Chris Bowers of OpenLeft writes:

Young voters and first-time voters are absolutely Obama's base.  McCain actually won voters age 40 and over, and Obama only won non-first-time voters by 2%.  Compared to other recent Democratic coalitions, Obama relied far more heavily upon young voters and first-time voters.

However, this also reveals a fundamental weakness of the Obama electoral coalition, especially during midterm elections.  Turnout is way down during midterm elections, and there is no group where turnout declines during midterms more than it declines among young voters:

As I've noted, Obama's coalition is an exaggerated version of Bill Clinton's coalition:  It dropped Appalachian America, but made up for it with higher turnout and voting among young, minority and suburban voters.  The problem, as Bowers noted, is that young and minority voters participation tends to drop off in midterm elections, even in good Democratic years.

In 2004 -- a good Republican year -- white voters were 77% of the electorate, and voters in the 18-29% demographic comprised 17% of the electorate.  In 2006, a great Democratic year, whites made up 79% of the electorate and voters in the 18-29% demographic fell to 12% of the electorate.   In 2008, whites were down to 74% of the electorate, (which McCain carried 55%-43%), while young voters were up to 18% of the electorate (which Obama carried 66%-32%).

Gallup's latest polling shows why this is such a problem for Democrats.  47% of voters aged 18-29 were not very enthusiastic about voting this fall.  This is almost double the number of voters aged 65+ (29%) that are unenthusiastic about voting and well over the number of voters aged 50-64 that are unenthusiastic about voting.  This is highly problematic for the Democrats because younger voters plan to vote for a Democrat by a 51-39 margin, while voters in the 65+ demographic break 50-41 for Republicans.  In equal numbers these groups would cancel each other out, but a flood of elderly voters would swamp a less enthusiastic youth vote.

Most analysts have assumed that this will change in 2012, and that Obama's coalition will rear its head again.  I'm not so sure.  2012 is a long way off, and I'm not making any predictions here.  But part of Obama's appeal was the freshness surrounding his candidacy.  The prospect of "change," the excitement surrounding electing the first black President, the posters, baseball hats, t-shirts and all of the iconography contributed to Obama's outsized showing among these groups.

I think recreating that excitement is going to be like trying to catch lightning in a bottle.  Re-electing the first black President is exciting, but not nearly as exciting as doing it the first time.  By 2012, Obama will have a difficult time running as the candidate of change, especially if he continues to make substantial accomplishments in his first term.  He'll have been on the scene for five years then, probably will have endured at least one scandal, and may have been forced to compromise with Republicans repeatedly if they take control of Congress in 2010.

And even if Obama can re-energize his base in 2012, what then?  His is a uniquely personal coalition, and whomever comes next is going to have a hard time filling the shoes of a rather unique candidate.  If the damage done to other parts of the Clinton coalition is permanent, then the Democrats are going to have to make some major changes to retain their electoral coalition.

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------