Skip to main content

Chart of Latino Decisions polling of national Latinos. Latest survey has Obama leading Romney 70-22 among Latinos.
Demography is political destiny.
Political scientist John Sides argues:
The term “realignment” gets thrown around casually, sometimes suggesting nothing more than “something big is happening.”  But the term has a more precise meaning—indeed, it must have a precise meaning in order for it to mean anything.  A realignment is predicated on three things.  First, there has to be a dramatic and permanent shift in the party coalitions. Second, the shift in coalitions needs to usher in an extended period of party control.  Third, the shift in control needs to bring about a notable shift in policy.  One can see how the “New Deal coalition” approximates this definition, since it ushered in decades of one-party dominance in Congress, particularly in the House, and brought about not only the New Deal but arguably the Great Society.

No such thing has happened since Obama was elected in 2008.  It is true that the demography of the country is changing slowly, and groups that have tended to vote Democratic are becoming more numerous. So the Democratic party coalition has the potential for continuing growth. Will that growth translate into enduring power and policy change?  It certainly didn’t in 2010.  Yes, the 2010 electorate was not the 2012 electorate.  But that’s the point: a realignment doesn’t take midterm elections off.

Under Sides' rubric, Ronald Reagan was not a transformative president. After all, in 1982, Reagan's Republican Party lost 27 House seats and, in 1986, control of the Senate. By Sides' account, Reagan came, saw, and nothing changed. After all, Democrats controlled Congress before Reagan came and they controlled Congress after he left.

Indeed, Sides' argument sounds eerily similar to David Broder's assessment of Reagan after the 1982 midterms (via Ezra Klein):

What we are witnessing this January is not the midpoint in the Reagan presidency, but its phase-out. "Reaganism," it is becoming increasingly clear, was a one- year phenomenon, lasting from his nomination in the summer of 1980 to the passage of his first budget and tax bills in the summer of 1981. What has been occurring ever since is an accelerating retreat from Reaganism, a process in which he is more spectator than leader.
Broder was wrong and so is Sides. Why? Because realignments are about more than just raw counts of who was elected. It is just as much a question of realignment of ideology. Ronald Reagan's lasting achievement was the idea that income tax cuts, especially for the wealthy (the job creators don't you know?) were always good, no matter what. And until this election, that was a dominant ideology in the political discourse (notwithstanding the fact that the largest peacetime recovery in the nation occurred after the Clinton tax hike in 1993 on the wealthiest was passed with no GOP votes). For the last four presidential elections, Democratic candidates have defended the view that the wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes against the Republican view that tax cuts, especially for the rich, are always needed and always good. I would argue that with the 2012 election result, the Democrats have finally captured the upper hand in the electorate with regard to this ideological argument. The why of this victory of ideas is important—and it is due to demographic changes.

It seems odd to have to argue this point against a political scientist, but Sides is more of a horse race political scientist than a studier of ideology. And indeed, Sides seems to be offering a rather typical contrarian TradMed horse race pundit piece here instead of rigorous analysis. His analysis, such as it is, of the demographic changes and their electoral meaning, is the tell:

[T]he “Obama coalition” may prove to be exactly that: a coalition specific to Obama. When he is no longer at the top of the ticket, will groups like Latinos and African-Americans turn out in such numbers, and with such strong support for the Democratic candidate? [...] Moreover, it is entirely possible that Republicans can make inroads into this coalition.  After all, they don’t need to win 75% of the Latino vote to win a presidential election.  Even 40% might suffice.
This ignores history, a very bad thing for a political scientist. Consider the 2000 election. Al Gore won 62 percent of the Latino vote. And that against a Republican candidate who was especially appealing to Hispanic voters, a Texas governor with a history of Latino outreach. (Ironically, Gore also received around 43 percent of the white vote, the same pecentage that Obama garnered in his landslide in 2008.) To emphasize the point, Michael Dukakis received 70 percent of the Latino vote (and Dukakis outpolled Obama with the white vote, garnering 40 percent to Obama's 39 percent) in his landslide loss in 1988.

The Obama coalition is, certainly in terms of Latinos and African Americans, a Democratic coalition, not formed just for Obama (it is pretty funny to think of Latinos as an Obama constituency alone when you consider that Hillary Clinton was winning Latinos by 2-1 over Obama in the 2008 primaries). This is not meant to slight President Obama and his campaign team, who did a remarkable job in garnering high turnout in these key constituencies. But the idea that it was President Obama who first formed this electoral coalition, as Sides suggests, is unadulterated bullshit.

And it misses the importance of the 2012 election result—that a new governing coalition may have formed, one in which a candidate who gets less than 40 percent of the white vote wins the election by over three percentage points and in an electoral college landslide.

Shockingly, Sides seems oblivious to the significance of this development. He writes:

[T]he growth of pro-Democratic constituencies is happening far too slowly to insulate the party from the natural swings that occur because of economic fundamentals.  If there is a recession in 2016, the Republicans will be likely to take back the White House.
If this was the first election cycle of such a development, that would be true. But it isn't. The trend of growth of the nonwhite portion of the electorate has been consistent for decades now. Consider that in 1988, the electorate was 85 percent white. In 1996, it was 83 percent. In 2004, it was 77 percent. In 2012, it was 72 percent. It will only get smaller in the coming years.

The electoral future, as defined by demography, belongs to the party who wins non-white voters (unless of course, the white vote becomes monolithically Republican, which seems unlikely). And that is the Democratic Party.

And not just because of immigration policy. In a good piece in the Boston Globe, Joshua Green wrote:

[M]inorities’ alienation from the Republican Party goes far beyond language and immigration to the very heart of the conservative worldview.

Take the repeal of Obamacare, a conservative rallying point that was central to Mitt Romney’s campaign. An exit poll by the firm Latino Decisions showed that by a large margin — 61 percent to 25 — Hispanics want to keep the health care law in place.

On the other great Republican obsession, deficit reduction, Hispanics once again differ sharply with Republicans about what to do. Seventy-seven percent want to pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthy or combining higher taxes with spending cuts; only 12 percent favor cuts alone.

And despite what Krauthammer thinks, Hispanic voters do not share the Republican position on abortion. Exit polls showed that 66 percent of them believe that abortion should be legal, a higher percentage than the population overall.

Before the election, whenever reporters pointed out these kinds of obstacles, the Romney campaign would reply that Hispanics and other minorities were going to vote on the basis of their economic interest. Unemployment, for example, is much higher among Hispanics and African-Americans than it is among whites. The Romney campaign ending up being right about this: Hispanics said their most important issue, easily eclipsing immigration, was “jobs and the economy.” But they still voted Democratic.

A survey last year by National Journal/Heartland Monitor goes a long way toward illuminating why. Minority voters tend to view government as a positive, and effective, facilitator of economic opportunity and prefer that it take an active role in regulating the marketplace. Whites generally don’t share this view. Asked about government’s role in the economy, 64 percent of white Republicans said that “government is the problem.”

To win Latinos will require a wholesale ideological change by Republicans. And to win presidential elections, Republicans will have to win Latinos. This is the very definition of an ideological realignment. And it is due to demographics.

More data, from Thomas Edsall:

*When voters were asked whether cutting taxes or investing in education and infrastructure is the better policy to promote economic growth, the constituencies of the new liberal electorate consistently chose education and infrastructure by margins ranging from 2-1 to 3-2 — African Americans by 62-33, Hispanics by 61-37, never-married men by 56-38, never-married women by 64-30, voters under 30 by 63-34, and those with post-graduate education by 60-33.

*The constituencies that make up the rising American electorate are firmly in favor of government action to reduce the gap between rich and poor, by 85-15 among blacks, 74-26 for Hispanics; 70-30 never-married men; 83-15 never-married women; and 76-24 among voters under 30. Conservative groups range from lukewarm to opposed: 53-47 for men; 53-47 among voters 50-65; 46-54 among married men; 52-47 among all whites.

*One of the clearest divides between the rising American electorate and the rest of the country is in responses to the statement “Government is providing too many social services that should be left to religious groups and private charities. Black disagree 67-32; Hispanics disagree 57-40; never-married women 70-27; never-married men, 59-41; young voters, 66-34; and post-grad, 65-34. Conversely, whites agree with the statement 54-45; married men agree, 60-39; married women, 55-44; all men, 55-43.

*By a margin of 60-13, voters on the left side of the spectrum favor raising taxes on incomes above $1 million, while voters outside of the left are much less supportive, 39-25. In the case of raising the minimum wage, the left backs a hike by an overwhelming 64-6 margin, while those on the right are far less supportive, 32-18.  The rising American electorate backs raising the minimum wage by 64-6, while the people outside it back a hike by just 32-18. The left coalition supports a carbon tax or fee by 43-14 while right-leaning voters are opposed, 37-24.

