The Beltway Still Does Not Understand The Emerged Democratic Majority

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:08:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Tracie Powell of CQ:

Looks like the Supreme Court has delivered conservatives a not-so-new wedge issue. . . . Patrick J. Buchanan’s exhortation [!!!] to the Republican Party to present it as race-based bigotry against white males — for political gain. . . . “The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court presents [the GOP] an opportunity. For, even if the party loses the battle and Sotomayor sits on the court, it can win the war.” . . . Finally, some semblance of a GOP survival strategy emerges.

(Emphasis supplied.) Uh, what? That's the strategy? Continue alienating non-whites and women? Hell of a strategy. For those who missed the 2008 election, here were the demographic breakdowns:

WHITE MALES

McCain 57%
Obama 41%

WOMEN

McCain 43%
Obama 56%

LATINOS

McCain 31%
Obama 67%

And so on. The ONE group the GOP still dominates is white men. The problem for the GOP is white men are now only 36% of the electorate. In 1992, when Bill Clinton won the Presidency, white men accounted for 39% of the electorate. Whites overall were 80% of the electorate. Now they are 74%.

So the new GOP strategy is to chase after the white men they already get? And to alienate women and non-whites, especially Latinos, the fastest growing group of voters?

That's some strategy they got there. Reminds me of how Pete Wilson's Latino bashing turned GOP leaning California solid blue in the 1990s.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | Lieberman Was For The Public Option Before He Was Against It >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Beltway Still Does Not Understand The Emerged Democratic Majority | 107 comments (107 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Dems don't understand it either (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:56:19 PM EST

Why do they cower before the likes of Lindsay Graham and Charles Grassley?

Maybe if Dems started governing like they were in the majority, people would start believing it.

This is what's really pathetic too (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:01:18 PM EST

Because I see that as well, a bunch of politicians who don't viscerally understand the party platform that got them here because they are little more than a bunch of whores. Oh I know, I'm terrible.


: they don't believe (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by sancho on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:52:25 PM EST

in the party platform, MT. That's just advertising to get them elected. I doubt the elite among the dems want any more dems to be elected to the senate. Just below fillibuster is just right for keeping the status quo and then inching it around a little left or right as needed. The example of Lieberman, the "liberal" senator from CT, is fascinating b/c it clarifies in an individual case how the American political system actually functions.
And remember Joe used to be listed as one of the current president's key mentors.

That was my first reaction when reading (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by Anne on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:42:51 PM EST

the post title, that the Democrats do not understand the power of their own majority. Even if one concludes that the described "strategy" will only see the Republicans continuing to lose ground out here among the populace, it doesn't matter and doesn't boost Democratic power as long as the Dems continue to give in and concede and reach across the aisle and cower in the face of filibuster threats because that "strategy" only ensures that Republicans will continue to wield power where it counts: in the halls of Congress.

Strong leadership at the top of the chain would go a long way to changing that dysfunctional dynamic, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Sad to say. Sad to see. Sadder to be living with the consequences.


NOW we get to a good point (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:02:19 PM EST

Thank you.


Just infuriates me to see them (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:24:32 PM EST

still running the country from the minority seats. They will do it for years into the future if Dems don't wake up, and it will be Republican or Dem extra-lite policies that keep failing, Dems taking the blame, and Republicans becoming the majority again.

Well, maybe the demographics will prevent that last part, but it will hardly matter.


it drives me nuts (none / 0) (#81)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:36:24 PM EST

that republicans always act like the majority and dems always act like the minority. no matter what the head count.

why the heck is that?


Interesting..phrasing it that way (none / 0) (#92)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:59:00 PM EST

makes me think that perhaps a party made up of various minority groups might have a little bit of a problem seeing themselves as a dominant group. White males just assume dominance (as a group anyway).


not sure there are enough (none / 0) (#93)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:13:13 PM EST

minorities even in the democratic party for that.
I honestly think it may have as much to do with the fact that for as long as I remember republicans have seemed to get the fact that if you say something is true often enough people will believe it is.
or if you act like you are in charge even if you are not people will submit.
I have always complained that democrats are too damn apologetic.


