@TBPInvictus

At some point in the not-too-distant future, I intend to explore the Census Bureau’s excellent data sets on Population Projections and Voting and Registration. I hope to examine how the composition of our nation will change over the next 12 years or so (through the 2024 election). After all, I don’t want Bill O’Reilly to be as surprised in 2024 as he apparently was on Tuesday night (“The white establishment is now the minority.”). I hope that the work I intend to do will put some forward-looking meat on the bones of articles like this one, this one, and this one. I want to save my fellow Americans the $400 million they squandered on Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS for no ROI.

In the meantime, here’s the thing: If guys like O’Reilly, or Jack Welch, Donald Trump, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, et. al., had a demographer in their employ some 15 or so years ago (probably even earlier), none of what has transpired would have come as a surprise to them.

In fact, they didn’t even need a demographer. All they needed to do was read this 1996 report (third from bottom) from Census, some of the highlights of which foretold our current situation and, in fact, what is yet to come. (I hope to check the 1996 forecasts against where we actually are today, which should be an interesting exercise, and which will also give me some idea of what we can expect in the years to come.)

Let me state for the record here that this post is not intended to be incendiary or inflammatory, despite what I know will be written in comments. Yes, I am a Democrat. But demographics are what they are, and they will not be looking favorably on the GOP in the years to come. From the Bloomberg article cited above, look at what happened last week, which is very likely to continue:

According to exit polls, President Barack Obama won the Hispanic vote by a whopping margin of 71 percent to 27 percent. [...] Asians voted for Obama by 73-26; they were more Democratic than Hispanics. [Ed. Note: Obama won the black vote by some 93 - 6.]

That said, let’s take a look at what Paul R. Campbell found in 1996 regarding population projections and see how the GOP might have used such information to its advantage (or at the very least not ignored it or been so surprised that it played out more or less exactly as forecast). Emphasis mine:

The White population, the largest of the five race/ethnic groups, is projected to be the slowest-growing among the groups during the 1995 to 2025 projection period.

The Asian population is the fastest-growing group in all regions.

The Hispanic origin population is projected to increase rapidly over the 1995 to 2025 projection period, accounting for 44 percent of the growth in the Nation’s population (32 million Hispanics out of a total of 72 million persons added to the Nation’s population). The Hispanic origin population is the second fastest-growing population, after Asians, in every region over the 30 year period.

As knowledge is power, the GOP arguably could have figured out that, based on the demographics, it needed a course correction before too long or it would find itself in the straits it’s in now. In other words, they could have tried to figure out how to get a bigger tent. They didn’t. (Corollary: How do you spell “voter suppression”?)

Here’s a table that sums up the GOP’s problem beautifully:

Discussion question: To which of the above five groups does the GOP appeal, and what has it done to embrace those groups? I’d venture it gets worse still if we include women (Linda McMahon lost among women in CT; Todd Akin; Richard Mourdock) and the LGBT community.

Let’s look at the table above another way, shall we:

The point, as Bill O’Reilly very tardily came to realize, is that there are not – nor will there be going forward – enough rich, old, angry white guys to sustain the GOP as it’s currently constituted.

An additional note on the Hispanic population:

  • The Hispanic population is expected to comprise a substantially larger share of the total population in 2025 than in 1995 — up from 21 to 32 percent in the West, from 9 to 15 percent in the South
    and Northeast, and from 3 to 6 percent in the Midwest.

So, what is the GOP’s strategy going to be? Will it relax its stance on women’s reproductive rights or, alternatively, will women come to embrace unnecessary trans-vaginal ultrasounds? What about immigration law? How does it engage the Asian community? Attract more blacks? In other words, how is the GOP going to make itself attractive to groups other than older white males? If it can’t figure this out, its future is bleak indeed. The numbers are what the number are – and I’ll have more on them soon (focusing on 2016, 2020 and 2024). Denying them – BubbleLife℠ (which is, frankly, all we’ve seen since the election) – is only bound to cause more “shellshock” in the future.

P.S. There is merit to the argument that black turnout will diminish in 2016 in the event there is not a black candidate on the ticket. The extent to which it may recede, while not exactly quantifiable, may or may not be significant. I intend to examine that and try to make some inferences when I look the population projections in a future post.

Main Citation: Campbell, Paul R., 1996, Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, PPL-47.

Further reading: Pew Research

Adding: It will be times like these, in the future, that I’ll really mourn the unnecessary loss of the Statistical Abstract, which is essential for this type of research.

Category: Current Affairs, Data Analysis, Politics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

61 Responses to “The Problem With a Really Tiny Tent”

  1. VennData says:

    GOP to “re-think” immigrant amnesty.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/1110/GOP-confronts-angry-white-guy-problem-by-rethinking-immigration-amnesty

    This is an outrage. If the elite in DC think that the letting illegals in to steal our jobs, use our healthcare, sell our kids drugs, they’ve got another thing coming.

