What Democrats and Republicans Have in Common

There is a very interesting parallel between the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary and the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary.  Both of these races seem to pit the haves of the party against the have-nots.  Both parties now have very high numbers of both haves and have-nots given the complex ideological positions the parties have taken. 

For the 2008 Democrats, Obama was the favorite of the haves while Clinton was the champion of the have-nots.  For the 2012 Republicans, Romney is the candidate of the haves and Santorum is the choice of the have-nots.  The campaigns reflect their strongest constituencies.  Haves generally are better organized and make better decisions than the have-nots.  Similarly, the 2008 Obama campaign and the 2012 Romney campaign were/are generally considered be to be better run than the 2008 Clinton campaign and the 2012 Santorum Campaign.

The question remains over who owns which party.  For the 2012 Republicans, it seems like the have-nots outnumber the haves.  However, Newt Gingrich, another have-not candidate, is splitting the votes with Santorum.  Therefore, there is a tight battle between Romney and Santorum nationally.  In Michigan, a microcosm of this battle can be seen in the battle between two neighboring counties in the Detroit metro area, Oakland and Macomb.  Macomb county is dominated by the less-educated white working class, Santorum's biggest fans.  Immediately to the west, Oakland county has traditional Republican roots and full of richer pro-Romney voters.

For the 2008 Democrats, Obama's win signified an important step for the party transforming from a have-not party to a have party.  However, the have-nots still outnumber the haves for the Democrats.  Despite Clinton's loss with delegates, Clinton actually won more votes in the Democratic primaries.  Obama won the delegate battles by pretty much winning all the caucus states which have minimal voter turnout and favor turnout disproportionately for the haves.  More importantly, African Americans, who are traditionally considered have-nots, were in the Obama coalition.  While the have candidate won for the Democrats, the Democrats still have more have-not voters than haves.  Yes, I realize that I said both parties have more have-nots than haves.  That's because there are more have-nots than haves in the voting dichotomies.

The trends are clear, the Democrats are planning on building a coalition of the increasing number of haves, under-privileged minorities, and the declining numbers of union members.  The Republicans are being more and more of the party of the have-nots.