Sorry. (none / 0) (#95)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:19:05 PM EST

: see what I mean (5.00 / 0) (#96)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:21:55 PM EST

BDB (none / 0) (#101)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:22:14 PM EST

did a whole post on this over at Corrente that was very insightful. In essense Obama is wimpy because the whole party is wimpy. The party is diseased basically and how you fix that i have no idea.


we're a corporate state and (none / 0) (#105)
by sancho on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:53:34 PM EST

corporations run the country.


: and worse than that the corporations (none / 0) (#107)
by of1000Kings on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 05:14:18 AM EST

are the 'police', as they make the policies through lobbying and campaign funds..

Why do they cower? (none / 0) (#97)
by esmense on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:33:23 PM EST

Because the majority of Democratic office holders -- still -- are white males. And prominent women and minorities in the party are -- still -- of a generation that for the most part won power only with the approval and support of white men. I don't think they really, on a personal and emotional level, comprehend how much the world has changed or their changed positions.


Does the realization of changing (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by KeysDan on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:29:58 PM EST

demographics and voting patterns that widen the Democratic party, suggest that stalwart but electorally troubling groups, like gays, can be safely jettisoned?

Yup (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:09:49 PM EST

Appalling (none / 0) (#2)
by lilburro on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:12:46 PM EST

Racial politics as the core of your strategy against a black President...and they say discrimination is dead!

The problem (none / 0) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:16:48 PM EST

isn't really just white males. The Dems can alienate females and the GOP might be able to pick up enough to win if they had a pro choice candidate.

In the end none of this is going to matter if Obama can't deliver on the economy which so far he isnt looking to do. People won't care that the GOP has racists or whatever if they dont have jobs.

Plus this is simply laughable (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:23:33 PM EST

"the GOP might be able to pick up enough to win if they had a pro choice candidate."

And if pigs could fly . . .


Well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:27:30 PM EST

I've seen them in operation for years and if, and I think this is what Bill Clinton was warning you about, is that if you constnatly are exhorting the Dems as the party for minorities then you are at the same time pushing 75% of the country away. I think it's a huge mistake to rely on profiling and basing the party on race and sex and not ideas.

Do you think that Obama would have even done as well as he did without the collapse of the economy? And dont underestimate the GOP. I've lived long enough and so have you to realize that they can win in 2012.


I will grant you that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:32:03 PM EST

the South will remain solidly GOP for the foreseeable future.

But the rest of the country is going Dem.


The Dems risk everything (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by magster on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:51:34 PM EST

by continuing to do the bidding of banks and mega-corporations.


Really? (none / 0) (#11)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:39:32 PM EST

You have a crystal ball? I'm not seeing any legislation or ideas being built right now that will build any sort of future for the party. Maybe there will be some issues in the future but they arent there now.


Crystal ball? (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:48:34 PM EST

No. But I have read election results. Perhaps you could try doing that.


You're (none / 0) (#18)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:54:14 PM EST

assuming that it's going to always be this way from now on. You're old enough to know that's not a reliable predictor of future behavior. Heck the south voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and completely abandonded him (except for GA) four years later. My point is that without some cohesive issues to rally around it's unlikely to stay the way it is now.

Just because Hispanics voted for Obama in 2008 doesnt mean that they wont vote for a Republican in 2012 with the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004.


I am a student of these trends (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:56:20 PM EST

I have written about the Emerging Democratic Majority since Texiera and Judis wrote their great book in 2002.

Please. You act as if I am discussing these issues for the first time.

Disagree all you want but actually address the evidence and actual arguments that have been made by me and others for YEARS about this.


Really? (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:56:36 PM EST

I mean, why would they....boredom? Mass self sabotage syndrome?


BTW (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:59:24 PM EST

Rove's strategy to capture Latinos was summarily rejected by the GOP base. Perhaps you missed that.


No (none / 0) (#30)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:01:36 PM EST

I didnt miss that but you're assuming that what mattered in 2007 will matter four years from now.