    Great… let a bunch of Muslims and Buddhists and Sikhs and Lord knows what (Our Lord, the One true and proper One) get their green cads, You know how many sleeper cells this will start? How many mosques they will build? How many temples they will build and will pay zero taxes because the elites give them tax exempt status. Oh, the Main Stream Media didn’t tell you that? That Muslims get tax free mosques! You didn’t know that, did you? Because you let the MTM like ABC, CNN, and Fox tell you what to think.

    When they start bombing YOUR town, don’t blame me, because VennData told you so.

    If the GOP wants a horse of a different color, they can do it without me. I’m joining Cain and the Tea Party to keep us white. And so should you. Unless you want them to screw even more of our precious white womanhood, you will dump these RHINOs and join the Tea Party proper.

    In fact, I’m going to vote Democrat so that they bring the nation down further until the Tea Party is up and running proper. You’ve got to destroy the village to save it.

  2. wally says:

    Here is the danger for the GOP looking at this election as a demographics issue:
    There is a certain racist element to the anti-Obama vote. If he was a white guy, he’d have gotten more of the white vote. This election then would have been a crushing defeat, not just a solid one, for the Repubs. In that case, the depth of problems on other, non-demographic issues would be more clear.
    To focus on particularly the Latino vote and think addressing that will fix their problem is to be blind to those other issues, which WILL surface in future elections.
    You do not get a majority to vote for you by sneering at and belittling a majority of potential voters.

  3. RW says:

    Rick Perlstein’s article, The Long Con: Mail-order conservatism, which BR links to for weekend reading limns a significant impediment to GOP tent expansion: There is a very large media and influence industry that primarily relies upon red meat conservatism as its primary marketing trope and unless that industry can figure out a way under a bigger tent to make the kind of money they’re making now then you’re more likely to see the GOP splinter when they cut up the pie than you are likely to see it expand as a whole.

  4. callotal says:

    “If the elite in DC think that the letting illegals in to steal our jobs, use our healthcare, sell our kids drugs, they’ve got another thing coming.”

    Don’t blame some random illegal who works 12 hours a day hacking at beef carcasses or harvesting oranges for all your problems. If you want to trade lives with a typical migrant worker, I’m sure that it won’t be a problem.

  5. Herman Frank says:

    So, in effect, you’re saying that the automobile has replaced the horse, and the single producer of horse whips, saddles and harnesses makes an extra effort to push his product on the market?!
    Perhaps the producer can look up the name of “Hermes” (oh la la, French! Socialist! Decadence!) and see how a saddle-maker became one of the biggest luxury articles producers in the world.
    Then again, they might also find out that those Hermes craftsmen produce top quality products to the liking of their CUSTOMERS, like in “a customer is free to choose whether or not to buy what you sell, a customer is the one who can be influenced to think positive about you, but cannot be disappointed or they will buy someone else’s product.” No, a customer is NOT the same as “your sponsor”, as these don’t buy your product, but only want you to use THEIR product. You’re still a horse-whip producer seeking millions of clients for your whips. Indeed, you’re lucky to have 500 sponsors, but these will not be able to keep you in business. That’s what the CUSTOMERS do!
    So, think what your products are, think who your customers are …. AND SEE THE AUTOMOBILES PARKED IN FRONT OF YOUR OFFICE!

  6. IanMud says:

    VennData provides what must be the best single example of why the Republicans are in trouble that I have ever read.

  7. gordo365 says:

    GOP doesn’t have to “do things to attract…” those outside the tent. It just needs to actually believe in and fight for things that help a wide swath of people. Any other approach will appear condescending and calculating to “those” people as Rush Limbaugh calls them.

  8. James Cameron says:

    “The minority groups that carried President Obama to victory yesterday by giving him 80% of their votes are on track to become a majority of the nation’s population by 2050, according to projections by the Pew Research Center.

    “By 2050, the Hispanic share of the U.S. population could be as high as 29%, up from 17% now. The black proportion of the population is projected to rise slightly to 13%, while the Asian share is projected to increase to 9% from its current 5%. Non-Hispanic whites, 63% of the current population, will decrease to half or slightly less than half of the population by 2050.”

    A Milestone En Route to a Majority Minority Nation, Pew Social and Demographic Trends

    http://goo.gl/N8J8R

    This is a fascinating trend, a reversal of the demographic trends in the 19th century. Also see:

    Heartland Draws Hispanics to Help Revive Small Towns

    http://goo.gl/lYWqr

  9. CSF says:

    Political parties don’t usually change proactively, based on research data. Instead, it usually takes a major defeat and some soul searching before parties reinvent themselves. After 1980/1984, Democrats realized that unions, black Americans, and southern Dems were no longer sufficient to take the White House, and young Dems like Bill Clinton pivoted towards new constituencies: the suburban middle class, business, Wall St, women.

