There have been only a few elections in the nation's history that have dramatically changed the electoral map. In 1932 Roosevelt rewrote the map creating a new Democratic coalition which included the North East with its industrial and financial base with the religious South. In 1980 the Republicans would take over this coalition. It has always been a shaky and unstable coalition and it is about to come apart. What takes its place will dramatically rework the political makeup of the United States.


If one looks at the electoral college map from 1900 it looks remarkably similar to 2000. The party affiliations have reversed but the ideological makeup of the map has not. If one inverts the colors and replaces McKinley with Obama and Bryan with McCain it becomes clear the United States has hardly changed in a hundred years. It has long been recognized that Eastern establishment and Wall Street have played a dominant role, traditionally within the Republican Party. They have never had the political numbers to control the presidential race without a coalition. In 1900 this coalition consisted of the Northeast and industrial North around the Great Lakes. In 1932, in the midst of the Depression Franklin Roosevelt changed this from Republican to Democrat. The coalition didn't really change. It just expanded to include the South and changed party affiliation.

By 1972 a new pattern had been established. The financial establishment linked itself with the South to form a dominant coalition. Democrats could only win if they nominated southern candidates. Otherwise, Republicans could count on the southern support and the eastern establishment for a consistent winning combination. This coalition of the financial East and the religious South has been a rather precarious arrangement. Social issues have never been high on the agenda of Wall Street, viewed primarily as a means for maintain stability. They have always been able to keep in check the social pressures, either from labor or religion. With George W. Bush this began to change. The southern Republicans began to take greater control of the party. Toward the end of Bush's first term the financial wing of the Republican party began to bail out as more and more of the eastern establishment turned toward the Democratic party. In 2004 a new coalition was forming, which was really just the old coalition from 1900 (eastern establishment, with industrial north and the far west added into the mix). A larger portion of Wall Street political (financial) support was directed at the Democratic candidates. In a sense this was symbolized by the Clinton's move from Arkansas to New York to represent the new direction of the Democratic party. The financial East began to abandon the South. The process was just beginning in 2004 and the numbers had not yet materialized sufficiently to change the political landscape. However; the switch was clearly recognized by the southern faction of the Republican party which likewise began to abandon the eastern establishment. By 2006 the switch was well established as approximately 65% of the political money spent by Wall Street was directed toward Democrats.

This brings us to 2008, which will rewrite the presidential landscape. For the first time since before the Civil War, the financial east faces the possibility of little political influence. The response has been a pouring of money into the Democratic campaigns, first to Hillary Clinton and then to Barack Obama after he secured the nomination. As usual Wall Street hedges its bet by contributing to both parties but is putting a much bigger percentage into the Democrat's coffers. For instance, Goldman Sachs has contributed $220,000 John McCain but $739,000 to Barack Obama. Likewise, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase have contributed $287,000 and $206,000 to McCain but $492,000 and $475,000 to Barack Obama.

The implications of this political shift are dramatic. It has already manifest itself in the financial bailout legislation with the southern Republicans willing to abandon Wall Street. It is still unclear whether John McCain, who has long been friendly to the financial industry, will continue to be so. His campaign is being directed from Southern faction but he has a lot of representative within his campaign that are Wall Street insiders. Obama, on the other hand, represents a much safer candidate. He has an Eastern pedigree, has a lot of hedge fund manager support. The trade off for getting Obama is his social policy, which Wall Street has long grudgingly tolerated. For the Democrats this election is critical. If they win it will be only the second time a Democrat has won without significant support from the South. The only other time this occurred (1964) ushered in the largest social changes since the Civil War. Unfettered by the South's conservative, religious influence, Democrats see the opportunity to remake the social fabric of the country while the financial establishment sees the opportunity to maintain its position of influence in American politics. What is really interesting about Obama's contributor list is the diversity. Obama gets contributions from a lot of different directions including labor groups, environmental groups, tech industries, universities, etc. Obama is probably the first since George Washington to get support from all elements of society. It can definitely be argued that he
is the first truly American candidate. The problem with this diversity is that there is no guarantee that it can produce a winning coalition when going up against a consolidated opponent. If he can win the Republican party faces the prospect of becoming a regional and religious party, which potentially can make them a fixed minority party for many elections to come.

On the other hand, the Republicans see opportunities as well. Unfettered by control from the East, they believe they can remake the social fabric according to their model. John McCain himself represents the battleground for the party and it is still unclear how supportive he will be of the southern conservative wing of the party. Southern Republicans have poured money into McCain's campaign in an attempt to ensure not only his victory, but his support after the victory. He is no George Bush so there is a great deal of uncertainty about how receptive John McCain will be to the southern conservative influence.

With a Republican victory the Democrats face the possibility of losing the ability to win any presidential elections with the current electoral breakdown. If they cannot win in 2008 with seemingly every external factor favoring them, it is unclear how they will win any other election. Like the Republican party, the Democratic Party faces the possibility of being a permanent protest party, trapped by the social conservative majority until something dramatic occurs to change this direction. If a financial crisis and endless war cannot win an election for the Democrats it is unclear what will.

The Republicans have been hedging their bet as well. They are positioning a new candidate to take over the reigns of the party, Sarah Palin. They clearly see, in Palin, someone who represents the social conservative wing of the party. If they lose in 2008 we can expect the remaking of Sarah Palin to begin. Sarah Palin will travel all over the world gaining the type of international experience she clearly lacks presently. She will become the standard bearer for the party. Even if the Republican party wins in November Sarah Palin will be positioned to assume the party leadership, given McCain's age and unpredictability.

Regardless of who wins, the 2008 election will represent a watershed in American politics. This raises the stakes of the election and the future of American politics. Coupled with a perilous economic future the next quarter century will likely be formed by the victor in 2008.