You think (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:02:57 PM EST

the GOP base will change its mind?


Depends (none / 0) (#51)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:14:44 PM EST

on how bad they want to win. Lots of "fiscal conservatives" (and I use that term loosely) voted for Bush twice.


: Hmm (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:20:53 PM EST

Since Goldwater, to their credit, they have been steadfast about their principles, such as they are.

BTD (none / 0) (#66)
by bocajeff on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:25:41 PM EST

There was no way a Dem wasn't going to win in 2008. Post WWII there generally has been 8 years and 8 years out per party (Carter was an exception and G.H.W. Bush was a one term add on). Considering that plus an economy that was in a tail spin I think you or I could have beaten McCain and I have some skeletons in my closet.


: True (none / 0) (#73)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:31:09 PM EST

But that was largely because of the emerged Dem Majority coupled with Bush as Hoover.

Do we count Texas as "the South" (none / 0) (#109)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 08:37:01 AM EST

because the Latino influx will give us the Lone Star state eventually I have to think.


Well now (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:30:50 PM EST

Here is a nonsequitor. You posit the possibility of the GOP nominating a pro-choice candidate. I challenge you on it and you use the GOP talking point that the Democratic Party is the "Party of Minorities."

Here is my retort - if you think being the Party Against Choice is not anti-women 953% of the electorate fyi), then what more do you and I need to talk about?

In my view, you are not discussing these issues sensibly.


No (none / 0) (#10)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:37:25 PM EST

you are positing that the Dem party is the "party of minorities". Do you not realize that you are helping the GOP with those statements?

You seem to not realize that there have been plenty of women who are pro choice who vote for the GOP. Just like there are gay people who vote for them. Those issues just arent a priority for some voters I guess.


The party of minorities (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:49:35 PM EST

women, unions, the poor, etc.

You might want to consider what you are writing.


When (none / 0) (#24)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:59:10 PM EST

you call the GOP the "white party" then you are doing their work for them. I get pressure from people all the time to be a republcian because I am white. It's not just the south either where this goes on apparently. Both you and the GOP are sending me the same message and that's the point that I'm trying to make.


GOP call itself the "white" party (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:00:45 PM EST

and thus they are doing the work for the Dems.

The math seems to not get through to you.


Well (none / 0) (#32)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:02:54 PM EST

if you have a country that's 75% white it seems that the math doesnt really work against you if youre white.


Yes (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:03:58 PM EST

That thinking worked well in 2006 and 2008 for the GOP.

I hope they agree with you and think they can capture 70% of the white male vote.


I dont (none / 0) (#41)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:08:35 PM EST

think that a GOP win would come from those type of white male numbers but you never know.

Let me ask you this: If Obama doesnt deliver on the economy are any of these identity politics going to matter? You are positing that even if Obama is a failure that in the end it won't matter due to demographics. Right?


: Now you ask a good question (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:10:11 PM EST

If Obama does not deliver, he and Dems will suffer losses with ALL groups.
You must have read me when I wrote that Obama can be FDR or Jimmy Carter.

well, (none / 0) (#68)
by bocajeff on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:26:58 PM EST

the demographics in the country didn't change much from 2004 to 2006 or 2008. Not to account for a 7 percent margin anyway.


: Bush did well with Latinos in 2004 (none / 0) (#72)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:30:07 PM EST

Kerry was also a lousy candidate.
WOT still had its grip.
Lots of issues there.
Obama maximized the A-A vote, won Latinos and Asians 2-1 and won women handily.
The white male vote was rather static.
that is why Buchanan's prescription is bizarre.

If all of the country were as racist as (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:03:59 PM EST

the south, you'd be right.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:06:44 PM EST

Southerners do not like to hear that - I had a long debate at daily kos about this back win 2004 and 2005 when I argued for the Lincoln 1860 Strategy.

Here;s one thing I do predict though - North Carolina at least will lean back towards the GOP UNLESS Obama acts like an FDR and delivers economic results.