    It’s the nature of a two-party system that the Republicans will pivot, just as surely as the Democrats’ recent success will lead to an overcrowded tent. The question is whether this happens before 2016. Republicans may need to endure even greater humiliation before they feel the need to reinvent themselves.

  10. irondoor says:

    Has there ever been any subject so thoroughly discected and extrapolated upon than this one in just 3 days? The majority of the commentators on this blog are Democrats who have taken great joy in the Republicans’ seeming plight. Why not just enjoy your victory and relax in the certain knowledge that you will eventually own and control every lever of government? Fortunately for the Democrats, they will also control the printing press to pay for it all and the IRS to collect the toll required to keep it all up in the air. Somewhere, there must be good data available on the tax receipts coming in from all those new Democrats who are voting for their gravy train to continue.

    I am a Republican, and voted for Romney. He wasn’t the best candidate, just the tallest midget in the lineup. Republicans and Democrats in leadership have the same problem; no workable solutions to the major issue facing the country – how to pay for all the goodies they have been promising for the past 50 years. The chickens have now come home to roost and the bill needs to be settled.

  11. Concerned Neighbour says:

    I’m assuming @VennData is trolling. Here’s the giveaway: “If the GOP wants a horse of a different color, they can do it without me. I’m joining Cain and the Tea Party to keep us white.” LOL.

    @wally, you are correct, the race wouldn’t have been close if Obama was white. Racists can’t come out of the closet, so instead they call Obama a socialist, or a communist, or a muslim, or a Kenyan, or a host of other ridiculous things that have no basis in reality.

    As for the topic, the Republican’s problem is that they have morphed into the anti-evidence, anti-science, and pro-corporatocracy party. I’m sure there are lots of latino, black, and other minority group members who would describe themselves as conservative, and would vote for a rationale conservative party. Heck, I’m a moderate who normally leans left come election time, and I’d consider voting conservative if that option weren’t batsh!t crazy.

  12. jonbacon says:

    Something i think has been lost in the Romney post-mortum is his low showing with the youth. We talk about the critical bloc that the hispanic vote has become (roughly 10%) and fail to mention that Romney lost in an equally lopsided way with the youth, who represented 20% of the vote (an increase from the record year in 2008). The millennials are interested, engaged, and unfortunately living in their parents basements due to the difficult economy. It is suicidal for the GOP to ignore this group in the same way it is for them to ignore hispanics and asians. The GOP actually had a candidate, Ron Paul, who energized young people and brought in independents, but he was quickly marginalized by the geniuses in charge of the party. The title of this article is the key, instead of trying reinforce the Bush-Rove coalition of 2000, the party should take this time to build a new coalition around issues such as efficient govt, job growth, energy, and immigration and pull the plug on any candidate that mention reproductive rights, abortion, or jesus…

  13. Lord says:

    Republicans are more cohesive and this allows them to act more decisively when in power, for better when good, for worse when bad. In becoming the party of extremism, even moderates are unelectable for fear of what they will enable doing. I think the way forward will be something like California’s elections as primary runoffs between the two largest vote getters, Democrat vs Democrat in heavily Democratic districts and Republican vs Republican in heavily Republican districts. This allows real choice even in areas dominated by one party rather than letting parties dictate who is acceptable and will moderate them.

  14. cario says:

    If you are not trying to be incendiary or inflammatory, why imply republicans are only sustained by “enough rich, old, angry white guys”. Your point is about demographics so it seems that white and male would have sufficed without the incendiary adjectives of rich, old, or angry – where you provided no data to support this characterization. Hello Cognitive dissonance, nice to see you again.

    Invictus: I actually borrowed the phrase from Lindsey Graham.

  15. romerjt says:

    I think this is going to be a real challenge for the Republicans. They have Fox News and right-wing talk radio that serve as a giant bellows to inflate their bubble both and both make a fine living off of the
    status-quo. Does the Rep.party leadership have the balls to put some distance between them and these mouths?

    As for Hispanics and immigration reform . . . if it includes paths to citizenship, isn’t that more Dem. voters?

    Let’s see what happens to Reince Priebus, Chairman of the National Committee and Tea Party fav.

  16. techy says:

    CSF: the southern dems were lost because democrats chose principles, which is “all humans are equal”.
    IMO the biggest block of republican voters are the religious conservatives, remember the shellacking Dems took in 2010, also please note that they have governorship of 30 states. I think they are a still a majority in this country.
    I am guessing below:
    1. Around 75% are Christians, so if the repubs play nice they easily win election on social/religious issues.
    2. Around 35% are hard core religious (pro life, anti gay etc.), so they need only aroud 20% more from above #1.
    3. Around 45% of them are religious and racists (confederates) and they can tolerate each other’s extreme views. This is the guaranteed vote for republicans. But 45% is not enough to gain majority in national governance. Hence they just need to keep their extreme tone down and fool around 10% of moderates/independents to vote with them (these people are part of #1, hence they have sympathy for religious issues), and this is how they have been winning elections the last 30 years or so(IMO).
    4. Around 20% of them cannot tolerate minorities (confederates), and this is where their problem lies, because without pandering to this group Repubs can’t win any elections, but if you exclude minorities, who are also religious, you have a demographic problem.
    I am not sure if #4 will allow the minorities in their tent because all they have to do is help poor people and not just say that they are bums, this is as per their religious beliefs and most non-confederate churches do it all the time. They can also allow immigration reform with the purpose of helping underprivileged hard working people who share their faith(hispanics).
    IMO this is the easiest path for the repubs to gain majority but then they will not have this stupid debt deficit issue which they use to obstruct the dems. And if the repubs start helping the poor/underprivilaged then the discussion will actually shift to real issues, which will be (1)Money having too much control over policies (2) military-industrial complex (3) outsourcing (4)religious extremism etc..

  17. ZenRazor says:

    Assuming the vote totals I saw yesterday are still accurate, this would seem to be reading a lot into some fairly murky patterns. Obama gathered far fewer votes in this election than he did in 2008 and won by a much smaller percentage of the popular vote (of course you can’t always have the good fortune of running against Gasbag Palin).

    While the long-term demographics are unavoidable, the short-term lesson may be only that a dud president can still win if he runs against an opponent with a propensity to get tangled in his own underwear.

    Both major parties appear to be intellectually bankrupt, but the Republicans now have at least some incentive to do a reorg first. What I find disappointing about this week’s outcome is that it was close enough that they’ll likely think that they can just repackage the same crappy product. Given how desperately the U.S. needs a serious political alternative a real flogging in the polls might have triggered the kind of overhaul necessary to make immigrants and minorities (and even frustrated white guys) feel like the GOP offered them something. As is, odds probably favor more venomous claptrap from both sides in 2014 and 2016.

  18. techy says:

    jonbacon: if you exclude religious extremism then it wont be a republican party of today. And debate will be about real issues.

    republicans problems are simple: majority of them are racist and religious extremists, if you shut them up, then both parties will not remain same, for the good.

  19. SecondLook says:

    To give some historical overview:

    The “Roosevelt” coalition that gave the Democrats 8 out 12 Presidential elections, and effective control of Congress (with short, usually 2 year periods when the Republicans managed to eke out majorities) from 1932 to 1980, was based on Catholic ethnics: Irish, Italians, Poles; Labor, traditional liberal/progressives, those blacks who could vote in the North, and the Old South.
    That coalition began falling apart with the rise of the Civil Rights movement. In 1948, The Dixiecrat wing of the party bolted to form a 3rd party because of the move by Northern democrats to insert a civil rights plank at the ’48 convention. Even before the Civil Rights act of 1965, the South was moving away from the Democrats (witness the states carried by Goldwater).
    The Catholic ethnic bloc steadily eroded away with social acceptance and increasing prosperity. To some extent that was made up by Blacks gaining the vote in the South, and elsewhere, but not all. By the way, the rise of the suburbs was fueled by white flight, and the European ethnics were a prominent part of that move.
    After peaking in the early 1960′s, the Labor movement began to decline with the shift from manufacturing to services as the largest employment sector. The leaders of the services industries learned from the mistakes of their manufacturing counterparts, and stalled unionization by offering similar benefits – health insurance being one of the biggest ones – and upping wages for office workers (not what they would have gotten through a union, but close enough).
    Finally the angst and trauma of the 1960′s damaged the progressives seriously. Not only among themselves, but how their views were regarded by “moderate” voters.

    It’s worth noting that Carter and Clinton managed to split the Southern electoral vote (Clinton especially), primarily by just being southern themselves.

    The new Democratic coalition is obviously not as extensive as the old, but it is interesting that it is based on alike bases: Ethnics (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians), what remains of Labor, liberal/progressives, New England substituting for the South, with addition of one new and potentially very powerful group: Woman, particularly those who are younger.

  20. MidlifeNocrisis says:

    What IanMud said.

    Besides, if the mythically inclined christians can build a church and preach tax-free…. I see nothing wrong with the mythically inclined muslims doing the same. Same with all of the magical thinkers regardless of flavor.

    ….one of the many desirable traits of a free Democracy.

  21. SWMOD52 says:

    I thought we were all Americans….guess not…

  22. dougc says:

    IMO the major problem with the Republican party is the people that are the face of the party. I am a 70 yo male WASP and the party lost me a long time ago. The face of the party has gone from Eisenhower or Reagan to Hannity, Limbaugh, Rove, Trump and the entire FauX news line up. They spent years ranting about the birther issue , which anyone with at least half of a brain could see through . Then they expect to be taken seriously on the important real issues. I don’t believe anything they say unless I also hear it from a MSM source.