Unlike Edsall, Sides appears to unconsciously suffer from the view held by many in the beltway media that only the ideological views of whites matter. It is this blindness that leads him to miss what is right in front of him—an ideological realignment resulting from demographic changes in the electorate.  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's the Village (19+ / 0-)

    Sadly, since the punditocracy doesn't KNOW any of these people, it's all about their friends and that is the crux of the problem (as you state so well). Look at the President, official Washington.  A significant part of his coalition looks like him. Another part looks like you but these people are gay/unmarried/younger than you are and you still can't take them seriously.

    No point, really, in making this clear, since the Republicans need to keep appealing to their base. You know, the one that didn't elect a president in 2012.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:37:53 AM PST

    •  Despite all the evidence to the contrary, (5+ / 0-)

      Villagers will continue to think that the electorate will return to a "more normal" 80% white.   Why?  Because those are the people they know and, therefore, that, to them, is what matters.

      Eventually, they will tire of being so consistently wrong and will begin to recognize reality.  I just don't expect it to be too manifest prior to 2016.  Perhaps, by 2020 their vision will no longer be distended.

      Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

      by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:07:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Republicans want it to return (17+ / 0-)

        to 80% white -- but since they know that's not going to happen demographically, they'll try to make it happen by making it harder for non-whites to vote.

        "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

        by Cali Scribe on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:11:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Eventually they will die off (4+ / 0-)

        Krauthammer and Will and the rest will eventually follow Broder into the Great Villager Reunion in the Sky.

        Then a new crop of Villagers will arise who will have their own collection of truisms that are completely unrelated to facts or evidence and a new Nate Silver will give us a great book mocking their pabulum.

        The GOP is the party of mammon. They mock what Jesus taught.

        by freelunch on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:20:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem is that when myth fights science (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Observerinvancouver
          "If a philosopher or social scientist were to try to encapsulate a single principle that yoked together the intellectual process of civilization (sic), it would be a gradual dismantling of presumptions of magic. Brick by brick, century by century, with occasional burps and hiccups, the wall of superstition has been coming down. Science and medicine and political philosophy have been on a relentless march in one direction only -- sometimes slow, sometimes at a gallop, but never reversing course. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation. ("Holy cow, Dr. Pasteur! I've examined the pancreas of a diabetic dog, and darned if it's NOT an insulin deficiency, but a little evil goblin dwelling inside. And he seems really pissed!") Some magical presumptions have stubbornly persisted way longer than others, but have eventually, inexorably fallen to logic, reason and enlightenment, such as the assumption of the divine right of kings and the entitlement of aristocracy. That one took five millennia, but fall it did.
      •  Don't expect on any change coming from the VSP. (3+ / 0-)

        The Villagers won't tire of being consistently wrong and being unable to recognize reality until their corporate pimp owners threaten to withhold paychecks.

        You might get individual defectees like David Frum, but there will always be another pundit beating down the door for a chance to whore themselves out for a seat in the Kool Kidz Klub. All they have to do is stroke their egos of their pimps and occasionally disseminate propaganda. And the best way to stroke someone's ego is to tell them that they'll get everything they want without any effort because they personally are that awesome. It's an awesome gig.

        Until their corporate pimp owners order the Villagers to tell the truth, it ain't going to happen. Partly because the corporate pimp owners aren't even aware what's really going on themselves! Even if Stalin is angry at the crop yields, executing one patch of scientists and shipping in a new staff isn't going to help the situation if he demands that these new guys also believe in Lysenko's dogma.

      •  It's not just demographics (8+ / 0-)

        It's also culture.  Whites are voting for Democrats because of specific reasons:  women are frightened by Republican culture wars.  Better-educated whites see the value of education, and are less likely to swallow Republican nostrums (unless they personally benefit.)

        John Judis and Ruy Teixeira called this shift almost a decade ago, looking into the future.  They called the demographic shift, as well as the shift of subsegments of the white non-Hispanic vote toward the Democrats.  They've been proven right in the main, and the trends are not yet completely played out.  Republicans will have to become a different party to generate a different trend, but they're stuck in the extremist, racist corner they've painted themselves into.  It's an ugly corner, one most people are not drawn to if they're not there already.

        Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

        by Dallasdoc on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:59:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look at the differences in Texas vs California (5+ / 0-)

          to see that it isn't only about demographics, both states have large percentages of Latino/Hispanics and yet one is dominated by Democrats but the other (TX) is dominated by Republicans. What's the difference? Turnout. If we Democrats don't learn how to engage voters and get them out to elections we will continue to fail to take advantage of the demographic shift. The Democratic Party has to engage with voters all year long, year after year, not just for six months leading up to elections. Here in Guadalupe County, TX we've finally figure that out now we're trying to figure out how to do it.

          "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it!" ~ FDR

          by JC Dufresne on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:16:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the difference is more than turnout (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc, erratic, bartcopfan

            california hit majority-minority a lot earlier than texas did, has always had a more democratic-tilting latino population than texas, has a much larger proportion of liberal white voters, has district lines that aren't drawn to minimize democratic and minority representation, and has a state economy more reliant on education and less reliant on energy extraction and the military (although once upon a time, CA was a lot more like TX in that regard). finally, both states tend to get in-migrations of left and right-wing ideologically-minded white voters, respectively, which reinforce their political trends.

            CA:
            non-hispanic white: 40%
            latino: 38%
            asian: 14%
            black:7%
            multiracial: 4%
            native american: 2%

            TX:
            non-hispanic white: 45%
            latino: 38%
            asian: 4%
            black: 12%
            multiracial: 2%
            native american: 1%

            •  And CA had Prop. 187 (4+ / 0-)

              ... which I suspect galvanized Latino elegtoral participation to a much greater degree than Texas has yet seen.  

              Interesting that while both states show the same proportion of Latinos in the population, California's Asian population more than makes up for its lower proportion of African-Americans.  Wonder when Republicans will start paying more attention to the fast growing Asian populations?

              Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

              by Dallasdoc on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:51:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  May Ceiling Cat and FSM bless your efforts and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erratic

            inspire  others to do the same.  I hope I'm around to see Karl Rove's reaction when Texas turns blue.

            We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

            by Observerinvancouver on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:09:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  no they won't. (0+ / 0-)
        Eventually, they will tire of being so consistently wrong and will begin to recognize reality.
        they get paid not to.  frankly, some of them have reached "end-stage", the point where they're no longer capable of recognizing any reality outside the beltway. incest has a way of destroying any vision that doesn't accord with what you want it to be. they really should all be put under medical care, for their's and the country's safety.
      •  Also, these are political reporters.... (0+ / 0-)

        ....who broke into the game in the 1980s, so they assume that everything is going to be like that. Democrats controlling Congress, Republicans with a lock on the White House, an 80% white electorate, etc. Also, they have these nostalgic memories of Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan, and Tip O'Neil going out for beer and burgers and coming up with their beloved bipartisan plans to deal with budgets and other pressing national issues. Which is why they are always so nostalgic for a period of time that's gone and isn't coming back (and thank god, as I recall, the 1980s was a time when AIDS was called the "gay plague," for example).

    •  The Villagers are out of touch (7+ / 0-)

      Dick Cheney isn't a raving anti-gay bigot because he has had to deal with a lesbian in his family. George Will cares about how we treat people with Down Syndrome or Cubs fans because he has been forced to live with it. Neither care about people who have no health care coverage because they are fundamentally incapable of putting themselves into the shoes of others. The Villagers are generally unable to do this. They just talk to each other, repeating conventional wisdom, even though there is no wisdom or understanding in their proposals.

      Facts are of no value to them. Nate's mockery of the Villagers and his validation is the best thing that we have seen happen to the Beltway in years.

      The GOP is the party of mammon. They mock what Jesus taught.

      by freelunch on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:13:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Many years ago George Will lauded the cutting (0+ / 0-)

        back or cutting out of a number of federal government programs.  However, he lamented the baleful effects on a program for the mentally challenged.  I wanted to yell at him that could he not understand that many others had similar feelings about programs they benefited from?  He was totally oblivious to others' pain and seemed to think that only he and his son were suffering from the cutbacks. That column made a lasting impression on me.

        We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

        by Observerinvancouver on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:17:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The pain of others is only one of many things (0+ / 0-)

          that George The Willful has been totally oblivious to throughout his long career as an obnoxious twit whose knowledge of baseball is not nearly as accurate as he believes.

          When all else fails, try thinking!

          by edtheengineer on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:37:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Even the liberal villagers.... (0+ / 0-)

        ....are out of touch - witness the city of Portland passing a poll tax "for the arts" - something that even Margaret Thatcher couldn't get away with.

        9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

        by varro on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 07:24:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The optimism on this site is way beyond reason (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya, elphie

      ....and this article is an example of that. People....a comically stereotypical country club Republican with a tendency to say the wrong thing at the wrong time still got over 47 percent of the vote, get that? Republicans picked up governorships and continue to dominate legislatures in a majority of states.

