I can't believe that Newt Gingrich would be a candidate in 2012. As he fossilizes he continues to change positions with a moistened finger in the air, reminding me of the song "Flip, Flop and Fly." No tongue of Newt in 2012.

As for Palin, she may teem up with Joe the Plumber in a reality TV show so they can jointly cash in their 15 minutes of fame. Look at what the second biggest state gave us the past 8 years. I don't think even global warming will bring Alaska into the hearts of America. Sarah may end up on an ice floe.

And Joe the Plumber will get a reduction in his taxes with Obama, unless his celebrity takes him beyond $250,000 in income.
 

I'm amused by current talk of Palin 2012. Wake up: Sarah has had her fifteen minutes. It's over.

She also has little in common with Joe the Plumber. Pretty much the only thing they share is they're both in trouble with the law, he for taxes, she for troopergate.

More on point, yes, Rove was out of magic rabbits this time. And the reason is no mystery: he who lives by the divide and win by 51%, dies by it. All those Americans whose votes weren't good enough for Rove's clients as long as they added up to 49%, are now part of the 80% who want no part of lies, torture, stupid senseless wars, incompetence, right wing extremism, carrying water for big business, politicization and patronage in the White House.

Coded appeals to the base did play their part, sure; that's why Rove's clients emitted them on a regular basis. The potential for blowback was always present and huge, and we're seeing some of that now. But a historic failure of Rovian gaming was even the base gets turned off by repeated failure in its top leaders. Even if you want small government you don't want bad government. Even if you want the feds to favor your specific religion you don't want the Nation's defense to be pissed away in the sand for a cause that never was. Even if you think "socialism" is a dirty word, you don't want the market to crash and burn -- maybe especially if, for God's sake!

The macro analysis is comforting: the strategy of polarizing the electorate and winning by 51% has no long term stability. If you want a permanent majority, this strategy is not for you. You might want instead to decide what it is that you and your party have to offer America; over the long term, that fares better. I suspect this lesson has not been missed among the clearer thinkers.

Unfortunately, a lot of damage can be done in the meantime, and was.
 

The statistics underlying your post are interesting, but the most surprising thing is the shockingly low correlation between income and Democratic voting (for white voters) during the 1952-72 period. In fact, they purport to show that voters in the bottom one-third income bracket were actually less likely (though by a very tiny margin) to vote Democratic during this period than were those in the middle third. And there was a fairly small difference between those groups and the top third. I don’t know what explains this, but, if true, it would seem to pose rather significant challenges to the idea that Republican voters are traditionally much wealthier than Democratic voters.

Starting from this base, the statistics then show an increasing correlation between income and voting (ie, the more income the less Democratic) during the 1974 to 2004 period. However, if you look at the breakdown by individual election, you will see a sharp decline in correlation for the 2000 and 2004 elections.

If this trend continues, it would seem to be consistent with the conventional wisdom Gelman and Krugman are trying to debunk, namely that income is a relatively minor factor in explaining how people are voting in 2008. Michael Barone had a piece recently regarding voting behavior in Pennsylvania that also supports this hypothesis. Barone found that lower income people were voting Republican based on cultural issues, while higher income people, who have been more negatively impacted by financial crisis and particularly the decline in housing, are tending to vote more Democratic.

Maybe all this shows is that statistics can be presented to proved whatever you want, but it strikes me Gelman’s statistics do little to disprove the conventional wisdom that Obama’s base is largely among minorities, younger voters and upscale whites, rather than the working class.

As for your question about “Rovian tactics,” I am going to ignore it. It is obvious that “Rovian tactics” (or before that, Lee Atwater’s tactics, Nixon’s coded racial appeals, etc) are simply the explanations that Democrats and the media drag out whenever elections don’t go the way that they want.
 

mls said:

I don’t know what explains this, but, if true, it would seem to pose rather significant challenges to the idea that Republican voters are traditionally much wealthier than Democratic voters.

There are two types of Republican voters: rich ones and suckers.
 

mls concludes his generally interesting post with the following:

As for your question about “Rovian tactics,” I am going to ignore it. It is obvious that “Rovian tactics” (or before that, Lee Atwater’s tactics, Nixon’s coded racial appeals, etc) are simply the explanations that Democrats and the media drag out whenever elections don’t go the way that they want.

I wonder if he would be equally dismissive of, say, a reference to the tactics that Josef Goebbels perfected as part of bringing the Nazis to power. (No, I'm not suggesting that the GOP are comparable to the Nazis, but I am suggesting that Atwater and Rove have no more of a moral compass than did Goebbels, who I have no doubt genuinely believed that Hitler's rise was necessary to save the German state from the corruption of "alien elements.")

Also, I think that shaq is underestimating Newt Gingrich, who is very smart and visionary. The fact that he's "flipflopping" is also a sign that he can actually read tea leaves and realizes that the GOP can't win simply by refighting culture wars. See, e.g., his op-ed with John Kerry and Bill Beane on the importance of evidence-based medicine.

I can never imagine supporting Gingrich, but I think that he's a serious politician in a way that Sarah Palin simply is not.
 

There are probably a lot of reasons why Rovian tactics failed this time around.

“You can’t fool all of the people all of time.”

