were the cracks (in the coalition) already there?

[freepcrusher]

IMO, I think that people blaming Obama fail to realize that many of the losses by the democrats since then were merely accidents waiting to happen. Sure Obama not winning the nomination would have maybe forestalled some of the losses under certain demographics, but they were bound to happen sooner or later.

[old timey villain]

  I wouldn't describe it as "cracks" in the coalition. I would use the analogy that the democratic party has been shedding its skin and transforming into a new party over the past 40 years, and in the 2010 midterms, it shook off the last few old scales it had left. I mean, even during the Clinton years many of those blue dogs were at odds quite often with the national party.

    I actually think the Bush administration kept them holding on as long as they did. When Bush began to move really really far to the right, those blue dogs presented themselves as a more moderate alternative to very conservative republicans, fighting for jobs and benefits for their rural white constituents.

   To me it explains how Phil Bredesen was able to win in Tennessee in 2002, and win by a landslide in 2006. The same can be said for Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Blanco in Louisiana. There were also some Democratic pickups in 2006 and 2008 in the house, like Bobby Bright in Alabama's 2nd district (which by the way, rejected Bobby in 2010). Once Obama was in office, Republican insurgents were able to capitalize on the mistrust and fear of Obama and use that against the blue dogs in office, and the cycle was pretty much complete.

[All Along The Watchtower]

White working class voters in rural areas (Appalachia being a good example) have been leaving the Democratic Party for a while now.  Also, the more conservative Independents and Republicans who voted for Obama were bound to be disappointed or angry with the President and the Democratic Congress.

The difference being, while the combination of black voters (and other racial and ethnic minorities, but especially black voters), young voters, and the more generalized liberal Democratic "base" that turned out for Obama in huge numbers in 2008 certainly had many people who were disappointed with Obama (and the Democrats in general), many of these voters (except, perhaps, us fickle young voters ) had invested more in the Democrats than the moderate Republican/conservative Independent crowd.

Also, I tend to suspect that some of Hillary's constituencies in the 2008 primaries (Hispanics, white working class voters) are more disappointed with Obama than other Democratic groups (especially Obama's more core coalition of blacks and upscale liberals).

Keep in mind, though...the Democrats of today are much more "latte liberal" at the activist level than they are "New Deal/Great Society liberal."

[Adam Griffin]

 I wouldn't describe it as "cracks" in the coalition. I would use the analogy that the democratic party has been shedding its skin and transforming into a new party over the past 40 years, and in the 2010 midterms, it shook off the last few old scales it had left. I mean, even during the Clinton years many of those blue dogs were at odds quite often with the national party.

This is precisely what the Democratic Party has been doing. The Democratic Party has been positioning itself in alignment with the America That Will Be, as opposed to the Republican Party that aligns itself with the America That Was. The process more or less, with perhaps 1990-2005 being the exception, has been a smooth transition for the party and I believe its growth and dominance in politics is definitely back on the long-term upswing.

The Republican Party has brilliant strategists and I can't see how they've painted themselves into the corner to the extent that they have, and it's not just a short-term occurrence. They've been doing it for thirty years, appealing to the same electorate that is dwindling in population. They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that essentially 75% of the minority community in this country is against them and that their share of the population is increasing in steady fashion. 25% of people under 25 in this country are Latino. They're dead for a generation. They've been in their death throws for the past three years, and while they may have one more cycle of bucking left in them, I don't see the Republican Party electing a President or controlling the Congress again for a long, long time.  

The Democratic Party in its modern form is a divided group and the cracks are always present. That's why we get marginalized easier than the Republican Party. However, the nominal amount of Republicans versus Democrats is changing demographically so quickly that I do not believe this will soon matter. Cohesion is far more important to the Republicans than the Democrats; we've always been used to this.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If the fights in Ohio and Wisconsin mean anything, I'd say that there's still a WWC in the Democratic Party. Romney being the nominee should help in SW PA, SE OH, WV, etc.

At the same time, the "latte liberal" era may be coming to an end as economic issues take center stage. Once trade becomes a center issue, expect a realignment.

[hopper]

 I wouldn't describe it as "cracks" in the coalition. I would use the analogy that the democratic party has been shedding its skin and transforming into a new party over the past 40 years, and in the 2010 midterms, it shook off the last few old scales it had left. I mean, even during the Clinton years many of those blue dogs were at odds quite often with the national party.

This is precisely what the Democratic Party has been doing. The Democratic Party has been positioning itself in alignment with the America That Will Be, as opposed to the Republican Party that aligns itself with the America That Was. The process more or less, with perhaps 1990-2005 being the exception, has been a smooth transition for the party and I believe its growth and dominance in politics is definitely back on the long-term upswing.

The Republican Party has brilliant strategists and I can't see how they've painted themselves into the corner to the extent that they have, and it's not just a short-term occurrence. They've been doing it for thirty years, appealing to the same electorate that is dwindling in population. They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that essentially 75% of the minority community in this country is against them and that their share of the population is increasing in steady fashion. 25% of people under 25 in this country are Latino. They're dead for a generation. They've been in their death throws for the past three years, and while they may have one more cycle of bucking left in them, I don't see the Republican Party electing a President or controlling the Congress again for a long, long time. 

The Democratic Party in its modern form is a divided group and the cracks are always present. That's why we get marginalized easier than the Republican Party. However, the nominal amount of Republicans versus Democrats is changing demographically so quickly that I do not believe this will soon matter. Cohesion is far more important to the Republicans than the Democrats; we've always been used to this.

If the Republicans moved to the political center tommorow they would lose their base in the south and  you don't want to abadon your base just to go for Hispanics. The Republicans are in a spot right now where its dam*ed if you do dam*ed if you don't. If you stay with the religious right  as your base for another 10-15 years you will be sunk with hispanics. The Republicans need to start moving more towards the political center on economic issues gradually I think in the next 5-7 years this way you don't alienate the religious right completely and you can start picking off latino voters. Will the Hannity's and Limbaughs like my proposition? I heavily doubt it. If the Republicans continue to listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, and Norquist on every issue they will be done as a party. They need to get off Reaganomics I mean that was 30 years ago. Also, stop the immigration rhetoric. Hispanics especially the Mexican ones don't want to hear that stuff. The Arizona Immigration Bill was a big mistake by them as well. The Republicans need to model their party/idealogy in more of a Gerald Ford mold rather than the tea party I think. The Tea party wants to ban abortion, and be obstructionists. Voters are not going to tolerate those kind of things.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

What coalition?  If you mean the Clinton coalition, then no.  The Clinton coalition is alive and kicking and will probably continue that way for the next few decades.