      What I'm saying is...the Democrats still have a problem with presenting a believable and trustworthy agenda to the public. If Obama abandons his commitments this time, the Republicans could easily turn the game around in four years.

      •  Granted, he got 47 pct but you have to look at (5+ / 0-)

        the demographics as talked about in this diary for the clearest picture.  72 pct of the electorate is white and this number will decrease each election from now on.  

        We have some work to do in state legislatures and governorships, that is true.  But that is a worthy goal for us to continue to pursue, more Democrats elected to state legislatures and as governor. We continue to plug away and also work on the US House and electing more and better Democrats as we always do.

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:45:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He got 47 percent in an election.... (0+ / 0-)

        ....where you already had a huge minority of the electorate who were not going to vote for any Democrat, particularly not a black one and that's in an economy with 7.9% unemployment. So, I'd say, despite all that, Obama did pretty well and Romney did pretty poorly.

    •  This reminds me of a tempest in a tea pot we had (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge, varro

      in Canada a few months ago.  A preliminary version of a new currency design showed an oriental woman working at a microscope.  The final version showed a Caucasian woman.  After the entirely predictable hue and cry, it seemed that some people (presumably white) objected to an "ethnic" representing a "typical" Canadian.  Apparently it didn't occur to them that Caucasians were also an ethnic group.  Sigh!

      We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

      by Observerinvancouver on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:50:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good Post. (9+ / 0-)

    Hard to disagree but,,,
    What happens when they give an election and only whites show up?...
    like in 2010.

    Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

    by olo on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:43:16 AM PST

    •  Points out the need to articulate policies, (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rolfyboy6, LuvSet, ringer, olo, whaddaya, Odysseus

      Field a deep, progressive candidate field, and legislate in ways that energize our emerging demographics.  The GOP is still setting the terms of the debate . . . We're getting better but not yet enough.  Fifty state strategy is crucial, if no longer fashionable.

      The Begich social security bill should be our next crusade (IMO).

      We also need to have a coherent strategy for driving the Party left.

      Military spending and neo-con foreign policy?  Sigh.   I despair.  There is no left remaining in foreign policy.

      "Let's see what fresh fuckwittery these dolts can contrive to torment themselves with this time." -- Iain Banks, The Hydrogen Sonata

      by Rikon Snow on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:54:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you want to drive the party left (11+ / 0-)

        Liberal constituencies must learn to friggin' participate in primary elections and midterms.

        What left-leaning slacktivists keep forgetting is that while not voting for a candidate and making him/her lose might make them go your way -- if you withhold your vote from a candidate and they manage to win without you by courting different constituencies you better believe that they're going to keep ignoring you.

        You want a more liberal Democratic party? Vote in the damn primaries and off-year elections. Depending on where you are your vote can be anywhere from twice to a twenty times more powerful than it would during the final phase of the election.

        As amazing as it sounds, the typical Tea Party voter is apparently much smarter than the Green Party voter. Because they actually know when their vote is at its strongest.

  •  Is the TradMed blindness ignorance or ideological? (6+ / 0-)

    If there's one thing the social and class dominators are bad at, it's detection of cultural shifts. Even when it's happening RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM, with hard data even.

    Perversely, I think that this is a good thing. If the conservative elite had known 30 years in advance that minority demographics, increases in education (against all odds, the American laypublic gets more educated year-by-year), and the excesses of religious conservatism would slowly but surely form an increasing threat to their hierarchal status we would have been totally screwed.

    Were it not for climate change, I'd say that the useless class of lazy TradMed quislings was probably the best unexpected ally for liberalism. You keep putting your trust into those corporate whores, 1%-ers. Everyone loves you and you don't have to change your policies at all to keep your grip on your unearned wealth. It's all transitory. Honest.

    •  The problem with prolefeed and doublethink (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rolfyboy6, ferg, whaddaya, erratic, varro

      is that despite what George Orwell's inner-party strawmen thought, doublethink is much harder to dig out of than enter. Every sufficiently powerful social dominator throughout history has thought that they could have:

      A) An investigative staff that would be stupid and loyal enough to support them against their own interest.

      B) An investigative staff that would be smart enough to avoid unintentionally sugarcoating the truth.

      C) An investigative staff that is completely suborned to the whims of the social dominators with no outside competition from other investigators, ESPECIALLY those who would like to see the dominators brought low. This is the big one.

      This combination is just flat-out impossible to have for more than a short period. Despite their frantic efforts to avoid getting high off of their own supply, their quislings have always without fail ended up accidentally imprisoning their beloved masters in a fantasy world.

      •  Big Religion has been adept at that... (0+ / 0-)

        ....and from the Roman Catholic Church to a tiny church led by a greedy pastor, there is no shortage of religiously-oriented cult leaders ready to turn worship of the powerful into a political force.

        9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

        by varro on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 07:30:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, but the conservative elite did know. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya, a2nite, wu ming
      If the conservative elite had known 30 years in advance that minority demographics, increases in education (against all odds, the American laypublic gets more educated year-by-year), and the excesses of religious conservatism would slowly but surely form an increasing threat to their hierarchal status we would have been totally screwed.
      The conservative elite c. 1985 knew perfectly well the GOP would be screwed demographically in the 21st century.  Everybody knew. One thing about demography: you can see changes coming from a long, long way off.

      The national GOP had a grand plan to deal with this demographic change, namely recruiting Hispanics into the party.

      So the issue wasn't GOP awareness, or lack of a good plan. The issue was that the GOP completely and totally failed in executing the plan over the last 30s years.

      Why did they fail? One big reason was that the people pitching policies that were supposed to attract minorities were completely out of touch with the people they were trying to enlist. Back in the day you saw it with, say, Jack Kemp's awkward attempts to recruit African-Americans - perfectly sincere, so far as I can tell, but also perfectly ineffective. That's because Kemp's "social" policies always boiled down to tax breaks for business owners, an approach most working people (African-American or otherwise) cold.

      The other issue is that GOP leadership was totally unable to influence the feelings and opinions of their base on the issue -- indeed, as time went on GOP leadership influence over the base grew weaker and weaker. Which is why Romney utterly caved to the wingnuts on immigration reform after every other GOP candidate from Reagan to McCain endorsed some form of it.

      Ultimately the Republican base decided that keeping the GOP as the party of white males was more important than making it bigger. And now they are reaping the demographic whirlwind.

      •  So you think it was less blindness (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite

        and more overestimation of their control of their base?

        Seems plausible. While Hitler and Stalin had enough power to convince their minion to shoot their own neighbors in the head, if they had ordered their soldiers to treat Jews and kulaks with respect several years into their reign they would have been drug out of their beds and tortured to death in the streets for betraying the cause. Hatred and resentment is funny like that.

      •  From what I recall... (0+ / 0-)

        ....Tom Kean was pretty much the only Republican I can think of in the last 30 years who could garner large percentages of the black vote. One woman I went to law school with, who is African-American, told me "I am a liberal Democrat, but the only time I ever voted for a Republican was for  Tom Kean in 1985. I was in my first job after college and Kean just kept giving us raises."

  •  it wasn't so long ago (11+ / 0-)

    that republicans thought banning reproductive choice, along with other right wing social issues, would make the latino vote a lock for them. because of catholicism. the density, dishonesty, myopia, and bigotry of gop strategic "thinking" are our best friends.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:47:44 AM PST

    •  Well, what do you expect? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya

      When aristocrats are sizing up populations outside their direct hierarchy, do you think that they get their information from THEIR aristocrats or from the people themselves?

      You'd think that conservatives would be less surprised by this after dealing with Jews, white Catholics, and black evangelicals. But nope. They can't help but take the word of fellow dominators over how their constituencies really feel.

  •  Expanding the R base: Blacks not part of discussio (12+ / 0-)

    No one is speaking to, recommending, considering or even hinting that the GOP try to expand its base by building support in the Black community.

    I'd like to see a national discussion, especially among Republicans, as to why this is not on the table.  People at Kos know why, but not everyone understands the dog whistling about "real America", birth certificates, etc.

    It would be cathartic for some members of the GOP.  

    •  Excluding blacks (10+ / 0-)

      has been a pattern since way before Obama came on the political scene, whether it's been the lie about "welfare queens in their Cadillacs" or demonizing single parents. The Republican Party wrote off the black vote years ago as part of the "Southern Strategy" to win over the white vote.

      "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:20:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  since there are more whites (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, whaddaya, Odysseus

      and since whites are already disposed to agree with the Republican worldview, it is certainly reasonable - at this time - to put your big money into turning out more whites, especially since appealing to blacks & browns (or the women not currently under men) would turn off whites - white men in particular. You want all whites to vote - when you have a HUGE white turnout, you still win, even with the white proportion of the electorate declining.