Much of the Rovian strategy the past eight years, and especially after 9/11 appealed to people’s fears. You just can’t keep people in a perpetual state of fear forever. The Blitz against London was supposed to terrify the British, instead, it strengthened their resolve. For many, the nightly bombings become a routine; scary and dangerous, but not terror-inducing.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

For the moment, at least, the answer seems to be that a Rovian style of politics will not be enough. The Republican base is shrinking, while a new Democratic coalition is being formed: The new Democratic coalition includes people in metropolitan areas (now importantly including the suburbs not just the cities), knowledge workers, the poor, Hispanics, African-Americans, and traditional liberals (note how these groups overlap and partially reinforce each other).

This new coalition is the successor to the old New Deal Democratic coalition of working class voters, labor unions, the poor, Catholics, African-Americans, and liberals which long ago fell apart.

The McCain campaign is actually banking that Obama's coalition is so limited and that the working class Reagan Dems go for McCain.

There is nothing new about the minority coalition you posit. This was the same coalition behind McGovern 1972, Carter 1980, Mondale 1984 and Dukakis 1988.

Clinton assembled a plurality coalition bringing back a substantial number of Reagan Dems and Hillary kept those blue collar Dems against Obama when she won nearly all of the major state primaries outside the South where African Americans dominate the Dem vote.

If those Reagan/Clinton Dems show up and vote for McCain, Obama loses. Obama needs a substantial number of these voters to get above 50%
 

I don’t know what explains this, but, if true, it would seem to pose rather significant challenges to the idea that Republican voters are traditionally much wealthier than Democratic voters.

Clearly income isn't the only factor. I'm guessing the southern political realignment during the sixties can explain--at least in part--why income began to correlate highly with political party.
 

I propose an alternative answer. Rovian tactics failed because Obama defeated them. He defeated them by community organizing on a national scale. He steadily built up a solid base of committed voters willing to work hard for his campaign. With this solid foundation, he was able to weather the storms of Rovian attacks. The problem with Rovian politics is that when the target survives an attack, he (or she) is stronger and the attacker is weaker.
 

Sl-I'm not suggesting that the GOP are comparable to the Nazis, but I am suggesting that Atwater and Rove have no more of a moral compass than did Goebbels, who I have no doubt genuinely believed that Hitler's rise was necessary to save the German state from the corruption of "alien elements."

And I have no doubt that you genuinely believe that Atwater and Rove are comparable to Goebbels. At least as you were typing the post, although perhaps on reflection you may consider whether it is a tad over the top. In the heat of partisan passion, it is easy for people to convince themselves that all kinds of comparisons are fair.

Certainly a significant part of politics is motivating people by appealing to fears, resentments, and prejudices (broadly defined). When the opposition party does this, it is easy to see these as immoral “Rovian tactics,” while viewing one’s own party’s tactics as essentially fair (or justified by the tactics used by the other side).

Not only is it virtually impossible to come up with an objective definition of what constitutes these improper tactics, but it is equally difficult to figure out what role they played in the outcome of any election. Somehow, though, when the Republicans win an election, it is invariably ascribed to the success of “divisive” tactics, while this is never the cause of Democratic victories.
 

Glad to see the author remind us of the congress' turmoil facing immigration policy. One of the difficulties in Bush foreign policy, as pointed out with the review of Rove's gossipry technique, remained the unspoken shifts the leadership in MX, central, and So. America failed to address in ways that would facilitate a Republican claim for modernizing what defines a nationstate. It seems the pachyderm is lumberingly slow now and needs to adjust. In fact, Rove has been among the vanguard in utilizing new communications, but in the service of the same stale ideals. True enough, pocket book issues dominated the campaigns, ever since Bear Sterans led the way for Lehman, AIG, Freddie, Fannie, WaMu, Merrill, et al. The reshaping in credit and finance worlds will incorporate rejuvenation if the new paradigms are other than the stale verities exploited in the past eight years. How the next presidency faces immigration issues will be an important part of that new look, as will be the new mercuric alacrity of media.
 

(Illegal) Immigration is critical: The problem for the Republicans is the growing realization among their base that they (The party machine and candidates.) don't really mean any of that stuff. That, in fact, they are in rather relentless disagreement with their own base on several important issues. And McCain is the ugly face of this, he barely tries to disguise his contempt for fellow Republicans on some issues.

This is an understanding that's been growing ever since the '94 election catapulted the Republicans into a position to deliver on a lot of promises, and they conspicuously refused to even try.

On illegal immigration the Democrats are as out of tune with the public as the Republicans, (Of course! Their actual positions are identical, the Republicans just unconvincingly lie about it.) but the minority of Americans who like illegal immigration are concentrated in the Democratic base, so it's not AS damaging. In a two party system, it doesn't matter if both parties are pissing the public off, as long as one of them does it less, they win.

Tactics, 'Rovian' or otherwise, don't work so well when your natural base of support stops listening.
 

According to an article in Slate

If the exit polls are to be believed, those making $200,000 or more (6 percent of the electorate) voted for Obama 52-46, while McCain won the merely well-off ($100,000 to $150,000 by a 51-48 margin and $150,000 to $200,000 by a 50-48 margin).