Well ya know BTD (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:12:20 PM EST

Some black people have gotten it into their heads that their children could be president or something. The blacks around here are starting to forget their place sometimes. Will more blacks exercise their right to their vote and vote these bedsheets out in the South? Cuz there's LOTS OF MINORITIES down here.


Now to get them voting (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:14:10 PM EST

at higher levels . . .


Blacks do vote in Alabama (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:16:00 PM EST

now at equal levels with whites (see Tom Schaller) the problem is that white vote 80%+ Republican.


Making my point (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:21:36 PM EST

The South will be GOP. the rest of the country Dem.


Have you factored in (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by sj on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:57:52 PM EST

any sort of emerging Unaffiliated or Independent voter set?

Because, although I haven't changed my party affiliation on paper, and, although I will never be a Republican -- I no longer am a reliable vote for a candidate just because of the "D". The thought of leaving the little box blank no longer causes me to hyperventilate.


I think the deep south is a little different (none / 0) (#61)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:22:57 PM EST

As NC and VA become more like MD, the Republicans will be in quite a pickle. GA will be a battleground before long.


I do not agree (none / 0) (#65)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:25:33 PM EST

I think Virginia can be seen as a battleground now.

(IN a way. Mark Warner played the Bill Clinton role (proving Dems can govern) for Dems there.)

I do not see NC the same way. And Georgia? No way. Alabama? Never. Mississippi? Never.

I tell you one to watch in say, 5 years. Texas.


The voting patterns of whites (none / 0) (#70)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:27:49 PM EST

in Texas and Georgia are indistinguishable. That's why they don't vote like California or New York. NC and VA have more white yankee immigrants.


Latinos in Texas (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:32:10 PM EST

may swing completely Dem.

big difference between Texas and Alabama.


It's an interesting question (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:34:20 PM EST

If the Republican can keep about 30% of the latino vote in TX, they'll keep going for a while. But if latinos start to vote like blacks, all bets are off.


Don;t have the demos for Texas (none / 0) (#82)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:37:31 PM EST

but I believe it is about 15% A-A, 30% Latino and 55% white.

14 (14 of the 15% A-A) + 23 (of the 30% Latino) + 20 (of the 55% white) = 57.

Whatever the real numbers, you get my point.


2008 Exit poll: (none / 0) (#83)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:40:20 PM EST

Vote by Race
Total
Obama McCain Other/No Answer
White (63%)
26%
73%
1%
African-American (13%)
98%
2%
N/A
Latino (20%)
63%
35%

It would take massive citizenship drive plus a huge shift toward Dems by latinos.


: 5 years (none / 0) (#86)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:50:52 PM EST

It can be done.

And a joyful one (none / 0) (#77)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:34:08 PM EST

But I love Texas even though a whole bunch of crazy people do too :)


Just my opinion but the Deep South (none / 0) (#74)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:32:02 PM EST

has done a bit to squash the spirit of the black persons who share acreage with us. Almost to the point that blacks here have come to accept it on some levels while not desiring to leave the safety of the places that they were born in and grew up in. Will having a black president and such an emerging Democratic majority cause them to question that now? Will a packed supreme court now voting them down a step from the white man matter to them during everything that will evolve in the upcoming months and years?


You're (none / 0) (#103)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:32:37 PM EST

awfully hopeful about GA. GA could become a battleground if the Dem party can get its act together enough to put forth a coherent set of idea.

GA is where the whole demographic strategy falls apart. According to demographics the Dems SHOULD carry Ga but dont. The reason they dont is the working class white vote. All this yammering about how the Dem party is the party of minorities and women makes them think they have to vote GOP even though they really could be an ally w/r/t issues.


So we aren't hiding the racists down here? (none / 0) (#64)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:24:56 PM EST

This is where they actually live? :)


Why aren't blacks voting almost 100% (none / 0) (#69)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:27:09 PM EST

Democrat?


They do, about 90-95% (none / 0) (#71)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:28:42 PM EST

And even that isn't enough.