      As the electorate grows less white, as is being discussed here, investing in white voter participation produces fewer returns, fewer and fewer returns as time goes on. Investing in blocking the non-white is a corollary to increasing the whiteness of the turnout.

      To Republican strategists both whiteness enhancing strategies (courting whites & suppressing nons) are appealing in the short term. That neither seems to sufficiently figure in backlash, and backlash looked like a factor in this election - was a flaw in the plan. Non-whites were motivated to vote by the Republican electorate-whitening tactics? Really? And whites weren't? - not any more than usual, anyway. Oops.

    •  Such a discussion would force public awareness of (0+ / 0-)

      what the Southern Strategy was really about.

      Low info voters probably have never heard of it, and its title alone does not say what it really was.

      The R party needs to say out loud "We can't recruit Blacks because we will lose our appeal to racists."

      Discussing Hispanics as potential R's affirms w/o a discussion of the Blacks as potential R's only continues to hide in silence what the Southern Strategy actually was.

      Dems need to force this discussion... R's won't do it, nor the media.

  •  Just a Small Complaint... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LuvSet, whaddaya

    from a math-head. When you publish a graph, please label the axes so we know what is being plotted. Sometimes it is obvious, but many times it's not.

    I now return you to your regularly scheduled progamming....

    I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member--Groucho Marx.

    by DaveS002 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:56:31 AM PST

  •  The Village: (9+ / 0-)
    Democrats have a liberal problem

    If President Barack Obama wins, he will be the popular choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites. That’s what the polling has consistently shown in the final days of the campaign. It looks more likely than not that he will lose independents, and it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters than George W. Bush got of Hispanic voters in 2000.

    A broad mandate this is not.

    That graf says all you need to know about them.

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:57:27 AM PST

  •  A thought just occurred to me. (5+ / 0-)

    I have heard it said that the majority of new jobs in America are always in small business, especially in a recovery.  And most small business owners are in the same economic boat as their employees - somewhere in the 40-60k AGI neighborhood.

    Why do we not then call these people job creators?  Surely a florist with two shops creates more jobs than Paris Hilton.

    Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

    by Boundegar on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:01:27 AM PST

  •  And Yet, I would argue Sides' side (8+ / 0-)

    Bad pun aside, I think Sides makes one key argument: That this shift in viewpoint, this political realignment has to be overwhelming. What Reagan accomplished was not so much being an effective president: By any benchmark, he was an abysmal failure. Yet his policies have poisoned this country ever since: Placing Scalia on the Bench, income tax cuts, disastrous foreign policy. The real issue here is that does this electorate have the power to swing policy toward them? We know the house has been gerrymandered so effectively that even a combined 1 million additional votes for Dem candidates over Rep left us with only a 12 seat gain. Texas became more red, not less.

    I think 2014 will be our new benchmark. Will this coalition show up? Will the States swing blue, even if the national picture doesn't? That will be the test to determine whether this is for real.

    •  It's worse than that (5+ / 0-)

      Since Reagan, the dominant ideology has been "Government is the problem, not the solution."  This anti-government screed has infected our nation ever since.  If you consider changing the dominant ideology of our country to be the mark of a great president, then Reagan qualifies as a great president, notwithstanding the harm his poison has done.  

      Sadly, I am not convinced Reaganism is no longer dominant.  Obama and his fellow Democrats are still reluctant to take it on, and the news media are only too willing to do the right's bidding.  Heck, all you hear now on TV and radio is "entitlement reform," a sign that the Republicans may be down but not out.

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:16:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you're expecting too much. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Navy Vet Terp, whaddaya

        Even FDR bought into right-wing framing through the most disastrous non-war time of the United States' history. He still left us partially on the gold standard and tried to balance the budget in such a way that caused a recession. But no one denies that the presidency marked a watershed moment in American political thought.

      •  obama and elected dems are lagging indicators (0+ / 0-)

        the ground moving beneath their feet will in time produce elected democrats to their left, as the process continues.

  •  Demographics plus the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ringer, whaddaya

    waning power of the "Conservative entertainment media" plus the rise of social networking spell doom for the wingnuts It is a quiet revolution that is taking place before our eyes.

    Join the War on Thinking. Watch Fox News- John Lucas

    by Jlukes on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:04:54 AM PST

  •  Well, not quite (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya, varro
    The electoral future, as defined by demography, belongs to the party who wins non-white voters (unless of course, the white vote becomes monolithically Republican, which seems unlikely)
    If the Republicans lost the "non-white" voters by 45-55, and kept their hold on the white voters, they would be in good shape. The monolithic hold that Democrats have on African-American voters suggests that similar holds are indeed possible for other groups.  

    Finally, there is always the possibility that groups will end up being dramatically redefined.  There is the quaint nineteenth century phrase "the colored races of Europe", and well, a century and a half later that division and the thinking behind it has been flushed down the historical drain.  The world can change, not always in the ways you might expect.

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:06:32 AM PST

    •  GOP Needs Uneducated White Voters (5+ / 0-)

      Highly-educated whites are not nearly as willing to vote for the GOP as poorly-educated whites. Young whites are not as willing to vote for the panderers to racism as old whites.

      The GOP is the party of mammon. They mock what Jesus taught.

      by freelunch on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:24:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I used to think that too (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whaddaya, wu ming, varro, bartcopfan

        but studying the exit polls, that appears to be a myth. We have a slight edge among under-educated, and high school grads, drop behind in college educated and then pick up a slight edge with post-grad educated.

        so not all the rubes are voting against their best interests.
        and not all the college grads are elitist Liberals, thus smashing the RW myth that colleges are a hot bed of Liberal Indoctrination(TM)

        wondering why this is? is it a regional thing, like the Southern White racists and Evangelical Liberty U types throwing off the overall white college grad vote percentages? or what?

        have a hunch, that this correlates with income levels on a superficial basis. if so, unfortunately may serve to validate (wrongly IMHO) the meme "the poor voting for their handouts/gifts!!!" for the chattering class.

        suggests also the upper/middle income college professionals (remember the Yuppies?) have turned their backs on the altrusim we had in the 60s-70s and chosen the grab mine now route...instead of handing the ladder down to help others.

        I'd love to be pointed to more granular data and/or research on this if anyone knows any good sites.

        no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

        by srfRantz on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:57:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd love to see how many of the "college-educated" (0+ / 0-)

          GOP voters have their diplomas from religion-affiliated educational institutions. I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of of the college-educated GOP voting bloc have their degrees from colleges with courses like Creationism 101 and The Liberal Assault on Christianity.

        •  No, there is a huge number of people... (0+ / 0-)

          ....who have college educations who identify with the Lundbergs of the world...that it would be greeeeeeat if the rich got a tax cut so the buttlicking will work.

          9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

          by varro on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 07:42:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  not true (0+ / 0-)

        GOP gets affluent voters, dems get less affluent voters, by and large. education is less effective an indicator of political alignment than income.

    •  If the Republican party was getting non- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya

      base voters at the same percentage they were getting during the Bush years, the Democratic party would be in huge trouble.

      Don't forget that.

    •  Hispanics will be as white 50 years from now.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....as Italian-, Greek-, and Slavic-Americans are today.

      Pat Buchanan echoes Madison Grant, in that immigrants bring "crime and idiocy" - when the most ambitious of other countries venture overseas and work as roofers and agricultural workers while Anglos curse Obama.

      9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

      by varro on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 07:41:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  ARMANDO: you said "largest peacetime recovery (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya, erratic

    in the nation occurred after the Clinton tax hike in 1993..."

    First, recovery from what? The 1990 recession had ended by the time Clinton was inaugurated. If you mean the record of GDP growth under Clinton, while that was very good, it was exceeded during the Kennedy/Johnson tenure (4.65% K/J versus 3.88% C). This, I thinks, supports your larger point that there was greater GDP growth under the restoration of a sensible tax policy under Clinton than under Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2. GDP growth was even larger under K/J and Truman when tax rates were substantially higher for the wealthiest.

    •  he's right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya, erratic

      Kennedy/Johnson wasn't peacetime unless you ignore the Vietnam war.

      And Clinton's term was a recovery. No, his policies didn't end the recession (because the recession had ended), but it was a very good recovery. It's a reasonable thing to compare.

      Contrast with the current "recovery". Technically we haven't been in recession for almost 4 years, but the recovery has been terrible. (Although, since it was a totally different kind of crash, the two are not directly comparable.) So it's not crazy to compare the recoveries.

      •  Contrast with the current 'recovery'... (0+ / 0-)

        if that's what we insist on calling the two eras, is instructive. Before Clinton assumed office GDP was already above where it had been at the peak before the 1990 recession. So it's a stretch to call the remarkably positive growth during his tenure a recovery.

        And to insist that we call the current environment a peacetime era with two wars waged, as contrasted with the Viet Nam era, also seems a stretch. It seems to me that military Keynesianism was potentially as powerful a stimulus in the 2000s as it was during the 1960s.