  23. McMike says:

    Free Democracy is almost as good of oxymoron as is Government stimulus.

  24. [...] post originally scheduled for this morning, but then Invictus’ dropped his excellent “The Problem With a Really Tiny Tent” on me. I could not in good faith publish this shortie in front of [...]

  25. gordo365 says:

    @VennData – your troll bait post was awesome! But too “on point” to be believable.

    need something “off” like – “I was at the preper’s convention, and heard that President Obama has secretly developed an x-ray laser that only melts guns…” Then it would fee a bit weird and more authentic.

  26. WaltFrench says:

    Some damn smart comments here; hope to match.

    My biggest complaint is that Demographics aren’t destiny. Reagan’s and even GHWB’s victories included majorities of younger voters inspired by emphasis on freedom, growth, …

    The Small Tent failure is seen best in two damning statistics: First, Asian voters went overwhelmingly for Obama. There’s no stereotype that puts them in the Taker side of the equation but they are acutely aware how the Republican Party has been a major source of this nation’s various Voter Suppression Acts and shameful discrimination against hard-working immigrants. Asian evangelicals were reportedly a core element of California’s anti- gay marriage movement, so it can fairly be said that religious affiliation is no longer enough to vote Republican.

    The other is the geographical distribution of white men’s vote. In the deep South, Obama got tiny percentages of them. It seems unsurprising that Romney’s “Makers versus Takers” resonated most strongly in states where black-white racial divides remain strongest. Code Words 101. White men elsewhere were quite unthreatened by Obama.

    Again, it’s not the raw demographics, it’s how the Republican Party has used neutral demographic terms so as not to admit that they were actively courting Anti-immigrants, Racists, Anti-Gays and I-got-miners.

  27. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    I think that, throughout Obama’s first term, the Republicans acted like self-righteous assholes, and, ethnicity aside, not many people like self-righteous assholes (especially if you are a target of the ass-holery).

    irondoor Says:

    “I am a Republican, and voted for Romney. He wasn’t the best candidate, just the tallest midget in the lineup.”

    He certainly was not the best candidate put forward by the Republicans (Huntsman was), and he wasn’t the best candidate between himself and Obama.

    What, other than blind adherence to party, would make someone vote for the “tallest midget” in the first place?

    What about the GOP platform or Romney actually appealed to you?

    The lesser of two evils won the election, but there was a huge difference between those two evils.

  28. techy says:

    Petey: Huntsman is too genuine and smart to be a republican he did not even qualify for most of the debates. But over on this side there are too many people like him and it is crowded.

  29. Lyle says:

    In a bit of defense to the GOP George W Bush knew about the figures and got 40% of the hispanic vote (partly because being from Texas you just could not ignore that vote even in 1994). Bush was so far ahead of the rest of the republicans it is not funny on this issue. It is interesting that Romney attacked Perry for allowing instate tuition for illegals, of course Perry knows that if you face a ratio in Tx like Romney did nation wide you will loose and of course he wants to be governor for life. Jeb Bush also gets it, all be it I suspect that Jeb taught George about the issue. Of course the attitude expressed above is very similar to the attitude about catholics and irish 150 years ago, or the italians 90 to 100 years ago. Recall the 1920s KKK was northern and more against that evil agent of satan the Pope. Whenever the country changes due to waves of immigration some folks say I want the country I was born in but sorry that is not an option. Perhaps being a bit conspiratorial about it that was the point of the contraceptive hub bub, to get more white births.

  30. cgercke says:

    Why should the GOP seek to make their tent bigger? Don’t they believe what they believe? We are so accustomed to parties trying to market themselves like dogfood that we forget that there is supposedly an ideology.

  31. Moss says:

    The GOP primary process is what must change.
    McCain was the old angry white guy. Romney was the old rich white guy.

    They will never win with those type of people. Conservatism, whatever that is, has been defined for them by talk radio and cable TV. They follow the self described ‘Conservative’ media blowhards not realizing that they are only interested in their own ratings.

    They need to flush the toilet quick.

  32. techy says:

    cgercke:
    Is ideology= racism and forcing women to have bear child of a rapist?

  33. drewburn says:

    Gotta challenge SecondLook on his Roosevelt coalition. First, labor wasn’t as strong in the beginning (highest proportion of labor membershipp was in the 60s). Second, the South was VERY Democratic back then (Remember the radical Republicans who treated them very poorly after the Civil war. It wasn’t until the 1960s that white Southerners began deserting the Democratic Party.) I do agree with one point someone else made: That was that the coalition of the Democratic Party in the late 60s and early 70s was too dependent on extremist groups of the era: labor (not that extreme), blacks (fairly extreme for the time) and anti-war/youth movement (very extreme, all Abby Hoffman.) It was a little too much for average Americans.

    Now, the extremists are on the right: Religious, Nationalists, Tea Party idealogues, gun nuts. None of it sits easy with average Americans who may be in favor of some elements of each of these groups, but certainly not at the extremes that have been on display lately.