If they are voting on equal levels with (none / 0) (#76)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:32:53 PM EST

us whites then how can that not be enough? I'm confused :)


Less blacks than white in Alabama (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:34:30 PM EST

And Dems only get 20% of the white vote in Alabama.

If they got 35%, they could win.

that's how Obama would win Dem primaries in the South.


Equal according to population %age (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:34:56 PM EST

not 50:50.


Thank you friend (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:41:19 PM EST

Now I get it. And if I had been born black in Alabama I would have got the hell out of here ASAP. Let some others martyrs fight this crap! Josh's new school calendar arrived for next year. MLK shares the day with Robert E. Lee again clearly in black and white. I looked at my daughter and said out loud, "Now what did Robert E. Lee teach my children again? Oh yeah, how to attempt to uphold the slavery of other fellow human beings and then get my a$$ beat for doing it." I'm all about Robert E. Lee day around here.


: Alabama (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:33:43 PM EST

Was just in your state for the day last week, coming over from Rome, GA, where I was visiting my woefully misplaced dad (a Lower East Side Jew, via Hollywood, who's lived in the south almost a quarter century now). Spent Father's Day at Little River Falls with the neices and nephews, dad, stepmom, bro and sis. Very lovely. My southern Cali born/bred little city boy loved swimming in a river for the first time. Peace.

And if (none / 0) (#44)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:11:02 PM EST

you go back and check my comments I agreed with you on the 1860 strategy.


: So we are talking at cross purposes (none / 0) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:22:12 PM EST

then.

Mebbe (none / 0) (#46)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:11:39 PM EST

See Tom Jensen for some data.


Not surprising (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:13:16 PM EST

NC was very much a perfect political storm in 2008.


: My guess is that he can pull it off again (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:14:56 PM EST

if he's seen as a success. But that's not to disagree with you.
I think he'll have an easier time in IN and FL next time around, which means that the Rs have already lost.

That's (none / 0) (#38)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:05:32 PM EST

why I think we need issues to rally around instead of basing everything on identity politics.


Being anti-minority and anti-women (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:08:19 PM EST

is the GOP position on the relevant issues.

That's been my point all along.


And my (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:10:23 PM EST

point has been that winning by default isnt really winning and the party should have issues for people to rally around in order to build a majority.

Do you think simply being the lesser of two evils is all the Dems have to offer? That's pretty much waht you're implying.


: That is a different point (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:12:17 PM EST

I do not at all disagree with the point you are now making.
My post is about GOP strategy.

Sorry (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:22:33 PM EST

But you are not thinking clearly on this.

Whatever the deficiencies in the Dems, there is no way you can rationally argue that the GOP can or is even trying to appeal to women.


Well (none / 0) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:33:02 PM EST

let me tell you what they did down here: They put the fundies in the background and took away their "abortion is murder" signs and wouldnt let them display it at a recent rally. The GOP isnt stupid as much as we might like them to be. They also are using the gay issue to splinter off AA's.


Oh really? (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:50:22 PM EST

That's how Georgia went Republican? the Civil Rights Acts had nothing to do with it? Sheesh.


No (none / 0) (#19)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:55:36 PM EST

they are hiding the fundies down here TODAY. I'm not talking about the past. Sheesh.


I hear what you are saying (none / 0) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:59:01 PM EST

But we aren't hiding the fundies. The fundies are hiding here because it's a free country and this used to be their full blown KKK sanctuary :) It is getting a tad divisive down here though lately, not as much bootlicking.


heck (none / 0) (#26)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:00:15 PM EST

the GOP is hiding them. It seems even they are sick of them.


It's the same hiding they've always done (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:05:16 PM EST

since civil rights legislation....the underlying white southern issues for some southern whites are spoken of in the form of a dog whistle. This is no new hiding, simply a phase of the old hiding in my opinion. My daughter claimed yesterday that her generation conquered it. My reply was really? Because two of the ethnicities down here didn't even speak to each other after grade school was completed. They inhabited the same school and two completely different worlds.


Good luck with that theory (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:01:31 PM EST

Charlie Crist is discovering they are not hiding at all.