        But I actually was trying to support Armando's point that higher taxes for the wealthy have not historically led to slower growth. Taxation was much higher during the Kennedy/Johnson administration.

  •  Blame this contraption we're all typing on. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya, bartcopfan

    TradMed no longer controls the information. They can no longer dole it out at their discretion. To continue to do so is tantamount to forfeit.
    Unlimited intelligence was, is, and always will be the key to power. We, now, possess that key. And we sow like so many farmers.
    Long ago, the Right bought into their own bullshit about "people of color" with limited intelligence. That dragon of false superiority no longer flys, and "they" are about to get their asses singed.
    Many have written on this, yet, "they" continue to stumble through their own self-created fog. Best "they" listen for the horn in the distance.

    Fuck Big Brother...from now on, WE'RE watching.

    by franklyn on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:16:03 AM PST

  •  The Party May Change (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    There have been many pundits and analysts talking about the party changing to win elections.  That ignores who the voters are of that party.  

    They want the "fence" built to keep the brown people out.  They want the "welfare queens" off welfare, fully talking about blacks.  They want English as the official language.  They want gays rounded up and executed. They want the bible taught in schools, and nothing else. They do not want "critical thinking" taught in schools.

    The list is far complete.

    That is why the Republican Party can say anything it wants to, knowing that they will not bring over the Black vote or the Brown vote, or the Women vote, or the Gay vote, or the Asian vote.

    The push to double down on the "conservative message" just means that will do more of the same they have done during the last 30 years.  And the voters know it.

    •  Exactly, the base of the GOP loves their bigotry, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya

      racism, homophobia, and xenophobia.  They are very devoted to their bigotry and the base votes in their primaries.  So at this rate, the base will keep nominating the fringe candidates.  The problem is with their base and who their devoted and dependable voters are.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:50:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The GOP has failed at demography for 30 years (11+ / 0-)

    "This is just a blip" commentaries like Sides's fail for two reasons. One is that deep down it assumes that the demographic and turnout changes are just a passing fad - that, as Jon Stewart mockingly put it, after the 2008 elections minorities would fade back to wherever it is that they came from. Of course they didn't: demographic change may be slow, but it is inexorable. (The real aberrant blip was 2010.)

    The other reason is that they assume that the GOP can easily attract a much larger share of any demographic's vote just by tweaking a policy or two. Need 40% of the Hispanic vote? Clearly (so the delusional thinking goes) all the GOP needs to do is support immigration reform, maybe put a Rubio on the ticket, and it's guaranteed.

    But it won't work. The GOP can't magically turn on the Hispanic vote like a spigot. We know this because there is 30 years of evidence showing they can't.

    The idea that changing demographics would eventually doom the GOP's Southern Strategy voting bloc is actually quite old. Back during the Reagan administration there were people in the GOP who foresaw the end of the Silent Majority decades down the line. And, to give them credit, they did have a plan to deal with the country's changing demographics. It was to turn Hispanics into Republicans.

    You can see how well that worked out.

    Here's the thing. Some kind of immigration reform was part of every GOP candidate's plans from Reagan to McCain. And it didn't help. That's partly because the Democratic plans were better, but mostly because Hispanics are not single issue voters, and (as the diary notes) they disagree with the GOP on a wide, wide range of issues.

    If the GOP wants to attract Hispanic voters (or African Americans, or women) they need to undergo a deep and comprehensive transformation. That is not going to happen in an election cycle or two.

  •  The real "Entitlement Culture" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LuvSet, a2nite, whaddaya, helpImdrowning

    That is undermining the Republicans is the one that they're pandering to - people who resent providing support (through taxes and government programs) to Americans who are different than them. Republicans have been attacking public education, health-care initiatives, welfare, food stamps, social security, and medicare for the last decade, and are somehow surprised to find that they're losing votes from populations that benefit from these programs.

    From a progressive standpoint, investing in society by providing improved opportunities and support to those who need it is the best way to build a strong future. So attributing this shift to demographics doesn't quite get to the core - Democrats align better with the progressive principles that go back to LBJ, JFK, and FDR that are increasingly important to the public.

    I think that Republicans got caught in the 9/11 bubble - for years they could get away with crazy stuff, as long as they tied it to national security. But that prevented them for recognizing and responding strategically to ongoing demographic changes.

  •  last 2 realignments from Sides blog, IMO: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    I posted this over on the Sides Article:
    Great piece here.

    I'd like to take a crack at what I believe to be the last two realignments: 1980 & 1992.

    Reagan - Unleash the Private Sector
    First, there has to be a dramatic and permanent shift in the party coalitions.
    Enter the Religious Right and the Reagan Democrats. Social Conservatives & middle class Suburbanites standing up to meddlesome Government. They are still here, and are still supporters of the Republican Party. Where are they going to go?

    Second, the shift in coalitions needs to usher in an extended period of party control.
    I believe that the Republicans have had quite a bit more control and seeing as how today's serious democrats tend to look like a lot more like George I than Michael Dukakis, I'd say that bolsters the idea that the Republican Party was in control since that time.

    Third, the shift in control needs to bring about a notable shift in policy.
    Smaller Government is Good. Lower Taxes. GDP as health of nation. Deregulate capital. This is our reality today.

    Reagan ushered in a transformational change in our political system. It brought the needs of the Board Room to our kitchen table.

    Clinton - The People's Business
    First, there has to be a dramatic and permanent shift in the party coalitions.
    Enter corporate sponsorship. Rush to the "Center". Swing Voter. Coalitions become us + Independents vs them. Scorched earth ensues.

    Second, the shift in coalitions needs to usher in an extended period of party control.
    While the Democrats didn't maintain significant control, the corporate sponsors sure have. Bill Clinton gave us the "Business of Government", and business is booming. Democrats and Republicans have been captured by corporate sponsors - ideologically and practically. Grow or Die is the party platform.

    Third, the shift in control needs to bring about a notable shift in policy.
    Everything as ROI. The US Post Office should be profitable? Did anybody mention healthy American citizens or public health in the health care debate?

    Government operates in the now and the now is created by corporate. There is no long term vision. There is no attention paid to the past. It's quarterly profits. Grow or Die, and the die is cast.

    We are still operating in this "People's Business" framework with Obama. I do not believe that the parties are in charge at all. I think that corporate sponsors are running the whole shebang. Thinktank, PR Firm, pundit, news stories, elections, lobbying, legislation. Is there anything that is not corporate sponsored in elected government today?

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:35:21 AM PST

    •  Loosening the grip Corporate America has (0+ / 0-)

      on our Government is a change that will take some time and continuing hard work on the part of Progressives.  They have been in control for a very long time and that won't change overnight.  We need to remain engaged in the political process at all levels of government, and we need to get more of the populace involved.  Messaging, marketing, framing, branding, volunteer recruitment, etc., will be key tools in this fight.  Powerful and moneyed groups don't relinquish their power easily or without a fight.  We need to convince people that being active in our Democracy is like breathing, eating, sleeping, being.  The minute we think our work is done, we are done.

      "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy -7.8., -6.6

      by helpImdrowning on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:43:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hispanics can be hacks too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    Look at how the crooks controlling the state Government of Sonora constantly work against the interests of the people   and you will feel less confident that just because you change the color you change the system.

  •  so its basically settled that demographics (6+ / 0-)

    have changed in our favor. This has been covered over and over here and elsewhere.

    Good News! Yay!

    ok...

    why is there no discussion of how to flip the white vote back to a more Liberal view? For decades we won based on that.

    in favor of government action to reduce the gap between rich and poor
    [...]
    Conservative groups range from lukewarm to opposed: 53-47 for men; 53-47 among voters 50-65; 46-54 among married men; 52-47 among all whites.
    does everyone think that the Repub. messaging system/propaganda has triumphed?

    or does everyone just accept that too many whites are now too rich, too racist, too religious (ie. evangelical), or too stupid to finally see past the wedge issues and vote in either their own interests or the country's?

    I'm one of those angry old white men that's always getting bashed around here. But I'M A LIFELONG LIBERAL AND WOULDN'T VOTE REPUBLICAN IF YOU HELD A GUN TO MY HEAD. I think, no, I know, that Reagan and the ideology he brought to this country's political debate is the worst thing that every happened in my lifetime. I fear greatly that it will be the end of this country. That's what I'm angry about.
    And according to the figures above there are still at least about 47% of us. that's a lot of votes.
    ok?

    How hard would it be to start trying to get a few more back on our side?

    no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

    by srfRantz on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:40:31 AM PST

    •  This is the $64,000 question (5+ / 0-)

      I really think we need to focus 1st on winning a greater share of whites outside the South and Appalachia. The problem is that the one way we know to do this (greater unionization) isn't supported by the big money players on the Democratic side.

      I also think that expanding medicare by letting people over 50 buy in would be a way to let these folks know that "hey there is a government program that benefits us too".  

