look a little stunned. His debate bravado of taxing the tax the rich was visibly absent. I'd be shocked too - everyone wanting billions of dollars including the auto companies and where do you get it from? John

Quoting bkjazfan: Historic turnout for the recent election: 121 million voters. 2004 voters: 121 million. Hmmmm. Sure, the Republicans are down and have a lot of negatives going into this election and many are rooting for their downfall. That said, this should have been a 1984 Reaganesque route on the presidential end (the one where Mondale only carried his state Minnesota and D.C.) and it wasn't.

John

Not sure where you're getting your data, but I think you're wrong. This post on the WSJ's site reports:

Michael McDonald, a voting expert and associate professor at George Mason University, predicted the total would reach 133.3 million ...

As of this posting, the NYT's popular vote results show Obama: 65,298,331 and McCain: 57,321,144. CNN has the count as Obama: 65,319,143 and McCain: 57,349,323. In either case that means more than 123 million already counted (many are still not, and may not ever be), and not including ballots cast for third-party or write-in candidates (I'd ballpark these as at least another couple million; from looking at the states' percent totals -- very few add up to 100%).

Quoting bkjazfan: A bit more on the fictional historic turnout. Youth vote '08: 11% '04: 11%. The only discernible uptick was African American voters: 11% to 13%.

Other sources indicate a slight uptick in youth vote. For example:

An estimated 22 to 24 million young people voted in this election, an increase in youth turnout by at least 2.2 million over 2004, according to CIRCLE.

Granted, the percent change was not much, but if you look at the table of data at the above link, you'll see that the percent jump between 2000 and 2004 was massive (46.1 -> 56.6, percent of eligible voters). Much more importantly, the new kids on the block have their heads on straighter, it would appear.

Just by chance I recalled Greg Mankiw posted about that same graphic and data on his blog. He also supplied this conjecture based on his own conversations, and very unrepresentative I'll agree.

In this election, the young left the Republican party in droves.

Why? I am not enough of a political scientist to be sure, but recent conversations I have had with some Harvard undergrads have led me to a conjecture: It was largely noneconomic issues. These particular students told me they preferred the lower tax, more limited government, freer trade views of McCain, but they were voting for Obama on the basis of foreign policy and especially social issues like abortion. The choice of a social conservative like Palin as veep really turned them off McCain.

Obviously Harvard, or Mankiw, didn't get Weisberg's memo.

This is why I wait for the APSA articles! Why mix commentary with number-crunching, especially when it's really just spin. I'm sure someone in academia will notice how the media misreported these figures, too.

Quoting bjkeefe: Other sources indicate a slight uptick in youth vote. For example:

Granted, the percent change was not much, but if you look at the table of data at the above link, you'll see that the percent jump between 2000 and 2004 was massive (46.1 -> 56.6, percent of eligible voters).

Much more importantly, the new kids on the block have their heads on straighter, it would appear.

Ouch! Looks like I gave out some bogus information. Well, I should go back to giving info that is from 2 reputable different sources not just one who apparently who is questionable. I think they teach that in journalism 101. John

Quoting laurelnyc: We still have not had a female POTUS – women are the majority (~ 52%), yet we've still not had anyone like us to represent us on the presidential level. There has been a Catholic POTUS and now we'll have a Catholic VP so I'd say Catholics have had far more representation than women have ever had.

Searching for representation at the presidential and senatorial level is a bridge too far for most minority groups because of the way that the electoral system is structured. Even though the USA is still a young country, its political culture is almost impossile to reform. Gridlock! I suggest that the US would be better served by the West German system where "first past the post" constituencies are married to a type of proportional representation. In the US case, the Senate of 100 can be divided according to the presidential vote. The Democrats would get 52 Senators and the Republicans would get 45 senators and the rest going to other parties should they get more than 5% of the vote. Both Senators and Representatives would vote in one virtual house where inorder to pass a bill, a majority is needed

I think that Summers' post-treasury gaffes at Harvard and on pollution Blumenthal cites are tangential to the question at hand, but not unimportant. And, living as I do in Korea, where I witnessed the effects of the '97 crisis (called still the 'IMF' crisis) , I don't want to endure another Summers-Geithner-Rubin mistake. I have not read a recantation of that mistake which would reassure me that he should be given authority for what is a related, more global crisis. I would argue Summers should receive an advisory portfolio, so that the President hears his arguments before others make policy. Geithner should stay at the NY Fed, because a bad promotion, like giving John Bell Hood command of the Army of the Tennessee to defend Georgia was bad, is not a luxury the US and the world can afford. Treasury needs a diplomatically-savvy, politically-minded bureaucrat to reassure the markets, Congress, and foreign governments that the US is not putting itself and market fundamentalism before all of them. Summers is gaffe-prone, insensitive to foreign viewpoints, and has demonstrated this in full measure before. A second chance means we listen to him, but not put him in the game. From a commenter at TNR: There is a big difference between

Quoting bjkeefe: Other sources indicate a slight uptick in youth vote.

And here's another look at it:

* 23 million young voters cast a ballot on Tuesday, an increase of 3.4 million over 2004.

* Youth turnout will likely top off at 52 - 53%. That would rival the 1992 turnout, and fall just short of the all time record of 55.4% set in 1972.

* Young voters accounted for 60% of the overall turnout increase. That for the whole electorate.

* CIRCLE still estimates that young voters made up 18% of the total electorate.

The big story still remains Obama's staggering 66 - 32% margin among youth...

To that last, I think this picture says it all:

more more more - but need to get the microphone (and that throat) looked at.