  34. carleric says:

    Hi Invictus….as you may (a slight possibility) recall, ou and I don’t agree on very much but on this you are right…I wrote my congresswoman (a player in the Republian Party) and found she is just a clueless today as she was prior to the election. I am advocaing the dabandonment of the Republican Party as its upcoming minority status will render it powerless and reconstituting a third party based on libertarian principles, including all types of foks who care about this country. Is it too late to save us? Probably but I am willing to give it a shot by fixing the mess we are in.

  35. techy says:

    carleric : Sorry but Libertarians are a bit impractical to be given the task of governance. If I remember correctly they want to leave everything to animal spirits. no reguation, no helping the unfortunate and underprivilaged etc.., correct me if iam wrong?

  36. slowkarma says:

    This whole question of what happens to the Republicans next, and the triumph of the Democratic party, would be a completely different story if 1.5 out of a hundred voters changed his or her vote — for one thing, Romney would be putting together a Cabinet and the Democrats would be dissecting a loss by a sitting President.

    The fact is, this was far from a landslide or anything close to a “mandate.” The Republicans had a large number of idiots and crazies running this time, courtesy of the tea parties, but if they get their act together in the next couple of years, and if Marco Rubio leads the next GOP ticket, what then? Do the Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Hillary?

  37. SecondLook says:

    drewburn,

    The Labor movement’s contribution to the Democratic party during the 1930′s-1940′s wasn’t so much in numbers but its ability to organize and get out the vote in the industrial heartland of the Middle West. A function it’s returned to in the 21st Century.

    As I noted, the divorce of the Old South from the Democratic party started after WW2. It always was a troubled alliance, the Dixiecrats acted as a third party within a party (similar to the Tea Party movement now?). Besides the issue of civil rights, the South was generally far more conservative/populist than Northern Democrats. Once they left, it was obvious that the remainder of the Democratic party would become more liberal based.

    I would strongly dispute the notion that the ant-war movement and the small handful of angry black men that fired a few radical groups were any significant factor in hurting the Democrats. The latter retained control of Congress throughout the 60′s, and the 70′s, and largely, the 1980′s.

    I would argue that what hurt the Democrats the most was the successes of New Deal to the Great Society (their best ideas became mainstream, now what?), the general rise in prosperity over the post-war period, and last, but not least, their great achievement – Civil Rights.

  38. 10x25mm says:

    These demographic projections are heavily dependent upon birthrate. Have any of these projections been updated for the collapse in birthrates across all ethnicities since 2008? I see a lot fewer strollers in my heavily Latino neighborhood when compared to 5 years ago.

  39. cario says:

    It does not matter where you borrowed it. 1) it was not clear in the post it was a quote/borrowed. 2) Graham can say that about his own team, given that you are making a point as a democrat it is incendiary/inflamatory because you are talking to the other team (or tribe). For example, I am in a minority population and if I use racial slang with my team, by our social norms thats ok. But if you did, and you are not in my group, then it is incendiary. On top of that, there is no reason to “borrow” the quote – white male would have backed up your data in the post more effectively. So I can only conclude you put it in there to rub it in, basically. Aka – to be incendiary/inflamatory.

  40. Iamthe50percent says:

    Moss, the GOP’s greatest potential vote getter was Colin Powell, but Cheney flushed him to get the Iraq invasion.
    Powell has endorsed Obama twice. I wish he would just change registration and come over.

  41. hubbdubb says:

    Petey Wheatstraw: While you are absolutely correct that the Republican response to President Obamas’s election was absurd (especially McConnells’s), that does not excuse his failures. The deal killer for me was President Obama’s failure to demand that the Democrats deliver an alternative budget. They rejected the Ryan budget, fair enough, but he did not insist that they provide an alternative. I have nothing but contempt for the Republican party but I feel that the President’s inaction on this was reprehensible.

  42. CitizenWhy says:

    You didn’t even mention the “Nones” (no religion, not religious, not interested in joining a religion), now 20% and growing fast among the young. Hugely Demographic group (as right wing Christians like to point out as proof of some sort of demonic triumph).

    I’m an old guy None even though I actually believe in Christianity but I want nothing to do with Christians or Catholics. Almost all of my relatives, and the people I know, are Nones, some actually believers but disgusted with political and nasty Christianity.

  43. StillAboveWater says:

    The Devil’s Son-in-Law says:

    “What, other than blind adherence to party, would make someone vote for the ‘tallest midget’ in the first place?”

    Why would anyone in the 99.99% vote Republican or Democrat, if they aren’t blind to the fact that neither branch of the Corporate Party represents their interests?

    The Rs being demographically marginalized isn’t going to make them or the Ds any more responsive to the people’s interests (though they may pay a little more lip service to them). It’s time for all of us to turn our backs on the Ds and Rs and focus on getting money out of politics. Otherwise it will take a major crisis to change things, and then it’ll probably be much, much worse.