      -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

      by dopper0189 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:46:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Great input! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FreeWoman19, dopper0189

        thanks.
        I am aware that union mobilization of voters really increased the white Democratic turnout this go round.
        And I think the leadership is aware of that and will hopefully turn more energy that direction.

        I've always been a huge supporter of Medicare for all, and have heard the lower the age to 50 argument before, and thought that was a great step, but never occured to me how it couldd help the angry old white person vote. Provided we could get them away from the couch in front of Fox. ;-)

        I'm 59. I couldn't afford insurance most of my life. Then only months after finally buying in at great expense (I probably could have got Medicaid but didn't know about it nor would've wanted to rely on it if I had), I had my insurance rescinded when they found out I needed heart surgery at 56 due to a genetic condition not heretofore discovered but a "pre-existing condition" nonetheless. Got it back--eventually--and I'm still here luckily thanks to a great surgeon--but not something I'd wish on anyone to ever have to go through.

        no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

        by srfRantz on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:09:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  If I was George Soros (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bartcopfan

      or Bruce Wayne some other liberal billionaire with a shady agenda, I would start turbocharging Appalachia and/or the Midwest with green energy projects and biotech industries. I'd probably start with the Midwest, because, you know, Senate.

      Appalachia and the Midwest are a lot more amenable to the liberal agenda than people think. Like if you look at crime statistics and polls of wingnut questions you get a white response rate similar to that of the West and Northeast.

      The problem is that leftists haven't actually brought home any bacon for them in who knows how long. We can whine about being cockblocked by conservatives, but at the end of the day people vote for people who bring them bennies. Which is fine; the whole point of good government is to provide gifts and/or remove obstacles as long as it doesn't screw over other people.

      If I had access to party propaganda apparatus the very first thing I would do is to promote a jobs and renewable energy program focused on this area. And also federal funding for a bunch more universities. Fully funded universities you can go to for free.

    •  Just for clarity, you may be an angry old white (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      srfRantz

      man, but you're not "one of those angry old white men that's always getting bashed around here"...You had me at your contempt for Reagan's policies...

      •  thanks. (0+ / 0-)

        but I do think we really need to find a better label. that was my larger point. a lot of Angry White Men are angry about being called 'Angry White Men' and being blamed for everyone's problems. which sets them up to be easy prey for the RW propaganda which tells them its not their fault, its --choose your target group--.
        it really isn't that they're stupid or shallow, but really a lot more to being hurt and feeling betrayed. it would take me a lot of words to try and explain...

        I've meant for a few weeks now since the election to try and write my first diary entry around this topic.

        very dicey and difficult...but I think it needs to be addressed if we are to continue to "take back OUR country." ;-)

        no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

        by srfRantz on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 02:38:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This was a great Monty Python sketch... (0+ / 0-)

          “I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am”

          But jokes aside, this is a demographic that Romney 2012 leveraged quite effectively, and I look forward to your diary. I don't think it's that dicey of a topic - white men (angry or not) have been important champions of progressive ideals through history, and that's going to continue.

  •  And not the first time, in my unschooled opinion.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    Based on my readings of U.S. history, it has been my perception that, after  the Civil War, a major focus of the Republican Party was that of advancing the condition of African-Americans, especially with respect to voting.  Concurrently, many Southern [White] leaders were disenfranchised, and they could only get their voting rights restored through a bureaucratic process.  In the interim, Republicans were able to establish "Reconstruction" of the South.

    Eventually Southern Whites regained their votes to the point that they could contest the Republicans.  I think the watershed moment was the Hayes-Tilden election, where the Presidency was awarded based on a deal between the Democrats and Republicans that made Hayes the President in return for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the South.  Reconstruction ended.

    It seems to me that Republicans then [abandoned African-Americans and] became the party of Big Business.  If that was not a realignment, it was a drastic and historic ideological shift.  

    I write with hesitation because I know a lot of scholars read these posts!

  •  to win any demographic, other than (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    older, white, male, rightwing christians, the GOP will have to become democrat lite. that's just a fact. they basically set the stage for their own extinction during the nixon administration, with the advent of the "Southern Strategy", the plan to bring the dixiecrats into the GOP fold. apparently, it never occured to anyone in the GOP to consult with an actuary or demographer, before embarking on this plan. had they done so, they'd have realized this plan, by definition, spelled their ultimate doom.

    of course, actuaries and demographers use that sciency stuff, with numbers and everything.

  •  GOP is Out at the Presidential Level (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, whaddaya

    For a generation or two.

    That party has made anti-black and anti-Hispanic hate speech a primary plant of its platform. The GOP will continue to suffer large defeats with these demographics until it re-engineers itself.

    And that will take years -- probably a decade or two.

    Meanwhile, the Senate is sufficiently gerrymandered to keep the White Nationalist party in the headlines for years and years to come. These folks will continue to trumpet their racially-oriented ideologies from their perches in small states as long as they wish -- presumably forever.

    That will make it harder for the GOP to remake itself.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:06:32 AM PST

  •  Ideological shit from Democratic Centrism? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AdManAnt, a2nite, wu ming

    I believe that the demographic shift is not just partisan, but also will have an impact on the ideological make internally of the Democratic Party.

    This type of article my Rahm for example is not likely to represent the Democrat of the next few decades:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    If you look at the ideological make up of the newer voters they are also, I believe, to the left of the current Democratic Party establishment.

    There is a lot of talk here of civil war within the GOP. But, I have to ask whether anyone thinks the centrist establishment will give up power easily on matters of policy difference to the new demographic ideological views?

    I have seen the occasional post here with comments along the lines of these demographic shifts should be ignored when it it mentioned that the shifts aren't just going to affect the GOP.

    I hope this is not the position that the establishment take.

    I don't believe the new demographics are like the old ones. They are poorer due to the establishment. THey are on the outside looking in. They aren't as likley as the White middle class who got the benefit of the bargain to put up with things because the new demographics have not gotten the benefit of the bargain of supporting one party over another.

    I think the Democrats are the likely winner of these voters. But I think it will come with a fight that the Centrist will have to lose first because they represent an establishment that's just as against the interest of the newer demogrpahics  in its own way.

    •  Another Possibility Is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bruh1, wu ming

      The One Percent successfully completing their capture of the Democratic Part -- resulting in essentially a one party rule at their service, similar to the rule of the PRI in Mexico for 70+ years. Most voters might have ideas to the left of the new Center-Right/Right Democratic Party, but they would have no one to vote for.

      "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

      by bink on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:15:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a voice I have seen too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bink

        But I don't think the U.S. electorate would put up with a one party system

        I think its naturally designed for a two party system

        Whether that means they will accept a conservative party like the current GOP is another matter. The answer to that is no. But what could also happen is a split betetween the two parties existing in the Democratic Party with the conservatives one side and liberals on the other.

        Separately, the ideological make up of the voters isn't so much the issue as the comfort of the voters.

        The new element is that the new voters weren't previously a part of the establishment like the newer voters. Take housing. There have been a lot of forces that has allow discrimination in housing. The same with education. The same with employment. I believe someone  just had a post up about that.

        The other theory is that we could see an apartheid situation due to the "Whiteness" being  a factor in how the power has been previous distributed as those with an existing grip on power try to maintain it through new rules. I suppose that's possible, but highly unlikley.

        I don't know how things swill end up. I see different theories. What is clear is that while the Democrats  may gain, its not clear what it all may mean.

        One thing is clear. None of th

    •  The decline of the GOP could lead to a Dem split? (0+ / 0-)

      Suppose the GOP doubles down on being the Old White Male party. Then it is demographically doomed to becoming more and more irrelevant.

      This is nothing but good new for the Democrats, right?

      Well, yes, in the short term. But let's engage in some creative crystal-ball gazing about the more distant future, say 20 years on.

      Suppose the GOP shrinks down to the point where no GOP candidate has a shot at the Presidency and the Dems have comfortable control of both parties. Then strains may begin to show in the Democratic coalition - factions will start to complain that the giant coalition is no longer addressing their needs.

      Those factions could break off to form a third party. Or possibly the GOP might reconfigure itself so as to absorb one of the factions. (If you're skeptical of the second possibility, don't forget that the GOP did just that with segregationists in 1968.)

      Just idle speculation. But clearly there are big changes in party alignment up ahead ...

      •  That's the point that I am getting at (0+ / 0-)

        That ideological shifts aren't going to come with just changing one party. both parties will be changed by a shift.

        Whether the Democrats smartly shift to the left to co opt the shift versus staying as it is today like the GOP so that the changes may shift things politically in other ways is the open ended question to me.

        The advantage in the next few election cycles may be Democratic, but the shifts will bring with it more than just partisan gains and changes.

