Skip to main content

Ruy Teixeira is a demographics expert who is the co-author with John Judis of The Emerging Democratic Majority (2002.) He's currently a Senior Fellow at both The Century Foundation and Center for American Progress and has recently published a working paper entitled Demographic Change and the Future of the Parties (.pdf, 45 pages), reviewed here by Tom Schaller for FiveThirtyEight.com and Ed Kilgore at the Democratic Strategist.  Ruy's work was featured yesterday in a NY Times column by Charles Blow.

From his CAP page:

Teixeira's recent writings include "Demographic Change and the Future of the Parties," "The European Paradox" (with Matt Browne and John Halpin), "New Progressive America," "New Progressive America: The Millennial Generation" (with David Madland), and "The Decline of the White Working Class and the Rise of a Mass Upper Middle Class" (with Alan Abramowitz).

Ruy has kindly agreed to answer a few question for us pertaining to the working paper and some selected contemporary political issues.

Daily Kos:  You’ve been following demographic trends for years. In your working paper, you  note that the working class white vote, which is often conservative-oriented,  is declining and by remarkable percentages (25% in PA over twenty years, 24%  in NV), suggesting major repercussions for conservative politics. Are those  trends everywhere? Are places like the

chart of demographic changes since 1988
demographic changes since 1988
South, Ohio, or West Virginia or other  places seen as "Hillary" strongholds in 2008 subject to the same  trends?

Ruy Teixeira: Absolutely—these trends are very definitely affecting states like these.  There’s a table in the paper where I show the decline in the share of white working class voters by state since 1988 in all states where exit poll data are available.  Since 1988, the share of white working-class voters in Florida has declined 17 points, while the white college graduate share has risen 4 points and the minority share is up by 12 points.  In Texas, the white working class share is down 17 points, with minorities up 9 points and white college graduates up 7 points. In Ohio the share of white working-class voters fell by 15 points between 1988 and 2008 while white college graduates rose by 8 points and minorities by 6 points.  Even a state like Mississippi has seen a huge drop in the white working class vote since 1988 (down 21 points).

These trends will continue to affect red states in the future.  About 90 percent of future population growth in Texas will be from minorities particularly Hispanics.  And the highest growth rates in the Hispanic population are currently seen in five southern states: Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and North Carolina.

Daily Kos: The millennial voters by our polling and by others  including Pew are one of the most progressive and Democratic party-leaning  demographics. What’s their make-up  and in your opinion are they likely  to stay progressive and leaning Democratic?

Ruy Teixeira: By 2020, Millennials will be just under 40 percent of eligible voters and will be even more heavily minority (44 percent) than they are today.  This generation is not only growing rapidly and voting consistently Democratic but also leans heavily Democratic on party identification. The recent difficult political environment for the Democrats has seen their overall party identification lead slip considerably, but they have retained a double digit lead (14 points) among Millennials in the latest Pew analysis.  And Millennials hold a raft of progressive positions in various issue areas that should continue to propel them toward the Democrats.

On social issues, Millennials support gay marriage, take race and gender equality as givens, are tolerant of religious and family diversity, have an open and positive attitude toward immigration, and generally display little interest in fighting over the divisive social issues of the past. They are also notably progressive on foreign policy issues, and favor a multilateral and cooperative foreign policy more than their elders. Millennials, more so than other generations, want a stronger government to make the economy work better, help those in need, and provide more services. These views extend to a range of domestic policy issues including education, clean energy, and, especially, health care.

But will Millennials remain as progressive as they are today?  Some argue that Millennials will surely become more conservative as they age—a lifecycle effect will moderate their youthful progressivism and send them toward the GOP. While it is possible that the Millennial generation may become more conservative as they age, evidence suggests that they are likely to remain largely progressive. Dismissing Millennial progressivism as just the product of youth would be misguided.

To being with, while the degree to which people maintain the attitudes and opinions that they currently have throughout their life is a point of much debate, the general thrust of academic literature is that political ideas and attachments that are developed in early adulthood tend to last. Research suggests that a socialization process occurs that leads young adults to hold onto the party identification and opinions that they developed in their formative years.

This is especially true with partisan identification. Party identification is the single strongest predictor of how people vote and tends to stick with individuals once they form an attachment early in their political lives. Duane F. Alwin and Jon A. Krosnick analyzed NES panel data over several decades and argue in a study in the American Journal of Sociology that "party loyalties either increase or persist with age."

There is less research about whether people maintain their support for specific issues rather than general partisanship. Yet many of these academic studies raise considerable doubt about claims that people naturally become less progressive as they age. Alwin and Krosnick argue that attitude stability "appears to occur immediately following early adulthood...and appears to remain at a constant and high-level throughout the remainder of the life cycle."  This is particularly true on social issues but there is good evidence of relative stability on economic issues as well (for much more on this, see my CAP report with David Madland, New Progressive America: The Millennial Generation).