  44. WKWV says:

    Hubbdubb, if I remember it correctly the Obama administration did submit a budget – which as has been routine for years was labeled “dead on arrival”. Then, the Progressive caucus in the House of Reps submitted a budget proposal that would bring down the deficit sooner than the Ryan budget. Nobody listens to the progressive caucus, but they are there and working on solutions. Unfortunately Grover Norquist won’t like them and that is all that matters these days.

  45. victor says:

    The Hispanics and the Asians voted for Obama because they “feel” more welcome in Democratic’ circles. What they want, more than anything is RESPECT, that’s what they didn’t have in their countries of origin and for the R pundits to wake up to this reality is downright COMICAL, see Dr. Krauthammer. Some of my relatives still speak English with an accent and they ABSOLUTELY hate it when some older white guy (invariably white, presumably Rep?) gives them “looks” like: go back to Russia! Never mind these relatives of mine happen to be lily white, blue eyes and all. Rush Limbaugh has done more damage to the Rep brand than anyone else and the R’s need to lose him asap. The young vote went to Obama because he’s perceived as “cool” unlike the “rich dude”. And the D’s have absolutely nothing to celebrate, they’d better star cleaning up their act in the inner cities and barrios which they’ve owned for generations now to which they over-promised and totally under delivered.

    OK, BR, we all know that “demography is destiny” but there is no guarantee that the D’s will retain the young, unmarried women, Asians and especially Hispanics.

  46. petessake says:

    Invictus, I applaud where you going with this essay, article, or book. Consider weaving the demographics through / with / among Professor Allan Lichtman’s 13 keys or his keys through your demographics and you’ll have the likely road map for presidential elections for the a generation or two.

    http://www.wbur.org/npr/164711093/what-earthquakes-can-teach-us-about-elections

    CSF, irondoor and others are correct – the modern republican party is at its: adapt, migrate, or die moment.

    It should adapt by returning to its community individualism roots – trust-busting, individual over the corporatacracy; it’s former leading with women and minorities advocating voting and rights for each, science over beliefs, etc. The democrats NEED a competition in thoughtful ideas. Presently there is none and the nation’s solutions to problems suffers ominously as a result. But it’s doubtful we’ll see a republican adaption for a generation or two since the angry white men will not go quietly into the night.

  47. ToNYC says:

    Can this be as simple as the dis-enfranchised by education and debt Sun-worshippers voting against the extraction-unlimited Cave-dwellers? The Sun-worshippers win by breeding in this science non-fiction narrative. I’m reminded of Richard Dawkins’s recalling P.B. Medawar’s remark about the attraction of ‘philosophy non-fiction’ to ‘a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought’.

  48. Conan says:

    I agree with Invictus. America is a nation of immigrants and has always been made up of a wide variety of groups. As a nation that believes in liberty and human rights we should all be free to participate fully as we are able, but not limited artificially by any group or government.

    Where I would urge some caution is in overly labeling groups. For example the white vote. This is not a solid block, you have major differences between those that are liberal and conservative and to a certain degree male and female.

    Another group that I can speak to is the Latino group. There are many sub divisions. For example there are lots of Mexican heritage concentrated in the southwest, but there are also notable populations of Central Americans. In the Northeast you have different groups, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, etc. In the Southeast you have other groups, Cubans, Venezuelans, Brazilians. All of these groups have their own components that they brought with them, plus there are differences in how much time they have been in the US or what generation they are say from 1st to 3rd.

    It is my understandings that there is quite a variety in the Asian group also for the same reasons as noted above for the Latino vote. So yes there are major blocks that have overall tendencies, but it is unwise to label or stereo types people or peoples.

    Thus Invictus is very correct that a Tiny Tint is a loosing approach on many different front. Who cares as to the ethnicity or skin color or whatever. It is the ideas, values and common goals that should matter. Any party or person that limits themselves for these reasons has just made any success in there pursuits that much less likely. So a Big Tent is of Big Importance.

  49. howardoark says:

    I got halfway through VennData’s post before I realized he was kidding. It’s interesting how many subsequent posters got all the way through his post without realizing he was kidding. It’s BR’s confirmation bias at work.

  50. rct01 says:

    I’m mostly surprised that 73% of Asians voted for Obama. I know a lot of Asian Americans that lean to the right fiscally. At least in California they have the highest median income of any ethnic group, well above whites. Once the Asians making over $250k AGI start feeling the impact of prop 30 in CA raising the state income tax to 10.3% for those making over $250k and Obama raising the fed income tax to 39.6%, I predict they will be migrating right. And they will start feeling as I do that the Dems only solution to anything is to get the so called “rich” to pay for it. And start wondering why they are voting Dem as their take home pay shrinks.