    •  i could see both party coalitions collapsing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bruh1, bink

      if the economy at the human scale is not dealt with effectively. i could see the big money that currently rents the GOP switching sides and ditching the social conservatives, and then the democrats splintering under the weight of economic contradictions.

      a three-party system of left, right and corporate could make for interesting politics, given the uneven spatial distribution of those sorts of voters.

      •  Ca is a good example of (0+ / 0-)

        voters are telling the corporate democrats they want certain things through how they voted on issues during the election separate and a part from giving the democrats a super majority, and the democrats are responding to this super majority by promising to do nothing:

        http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/...

        I think the next few years are going to make it very clear that the Democrats arms aren't being twisted by circumstance. They were making the choices theywanted to make all along. They would rather lose a clear mandate and advantage than go against the establishment.

  •  Republicans don't need to "win" the hispanic vote. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FreeWoman19

    They just need to peel off a little more of it.  Similarly, they don't need to win women -- they just need to do better than 44%.  If Republicans win 47% of the women's vote, they win elections, by riding the white male vote.  We still live in an environment where elections are decided on the margins.    

    As for realignment, when the national debate moves away from how much we'll cut the safety net, and towards ways of intelligently expanding it, when people talk more about crippling income inequality than they do about the budget deficit, I'll believe it's happened.  We're moving -- slooowly -- in that direction, but we aren't there yet.  And I have a hard time seeing Obama as a transformative figure the way Reagan was.  Obama has been in office basically for four years, he's been through two presidential elections, and I still have no idea what his economic philosophy is, and neither does anyone I know.  Nobody ever had any doubt what Reagan's economic philosophy was, and it gave the Republcians something to rally around, to believe in.  The only thing I can believe about Obama is that he'll cut the safety net less than the Republicans would have tried to -- he's shown me nothing more than that.  It's not exactly the sort of thing that inspires a rallying, game-changing movement.  

    The 1 percent doesn’t vote against their self-interest. Why should the 99 percent? -- Joan Vennochi

    by Martin Gale on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:12:59 AM PST

  •  More on a shift from Centrism in the Party? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming

    I want to post more on the point

    (1) Social cultural issues will have less of an impact. For the new demographics economics matter more. The newer demographics are more Liberal about what government should do. For example Latinos are pro gay rights regardless of whatever else they may believe personally by high percentages. Meanwhile, like Blacks, Asians, etc, they are according to research focused on economic issues. That means a Democrat running on social issues but who is economically more conservative will have a tougher race against one that is economically liberal.

    (2) On the economic issues, while they support things like ACA polling data of actual views is that they want a lot more than what they are getting. THey support Big Government. Not just Neoliberal merging of government and corporate interest.  

    (3) For now, the new demographics are testing the waters as they figure out as a voting blocks what their power is. That will change. With that will come the expectation that like White voters had in the past that policies should reflect what they want. That is something that I am not sure Centrists are prepared to do.

  •  I'm having deja vu again (0+ / 0-)

    Didn't you post and then retract a similar diary last week? I'm not complaining or "calling out", mind you, as that's your prerogative, just wondering if I'm going nuts or if my memory is accurate. In any case, Sides is clearly wrong. The public may not have firmly shifted yet from leaning conservative to leaning progressive, but there's clearly been movement away from one and to the other, even if many still label themselves as conservative and aren't comfortable with the label liberal or progressive. What matters less is self-labelling as what broad set of ideas and policies people prefer, and it's clearly moving leftward.

    And it's not just demographics, but economics and politics, with people who 20, 10, even 5 years ago may have leaning more right, now lean more left, simply because conservatism has so clearly failed, economically and politically, and their own situations benefit more from liberal than conservative policies.

    Hopefully, Dems are smart enough to not merely follow and benefit from this trend, but also lead it, ideologically, rhetorically, politically and in terms of policy. What's been percolating and changing below the surface must be embraced and made apparant on the surface, with matching policies to follow.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:20:43 AM PST

    •  As I wrote above, I doubt centrists (0+ / 0-)

      are prepared to give up power so there is likely to be a struggle within the Democratic Party, and not just in the GOP. I think people are seeing this as binary, but as things like the culture war cools down, the economic issues take  on more important, and it becomes harder for the Democratic establishment to run away from them by using social issues.

      •  No one is ever prepared to give up power (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bruh1

        The real question is how strong their position is vis a vis those who want to take it away from them. US politics is shifting leftward, for various reasons, and the further to the right anyone is, the more power they're going to have to give up. Centrists are further to the right than progressives, so I can't see how they get to keep all their power. Look at what's happening to Blue Dogs and ConservaDems. And progressives are getting better at politics.

        We're not going to have a Sweden-like social democratic nirvana here any time soon, but the days of low taxes for the rich, deregulation and social conservatives dominating politics are over. The real question is how far to the left we'll move.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:38:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Conservatives in the Democratic Party (0+ / 0-)

          They hold a lot of money and power.

          So, I see a future in which they will use that to retard any changes (e.g., rule changes to make it harder, packing leadership rules so new voices can not break through, etc).

          I am not as hopeful as you are.

          I think the electorate will be more left of center than right of center with things like Medicare for all becoming more possible (although not certain), but I also think the two-parties have acted in concert to prevent any real change from the corporate interests that control politics, and I don't see them changing or  allowing change to occur.

          My guess is that they will put a series of trojan horse candidates or hollowed out policies that look the part. The problem is that neither will have any impact on the situationf or voters in the long term, and I also believe that overtime it will lead to greater voter apathy. I am not convinced this will mean better outcomes to the left other than in rhetoric. BUt we will see.

          •  And this is how to challenge their power (0+ / 0-)
            I think the electorate will be more left of center than right of center
            We've gotten so used to losing on the left that we've forgotten how to win, and in democratic politics there is and has always been only one way to do that, political pressure. If we can leverage the increasingly left-leaning tendencies of voters to pressure centrists and Repubs, then that's the ballgame. They can keep their valued spots on MTP and Morning Shmoe so long as on policy, they yield.

            Every far-right nutjob they nominate in the GOP makes it easier for us to elect a Dem. Every centrist Dem who votes with Repubs becomes more primariable. The politics of the nation are shifting our way. We just need to know how to exploit it.

            The Reagan era is over.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:34:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  And on cue (0+ / 0-)

          I read this after posting here

          http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/...

          CA is an example of the demographic future.

        •  Centrism is not ideologically coherent. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie

          This is both a boon and a curse for conservatives and liberals.

          Oh, there are some centrists who have their curious blend of positions as what to them is a principled move -- sadly, Obama is one of them -- but most of our centrist politicians are so out of political opportunity.

          If you want to keep centrists from defecting, just take measures to ensure that what you're doing won't get them kicked out of office. The Blue Dog Caucus by and large didn't defect because they're secret conservatives; they defected because Wall Street was turning on Obama and stimulus/Obamacare was unpopular in their home states.

          If you want to figure out the behavior of ideological centrists (who are few) and opportunistic centrists (who are many) observe how they act and talk after an election. Reid and Durbin are examples of the latter, Obama is an example of the former.

          •  We need to stop being so nice and eager (0+ / 0-)

            to make friends and cut deals. Politics is how you get the best policies passed, period, and which way you have to make it happen. As the saying goes, if you want a friend in politics, get a dog. We need to politically pressure anyone who refuses to go along with progressive politics into going along.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:36:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary has nothing to do with anything (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming

    step away

  •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

    (R's) take those tired memes and shove 'em, Denise Velez Oliver, 11/7/2012.

    by a2nite on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:30:19 AM PST

  •  The practical political matter of getting out the (0+ / 0-)

    vote has to be attended to in order to bring the realignment into power.  In every little campaign all around the country this realignment in all of its multicultural glory must go to the polls.  Doing this will crush the Crazy Party.

  •  this has been visible for decades (0+ / 0-)

    i don;t see how the GOP manages to adjust in the next couple of election cycles. i think 2020 is the first shot they have at rebuilding the party at the presidential level, and i have little hope for their ever adjusting at a congressional or statewide level.

    we'll see what is to come in the next four years in CA, as the CA GOP starts to face the political reality of being totally shut out of their irredentist superminority veto . if they start running moderates and liberals again, and win nonwhite and youth votes in the process, the national party might be able to reform itself.

    i'm not holding my breath. i expect a regionally-inflected 3 party system before too long, with the left-center division being either de facto but kept within democratic primaries, or overt if the tension leads to an outright split.

  •  Adds up to a string of close but decisive votes (0+ / 0-)

    51-47 this year.  Perhaps we'll see a similar margin in the mid-terms, enough to cut Boehner's House majority in half while increasing the Democratic majority in the Senate by one or two seats.  53-45 in 2016 and with it very narrow control of the House.  And so on.

    The Republicans are going to go on thinking for some time that just "one more push" will get them to the promised land, because these aren't going to be blowout elections.  But the longer they keep thinking about that, the more entrenched the margins against them become.

