OpinionJournal - Will today really be the dawn of a new day for the left?

Professor Arthur C. Brooks of Syracuse University says, "No." He makes three arguments:

1. People of faith gravitate more toward the party that honors their faith than toward the party that disrespect it, often when that goes against their politics. I wouldn't know about that; I find the Republican Party more friendly to faith-informed policies, as well as people of faith, than the Democrats have been since McGovern and arguably since the 1968 primary season. But Prof. Brooks records anecdotes of otherwise liberal women actually joining conservative organizations, because the liberal organizations disrespect their faith.
2. New Latin citizens and lawful residents tend toward conservative politics and desires for public policy. Again, I wouldn't know about that, either, given the politics and sympathies of people still in Mexico, and the kinds of leaders they elect (although Felipe Calderon might prove a breath of fresh air yet).
3. Young people are more conservative today than were their counterparts one generation back. This is by far Prof. Brooks' most powerful argument. He notes that Republicans still have their volunteer grassroots organizations, while Democrats have to pay people, directly or indirectly, to canvass for votes. Strangely, Brooks ignores one possible reason for the spectacle of a more conservative youth: that most of the would-be liberal youth aren't present, because their mothers aborted them--the Roe effect.

All things considered, Brooks concludes that even if the Democrats capture the House (he does not believe that they'll take the Senate in any case), they won't be able to hold it long, nor be able to claim any mandate for liberalism.