You seem to be arguing that these results (knock on wood) demonstrate that the Democratic Party can stop chasing after the white working-class whale, because the new coalition is sufficient to form a clear majority.  I would agree with that.

But the same facts also suggest that a solid result among white voters is far from unattainable, provided we try for it.  We're simply not as racially polarized as a country as we were when I was growing up during the Reagan years, when every issue - crime, welfare, etc. - had a definite racial subtext.  Even this "socialism" stuff doesn't play into a racial issue as decisively as it might have.

Clinton won Georgia, Arkansas and Louisiana (Obama will win none of these.)

Hardly a fair comparison since Clinton-Gore had two southerners on the ticket, not to mention that Arkansas is Bill Clinton's home state.

Of course, we can never know these things and the Republican's are in full self-destruct mode at this point anyway. I am intrigued by Obama's stated intentions not to politicize the remainders and as he eloquently stated to Rachel Maddow, prefer the characterization that it's not that Republican's are inherently wrong, but rather that their party was kidnapped by idealogues with bad ideas.

While my preference might be kick the Republican's while they are down, I'm willing to see how well Obama's strategy works because it's clear that this country needs a miracle.

This thread reminds me of the one about the Yglesias post that BTD put up a few days ago.  You know,

Of course to some extent any Democratic Party electoral coalition represents a rebuke to that way of thinking. But someone like a Bill Clinton represented a very self-conscious effort to portray himself as a member of the "real" America. Obama, by contrast, is a multi-racial guy from a big city who has no real choice but to stand his ground and say, no, the America that I live in is the real America.

and

But for those written out of the "real" America for reasons of race rather than taste in salad greens, that kind of cultural and political marginalization is much more threatening, and the idea of relaxing it is incredibly appealing.

To me Yglesias as quoted here is no different than Frank Rich.  If you think this is the story, then I guess that's okay.  But I don't see how it is anything more than what you want to believe is happening.  It is grounded in pretty much nothing, at least when it's written up this way.  Non-whites in the coalition are romanticized and whites in the coalition evolve from their "Real American" ancestors by selecting better salad greens.  Bill Clinton is racist for being a "real" American.  Lower middle class and working class whites are impediments.  Obama never talks about Kansas or amber waves of grain.

This is sort of the opposite of what I think Obama intends to do - based on his poorly worded "bittergate" comments, he does think about connecting to poorer, forgotten white America.  He sees room for expansion there as far as his coalition goes.  And so he should.