  •  Noise (0+ / 0-)

    John Sides and David Broder, along with most pundits, are no better at picking out patterns from the background noise of politics than are most stock brokers at picking winners (note: dart throws do better than most brokers).  An election is still just a point in time survey.  There is a lot of noise (both rhetorical and statistical) in elections.  If it weren't so historians could be replaced by pundits. If seeing trends were so easy, this election would have been all about global warming.

  •  Thank you for a great piece of journalism here. nt (0+ / 0-)

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy -7.8., -6.6

    by helpImdrowning on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:46:19 PM PST

  •  Armando gets an F in Poli Sci (0+ / 0-)

    Sides is a political scientist. The Monkey Cage is a political science blog. And "realignment" or "realigning election" has a specific meaning in political science. So Armando does not get to make up what the term means.

    It does not mean transformative president. The two things -- transformative presidencies and realigning elections -- don't have much to do with each other. A president can be ideologically transformative without a realignment, as with Reagan whose election was not a realignment.  Or there can be a realigning election (1994) under a  president (Clinton) who falls short of transformative.

    Armanda may be right about this:

    I would argue that with the 2012 election result, the Democrats have finally captured the upper hand in the electorate with regard to this ideological argument.
    ...but that has nothing to do with whether 2012 is a realigning election.

    Again, realignment means:

    First, there has to be a dramatic and permanent shift in the party coalitions. Second, the shift in coalitions needs to usher in an extended period of party control.  Third, the shift in control needs to bring about a notable shift in policy.
    So where does "enduring shift in terms of ideological debate" fit in that definition? It simply doesn't. It's irrelevant to the question of whether an election is realigning.

    Neither 2008 nor 2012 was a realigning election. If either was, the Democrats would control the House. Maybe demographic change and the Latino vote will eventually produce a realignment, but it hasn't yet.

    So this attack on Sides is baseless and, well, just reprehensible:

    Unlike Edsall, Sides appears to unconsciously suffer from the view held by many in the beltway media that only the ideological views of whites matter.
    Sides, of course, said nothing of the sort. I've been around dKos for awhile, so I'm not particularly surprised to see Armando stoop a smear like this. But it still makes me sick.
    •  You get sick easily (0+ / 0-)

      Sides wrote:

      "Notice a pattern? It’s nothing new.  After presidential elections, commentators—especially those on the winning side—often seem to believe that Something Big Is Happening.  It’s not just that the winner won and the loser lost. It’s that the winner won in a transformational way, in a way that will fundamentally reshape politics, in a way that foreshadows one-party dominance." Emphasis mine.

      Sides wrote something EXACTLY of the sort,

      You get an F in reading comprehension.

      But my constitution is strong. I didn't get sick because of it.

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        Right, he said nothing like the racist argument that you fasely attributed to him.

        An election in which the Republicans held the House for something like eight of the last ten elections, and the partisan balance in the Senate was almost unchanged, is not  a harbinger of one party dominance. That should be obvious.

        And saying that implies nothing about whose ideology matters.
        .

        •  I'm not as judgmental as you (0+ / 0-)

          Most people unconsciously discount ideological views of nonwhites.

          I am certain that the word "unconsciously" has a meaning. You can look it up.

          As for whether an ideological shit is underway, I think so and if you believe the demographic argument I present, then it seems undeniable to me.

          Of course, you can ignore that Mike Dukakis got the same percentages of the various slices of the electorate that Obama got (except of course with regard ti African Americans), and not that Obama won by 3 and half and Dukakis lost by 8.

          If that means nothing to a commenter like Sides, then political science might not  by what he is engaged in.

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            Unconscious racism is racism. And accusing someone of thinking, unconsciously or not, that whether one's ideology matters is a function of their ethnicity or skin color is calling them a racist. And doing that when nothing they've said or done provides any basis for the accusation is despicable.

            As for whether ideological and/or demographic shifts are underway, none of that is relevant to the question of whether 2008 or 2012 were realigning election. 2008 was not: realignments last more than 2 years, so 2010 proved that it wasn't. 2012 was not: The Democrats didn't regain the House, and didn't see any dramatic increases in the Presidential or Senate national popular votes, so it wasn't.

            If the ideological and demographic ground is shifting in ways that you and I both hope to see (and we both think it is, though we may disagree on magnitude and speed) then that has implications for whether 2014 will be a realigning election (probably not) or maybe 2016 or 2020. But 2012 was not, and calling John Sides names doesn't change that.

            •   Meh (0+ / 0-)

              Our society is racist.

              •  Yes it is (0+ / 0-)

                but calling specific individuals racist without any basis is offensive.

                •  Denying the basics is wrong (0+ / 0-)

                  If Dems had won by shifting white working class voters, Sides would not have ignored the ideological implications.

                  I won't be bullied into not recognizing this this by you.

                  Go sell that crap somewhere else.
                   

                  •  The only one denying anything here (0+ / 0-)

                    is you.

                    So stop whining about supposed bullying when you're the one calling people names without justification.

                    You've made it very clear that you don't understand Sides's post. But that's no excuse for insinuating that he's a racist. Your attacks say nothing about him. But they say a lot about your character.

                    •  Sides swims in the same society as everyone else (0+ / 0-)

                      is the point I made. It is valid.

                      You call that "calling people names."

                      Go sell that somewhere else.

                      Do not try and bully me, or anyone else, from recognizing the racial nature of our society.

                      That says a lot about YOUR character.

                      •  OK, I'll keep feeding you rope (0+ / 0-)

                        as long as you want to keep embarrassing yourself.

                        I'm bullying you? Seriously? Grow up. Nowhere in this thread have I said anything that could remotely be characterized as bullying. I've simply pointed out that you've misunderstood the concept of alignment and your attacks on Sides are baseless and outrageous. You, on the other hand, are calling people racist simply for disagreeing with you. That, I suppose, could be characterized as verbal bullying.

                        If you're going to make harsh and unfair attacks on people, expect to get called on it. And don't whine and cry like a baby when you are. It's pathetic. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you can't take the "heat" when someone calls you out, get off the front page of dKos.

                        As for my supposedly trying to "bully" you into not recognizing societal racism, you might want to scroll up a few posts to where you wrote "Our society is racist," and I (apparently in an attempt to bully you into denying it) wrote "Yes it is." See how I bully people into denying things by...agreeing with them! About those things!

                        Care to dig yourself any deeper?

                        •  So you just levelled a character attack (0+ / 0-)

                          on everyone, except of course, John Sides, according to you.

                          What makes John Sides especially invulnerable to this societal racism exactly?

                          What's funny of course is you think you are digging me a hole.

                          Instead, you hysterical defense of Sides is revealed to be just that, irrationally hysterical.

                          FTR, no one called Sides a racist. Instead what was pointed out is that Sides suffers from the common malady of not considering the significance of the ideological views of people of color.

                          For some reason, that statement, I think undeniable to anyone  not desperate to deny it, set you off to unimaginable levels of outrage.

                          It made you sick, you wrote.

                          You think I am the one digging holes here?

                          You have some holes all right - in your head.

                          •  Bored now (0+ / 0-)

                            You're no longer even trying to make sense.

                            Character is an individual trait. So observing that society is racist says nothing at all about any individual, and therefore attacks no one's character.

                            Your claim that Sides neglects "the significance of ideological views of people of color" is false, and -- given that I have now explained to you repeatedly why it is false -- willfully ignorant on your part. One last time: Sides did not address ideology because ideology -- of anyone, regardless of color -- is not relevant to the question of whether 2012 was a realigning election. It clearly wasn't, and anyone (looking at you) who thinks otherwise, doesn't understand the definition of realignment, can't read election returns, or has Karl-Rove-on-election-night-level delusions about the results.

                            Your stubborn attempts to claim that Sides thinks that only white people's views matter are offensive -- whether you want to admit that's tantamount to an accusation of racism or not -- because they are so obviously without basis.

                            At this point, it's clear that you are either incapable of understanding these points, or simply too prideful to admit your error.  So you're going to keeping digging a deeper hole until you come out on the other side of the planet. I have no wish to follow you through the molten core.

                            Bye.

    •  While I think this may not have been Armando's (0+ / 0-)

      best or most carefully written piece, that was an unusually, and probably unfairly, fierce rebuttal.

      Please take a breath before you post a rebuttal, and take two if it's a rebuttal to someone you didn't like even before the post.  It's better for everyone.

      “In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.” - Fran Lebowitz

      by Aramis Wyler on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 09:26:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fundamentally... (0+ / 0-)

    one might think of this coalition as being the vast majority of people of color plus a large minority--but a growing minority, since it's particularly strong among younger voters--of whites who are not caught up in the politics of fear and racism.

    The whole notion of the Democratic coalition being Whites+plus is just misleading. It's just the result of looking at everything with a white-centric set of presumptions.

    "Be just and good." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

    by ogre on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 04:27:21 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site