Re: More about ethnicity? (no, more about money)
That is one way to look at it - but it is not entirely accurate. The color of the Republican Party if Green (i.e. the color of money.)
Women (not an ethnic group) are basically independant of either party, with a nearly even split, heavy influence in either political party (which is GOOD for them, equal representation!)
White (not an ethnic group) - are slightly more dependent upon Republican Party for representation.
Latino Ethnic Groups - are slightly more dependent upon Democratic Party for representation.
Black Ethnic Groups - for the most part are enslaved to the Democratic Party for their representation... with a slight uptick in movement towards the Republican Party during the 2010 mid-term elections (odd, with their ethnicity in the Presidency and their ethnicity's dominant favoured party in control of both the Legislative and Executive branch!)
One ABC (American Black Conservative) [in his own words] "won't stay on t he Democratic Plantation because of the color of his skin".
It is not good for ANY demographic to become heavily dependent upon a single political party. It is dangerous when you are counted against those who may offer a better opportunity for you. This person actually BELIEVES that President Obama supplied her and others telephones, thus wins their vote.
It is in the best interest of the Democratic Party to keep demographic groups voting for them and the main message from them is to emphasize: poverty, dependency, have them else take money from others to give to perspective voters. During the past 4 years, poverty has risen - and those in poverty are most likely to vote for Democrats (to use the power of the government gun to transfer money to them when they are in the time of need.)
It is in the best interest of the Republican Party to keep demographic groups voting for them and the main message for them to increase their base through lifting poor into middle class and middle class into upper class through wealth. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they lost this battle in 2008, with the election of a Democratic House of Representatives, Democratic Senate, and Democratic President. No representation of this demographic means the nation becomes poorer, the economy is depressed, and Republicans voting base loses more wealth (and more voters to replace those who die off.)
Neither party want the poor or elderly to be in need - they both understand that instability comes with idle hands joined to hungry stomachs and instability threatens their political power. At the same time, Demcrats have figured out they can manipulate demographics by making them dependent upon government (health care reform took over student loans from the banking sector to give Democrats another demographic to control) and the Republicans have been inept in keeping their opposing party from manipulating ethnic and other demographic groups to vote for them wholesale.
(Ironically, regarding the Obama Phone, that program was a private program which came into existence under the Republican G.W. Bush Administration, made possible through cooperative efforts dating back decades through Presidents of BOTH PARTIES... yet Democrats have capitalized on this political capital.)
The Democratic Party is more about government coersion (government taxation & income redistribution) while the Republican Party is more about personal freedom (growing wealth for everyone.) As long as the Democratic Party can keep more people poor and THINKING they are voting for their lives to be sustained, the Republicans don't have a chance. Candidate Romney alluded to this with his 47% remark, but has been ineffective in countering the rhetoric.