Skip to main content

We all know that by sometime around 2030 the country will cease to be majority White.  Which means the White Man's Party - the GOP - will be shit out of luck.  But you know what?  if you read the New Republic article by Noam Scheiber, you'll discover that Obama's 2012 campaign has effectively moved the end of a White majority forward to right now.  The Republicans don't have three or four election cycles to re-calibrate their 'message' and begin to build a non-White base.  Jump below the squiggle and you'll see why it's too late for that.

According to Scheiber's article, by the least week of the campaign, Romney thought he was ahead in several key swing states - Florida and Virginia - and had pulled even in Colorado and New Hampshire which, along with North Carolina, meant he was going to win.  The problem was that he lost all four states. And why were his pollsters so full of shit?  Because, according to his chief pollster, Neil Newhouse,

 

the biggest flaw in their polling was the failure to predict the demographic composition of the electorate. Broadly speaking, the people who showed up to vote on November 6 were younger and less white than Team Romney anticipated, and far more Democratic as a result. “The Colorado Latino vote was extraordinarily challenging,” Newhouse told me. “As it was in Florida.”
 

When a pollster uses a word like 'challenging' to describe certain types of people what he means is that he doesn't know how to run a poll that gives valid data for that group.  In other words, the Republicans don't know how to talk to Latinos. never mind appeal to them for votes.

The Democrats don't have to wait until 2030 to face an electorate whose majority is non-White.  They just have to count on the Republicans being unable to find a single, non-White vote.

Let's kick some ass in 2014.  

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

  •  Don't get complacent. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pete Cortez, FG, RUNDOWN

    The one constant in politics, as in all else, is change.

    You'll always have a body of people opposed to your philosophies, and sometimes they will outnumber you.

    It won't be today's Republicans, probably. But whatever the name, an opposition will continue.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:00:17 PM PST

  •  Terrible assumption. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG

    Nationally, the GOP performed poorly with non-White demographic, but it's considerably more complicated than that.  While we don't have exit polling data for Texas, we have polling data two weeks in advance of the election.  Romney managed to split the Hispanic electorate and Tea Party darling Ted Cruz was actually outperformed Sadler in that demo.

  •  How many times before (0+ / 0-)

    have they supposedly run themselves out of existence? The lies & hatred they count on never die. The important thing is to kick them when they're down, because they'll get up again.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:44:44 PM PST

  •  We white men actually can vote democratic too. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Panama Pete, RUNDOWN

    Mitt didn't get all of us.  In fact, there were probably more white people who voted for the president than there were non-whites who voted for him.

    I do agree though that the GOP has very little hope of ever garnering much support among the fast growing non-white population.  I think they're in very deep trouble.  The electoral college map is only going to get further out of their reach from here on out.

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:52:25 PM PST

    •  Damn straight! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN

      I'm 57, white and male and there was NO WAY I was gonna vote for freakin' Willard.  I'm an angry old white guy but what I'm angry at are the fascist greedheads who are doing their level best to destroy the America I grew up in. And those aren't the "libruls" the teablowhards are all upset about.

      I've never voted for a Repub for President and never will.  And I'm overjoyed to see the upcoming generation pick up the torch so many of we boomers abandoned in our narcissistic search for self-gratification.

      See the children of the earth who wake to find the table bare, See the gentry in the country riding out to take the air. ~~Gordon Lightfoot, "Don Quixote"

      by Panama Pete on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:56:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And the President didn't get all Latinos (0+ / 0-)

      Or women.

      •  Mitt did not likely get more votes from (0+ / 0-)

        latinos and women than he did from whites.  My point is that the GOP is a party hyper focused on white males, but that doesn't necessarily make it the party of white males.  Many of us find the GOP loathsome.  In my case it is the GOP's intolerance which makes them so abhorrent.  I disagree with them on fiscal matters, but I am offended by them on matters of social justice and diversity.

        Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

        by lockewasright on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:42:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He doesn't have to, that's the point. (0+ / 0-)

          The President can lose the white vote if the GOP loses badly enough in other demographics.  The GOP can still lose Latinos, Blacks, and women, but bite off a significant chunk of them and dominate the white male vote and they can actually win big.  And it's not unreasonable to think they can pull it off; they do so regularly in Texas.