  51. Lukey says:

    WKWV – you are correct about the Obama Administration submitting a budget, but, if I remember correctly, it was the Democrats in the Senate that labeled it “DOA.”

  52. Attention sock puppets & fucktards: Nice try, but you’ve been outed, your junk is transparent.

    The 15 Rules of Web Disruption
    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/11/the-15-rules-of-web-disruption-2/

  53. SecondLook says:

    rct01,

    I strongly suspect, and somewhat based on conversations with my Asian-American friends, that they vote Democratic for much the same reasons that Jews still heavily – usually by a 2-1 margin – support the Democrats.

    For Jews, there are two factors in play, and support of Israel isn’t one of them. One is a major distrust of the religious right that they see as being too influential in the Republican party. That the evangelicals in the end really want to make this a “Christian Nation”; which understandably sends shivers through Jews, secular or observant.

    Second, is the strong theme of Tikkun olam – Repairing the World, i.e. social justice. A cultural injunction that led for example to Jews strongly supporting, with money and lives, the Civil Rights movement.
    Call it enlightened self-interest: what happens to our neighbor might very well happen to me, or call an appeal to what the President that Jews most admire said at the end of his inaugural speech in 1861: ” …when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

    I think the history of Asian-Americans in the United States, has also led them to worry about the first reason, and to share the sentiments of the second…

    ~~~

    BR: Dead right.

    Invictus:
    A fabulous – and spot on – observation.

  54. gordo365 says:

    Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair is the perfect metaphor for this election. However, the chair represents the people outside the tent.

  55. louiswi says:

    A very apt post Invictus, and aptly titled as well. Thanks for your excellent work. I have nothing to add.

    Invictus: Thank you. I appreciate that.

  56. victor says:

    @SecondLook. You’re close but the two factors you cite are subsets of Factor #1 as discussed by author Nicholas Wade in his book “Before the Dawn”, go to page 271, second para. under chapter “Evolution”. And support for Israel among Jews IS a factor, an instinctual one, also a subset of Factor #1. This is controversial, but here’s NYT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html?pagewanted=all

    Dr. Jared Diamond of the University of California, Los Angeles, in a 1994 article, ” selection in Jews for the intelligence putatively required to survive recurrent persecution, and also to make a living by commerce, because Jews were barred from the agricultural jobs available to the non-Jewish population.”

  57. SCTTD says:

    You were doing so well being impartial until “so many rich, old, angry white guys” Why go to the inflammatory stereotype?

    Invictus: As I mentioned to a previous commenter (with link to citation), I borrowed that line (more or less) from Lindsey Graham, so I really don’t see a need to apologize for it. He was smart enough to recognize it, his party has not been smart enough to do anything about it.

  58. DeDude says:

    All politics is about tribalism. The trick is to get enough people to think that they belong to your candidate’s “tribe” and not to the other candidate’s tribe. In the past 50 years the policies of the GOP has been designed to serve the top 1%, but you cannot win on that as your stated goal. So they have taken up a lot of other messages as to whom they are to enlarge their tribe. Trickle down and small government were great policies for serving the 1% as it directly gave them more money and removed restrictions on what they could do and how much of the social costs of their greed they could pass on to society. But to get past 50% they also had to appeal to the type of people who cannot get their self worth from their own accomplishments but instead gets it from condemning others (as lower or unworthy) based on race, “values” or personal behavior. They used their power over religious institutions to get at that group (the guy who pays the most owns the pastor and his message).

    The trickle down (reborn as “job creator”) stick is getting old and tired as it now has been tried and failed 3 times. But so is the demonization of other people based on race, sexual preference or other (alternative) life choices. So in addition to the demographic problem the GOP is facing a loss of power in their messages. But they are kind of stuck. The rich “owners” of the party will not allow the old “trust busting” GOP to be resurrected, and the huge block of so called “values” voters will lose enthusiasm (and stay home at elections) if the party tone down the fire and brimstone condemnation of those different “others”. It is not just an issue of creating a majority coalition, they also have to be enthusiastic enough about your message that they will take the effort to go and vote. It will be interesting to see how the party of the 1%’ers in the future will try to get the majority to vote against their own personal economic self interest.

  59. hubbdubb says:

    WKWV, you are correct that the administration submitted a budget but it was defeated in the House without a single Democratic vote. As Lukey Says points out it was “DOA” in the Senate due to this result.

  60. DeDude says:

    Has ANY administration ever submitted a budget that was passed?

    I believe the white house budget proposal is supposed to be a conversation starter. For those of us who cares about the US constitution the budget is spending LEGISLATION – and legislation is done by the legislative branch of gobinment (that is why they are called the legislative branch). The reason the executive branch send this over to the legislative branch is that they want to tell them what the different agencies think they need, in order to do what they believe they are supposed to do. Then the legislators may say: “no we don’t think you are supposed to do this” or “we do think you need another aircraft carrier even if you don’t”.