It's not (none / 0) (#36)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:04:04 PM EST

a theory. It's a fact. THe leadership here is putting them in teh background. That being said, tehy cant control them 100% of the time iether.


Not hiding in Florida (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:11:27 PM EST

or most anywhere actually.

Let's take this Sotomayor business. It is political suicide for the GOP to make a stink about Sotomayor.

But they are doing it anyway.

Why? to appease their base.


Well (none / 0) (#56)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:19:19 PM EST

that's funny because I would think ti would be political suicide in FL and not here and yet they're stuffing socks in their mouths here and they're appeasing them in FL? Wierd.


: Very weird (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:22:54 PM EST

Yeah and they could pick up (none / 0) (#108)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 08:35:52 AM EST

Latino's and African Americans is they ran MLK and Ceasar Chavez, guess what that's not happening either.


: Of course (none / 0) (#110)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:18:00 AM EST

both of them have passed away.

G.O.P. (none / 0) (#12)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:46:10 PM EST

Grand Old Pinheads
Getting Older Pitifully
Grasping Onto Prejudice

Well if you aren't special from birth (none / 0) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:48:54 PM EST

how else are you going to be special? And everyone knows that Republicans were never properly loved by their parents so their specialness must come from elsewhere :)....from whiteness and penis envy. I just crack my evil self up.


G.O.P. II (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:18:46 PM EST

Genus Outta Penis


: Outta nads :) (none / 0) (#100)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:42:55 PM EST

Not enough white nads to vote ya in.

I watched that Olberman (none / 0) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:52:08 PM EST

deal about the Real Lives of the GOP Presidential Contenders or something like that. After acknowledging that the existing contenders have blown themselves up Olberman did mention the three Hispanics who would vote for Newt :) No opposition party in sight for miles and miles and miles.

interesting thread. (none / 0) (#85)
by cpinva on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:42:37 PM EST

a "pro-choice" republican candidate is more commonly known as a democrat.

you all have left out a compelling aspect of the national demographic: aging segments of the population. by 2012, the white male segment most likely to vote republican, 50+ and rural, will drop again, as they die off. they aren't being replaced by younger white males, who've trended towards the democrats.

VA and NC will always be iffy; too much military, which trends towards the republicans.

of course, if the obama administration and a majority democratic congress do nothing about jobs and health care, all the demographics are moot.

Question (none / 0) (#88)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:53:39 PM EST

Does this trend count the estimated 4-6 million Republicans who stayed home on election day because they would not vote for McCain and couldn't stand to vote for Obama?

And what about something like this? (I don't know anything about Jay Cost).

Your thoughts?

I do not believe there were untapped (none / 0) (#89)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:54:33 PM EST

Republicans. Cost's argument is different.


: I know (none / 0) (#94)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:16:41 PM EST

His argument is that the major polls showing Repbulican identification is in a nose dive amy not refelct reality, because those polls tend to underestimate the number of people who actually identify as Republicans.
I just am skeptical of the thesis of this post. I think the Dems had a good election cycle and it may continue through 2012, but I don't see anything like a 20-30 year stretch of Democratic dominance. I just don't think it's possible in this day of 24 hour news, Twitter, youtube, etc. Voters are fickle, and as more and more people are identifying as independents (like many, many Dems after 2008), I don't think it's correct to say that the Democratic majority is going to be a long one.

Someone always stays home (none / 0) (#90)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:55:21 PM EST

true enough. (none / 0) (#106)
by cpinva on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:26:33 PM EST

Someone always stays home

i remain unconvinced that mccain/palin lost, because millions of republican voters refused to leave the comfort of their homes to vote for them. they lost because, well, they were poor choices for candidates.

there hasn't been an election, in the past century, where 100% of the electorate turned out to vote.

and more people are identifying as independents

these tend to vote democratic, but it makes them feel good to self-identify as "independents".

the great difference between the modern democratic party, and the modern republican party, is homogenousness; the democrats aren't, the republicans are. it explains the block voting by republicans, and the seeming inability of the democrats to consistently vote together, for anything.

disparate parts tend to have their own agendas.