          •  No, the point is the GOP is NOT the party of (0+ / 0-)

            the white man.  It is the party of SOME white men.  It is a party focused almost solely on them, but it does not get all of them.   If you subtract the white men who voted for Obama from his voting totals he DOESN'T win in 2012.  Again, more white's voted for the president Obama than non-whites.  Yes, some latinos, blacks and women voted for Mitt, but they weren't more than half of his votes like whites were for president Obama. The point is that the GOP can't count on dominating the white male vote by enough to make up for the demographic shifts any more.  The fact is that the GOP is not my party and I am a white man.  It is just a party that is focused on trying to be my party.  It'll never happen.  I will never support social conservatism and am a passionate believer in celebrating diversity and embracing inclusiveness as prerequisite to liberty for all.

            Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

            by lockewasright on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:00:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's nice. (0+ / 0-)

              But besides the point.  Romney had a twenty point advantage amongst white men this election.  That's a fact.  He also performed just as poorly amongst other demographics.  That's a fact.  The argument here is whether or not the GOP is doomed by demographics.  That is wishful thinking.  Also, I do not argue that the GOP can continue to count on winning white men, and certainly not whites overall.  Likewise, there's no reason why they can't expand their performance amongst other groups (including Latinos) despite adhering to a deeply conservative message.  They do so consistently in Texas.

              The moral of the story is not to get complacent; it's too damned early to be talking about realignments and claiming victory.

              •  Wrong again. (0+ / 0-)

                The point is that the GOP is NOT the party of white men.  It is a party trying to be the party of white men.

                Also, Texas went to Mitt.  How'd that work out for him?  That's right, presidents are elected in a national election, not just Texas.  This is not a lab where we can remove all variables.  The fact is that demographics are a huge problem for the GOP.  They continue to alienate entire demographics of voters and those demographics are everywhere, not just in Texas where local groupthink can net them some more non-whites than they get elsewhere. Also, Bush was a Texas local which counts for some votes.  More importantly, Bush was elected before 9/11 and the tea party radicalized the GOP base to the point that Mitt Romney had to tack to right of everyone else in the field on immigration in order to even get past the primary season for his shot at losing the non-white vote and not getting enough of the white vote.

                The electorate is not static and the younger white voters really don't look good for the GOP either.  They will not magically change to become republicans as a simple result of possessing a Y chromosome and a lighter pigmentation.  That's because the GOP is not the party of white men.  It is the party of yearning for an imaginary version of the fifties.  That just happens to appeal to a lot of older white men.  This is a different thing from being the party of white men.

                Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

                by lockewasright on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:57:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Romney's Whites (0+ / 0-)

                Pete: You are missing something.  Romney got a 20-point margin with Whites but if you look at his vote outside of the South the margin drops to like 5 points.  It's not that the Repubs are the party of the White man, they've become the party of the Southern White Man and that's something much different.  

  •  Fascism and greed come in every color (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pete Cortez, RUNDOWN

    and in every language.  All that's going to change is that the GOP will have to stumble around for a while finding a way to translate their Satanic agenda into the cultural framework of the new demographics.  Latinos have plenty of self-inflicted experience with fascism, and not all of them thought it was a bad thing.  And African Americans have experience with it in the form of the prison industrial complex and the corrupt gangsta rap entertainment industry that glorifies it as a "real" black lifestyle.  

    Sooner or later, Republicans will find a way to exploit this - they'll find a way to ally with the Latin flavor of fascism and the part of the black community that's on board with authoritarianism.  And we better have struck back and divided the GOP's constituencies, or we'll be left making intellectual and moral arguments when our most solid demographics have been swept out from under us - rarely a recipe for victory.

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

    by Troubadour on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:09:42 PM PST

  •  Wouldn't be so sure ... (0+ / 0-)

    Just take a look at the state governments of most of this years "swing states" ... and their overwhelming GOP majorities.

    WI, OH, and MI are particularly troubling.

    The GOP isn't done yet - the fight isn't over yet.

    If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

    by RUNDOWN on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:54:44 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site