It therefore seems unlikely that aging will make this generation any more amenable to strict economic and social conservatism. Here as elsewhere the GOP will have to move to the center to compete for these voters and mitigate their currently large disadvantage.  And Democrats are likely to remain in a strong position though policy failure could certainly compress their advantage.

Daily Kos: Karen Tumulty wrote a fascinating article this past week

As political gambles go, it's a big and risky one: $50 million to test the  proposition that the Democratic Party's outreach to new voters that helped  make Barack Obama president can work in an election where his name is not on  the ballot...

suggesting that the  Obama administration was targeting new voters at the expense of the  traditional base voter. Is this a misread of who the base is, or a  continuation of inevitable demographic shift?

Ruy Teixeira: This strikes me as a good idea.  Critics of this approach are certainly right to note that these new voters, many of whom are from low turnout demographics like Hispanics and particularly young people, will not turn out at the levels of so-called base voters who have been in the electorate for a longer time.  But it still should be possible to increase the turnout rates of these new voters and reduce this differential—research suggests that outreach efforts, particularly those with a high dose of personal contact, can make a real difference in turnout levels.  That would obviously benefit the Democrats.

Of course, there are opportunity costs to these outreach efforts.  But my sense is that it will still be money well-spent, particularly when we keep in mind that the new Millennial and minority voters of today are the base voters of tomorrow.  Time and money spent contacting and motivating these voters is likely to pay off not just in this election but in future ones as well.

Daily Kos: Some polls suggest  that the AZ immigration approach under Jan Brewer is very popular, other polls  suggest comprehensive reform is also popular. Can these observations be  reconciled? What effect is this likely to have on voters looking ahead beyond  2010?

Ruy Teixeira: Yes it is true that the AZ’s draconian immigration law and comprehensive immigration reform are both popular.  Consider these results from a bipartisan poll by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies, conducted for America's Voice. In that poll—conducted after passage of the Arizona law—voters were asked if they supported "comprehensive immigration reform," defined as:
"Under this proposal, the federal government would strengthen border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship."

This proposal received overwhelming support, 78 percent in favor against 16 percent against, despite all the publicity about the Arizona law.  How is that possible given the documented public support for the Arizona law? The reason is very simple: supporters of the Arizona law are also overwhelmingly supportive (84 percent) of comprehensive immigration reform. This suggests that much of the support for the Arizona law reflects an urgent desire for action on the immigration issue rather than a single-minded commitment to the Arizona approach.

Looking ahead, this suggests that comprehensive immigration reform could pay considerable dividends in the long term, both solidifying Hispanic support for the Democrats and responding to the public imperative for action in this area.  And the chief effect of the AZ law may be ensuring that most Hispanics don’t bother to give the GOP a second look.

Daily Kos: Sarah Palin is an appealing figure to female evangelicals. Is  this a rising demo, or is the "mamma grizzly" appeal a media  creation?

Ruy Teixeira: Mama grizzlies seem likely to be just the latest in a long line of media-fueled electoral chimeras for the Republicans.  The reality is that female evangelicals are not much of a growth constituency.  And white evangelical protestants overall are roughly stable as a proportion of the population.  They are no larger at this point than unmarried women—who are a growth constituency—as a proportion of eligible voters.

The growth action on the religious front is among unaffiliated or secular voters, who are the fastest-growing "religious" group in the United States.  From 1944 to 2004 the percentage of adults reporting no religious affiliation almost tripled, rising from 5 percent to 14 percent. Projections indicate that by 2024 somewhere between 20-25 percent of adults will be unaffiliated.

This trend, combined with growth among non-Christian faiths and race-ethnic trends, will ensure that in very short order we will no longer be a white Christian nation. Even today, only about 55 percent of adults are white Christians. By 2024 that figure will be down to 45 percent. That means that by the 2016 election (or 2020 at the outside) the United States will cease to be a white Christian nation. Looking even farther down the road, by 2040 white Christians will be only around 35 percent of the population and conservative white Christians (a critical part of the GOP base) only about a third of that—a minority within a minority.  

These developments will put increased pressure on the GOP to moderate its socially conservative stance. That stance may appeal strongly to a key segment of their base, but that segment will shrink substantially over time as religious diversity increases. A more moderate approach would have some chance of appealing to this diversity rather than leaving the field wide open for the Democrats.  But of course Sarah Palin and her mama grizzlies takes the GOP in precisely the opposite direction.

Daily Kos: What do the demographic trends suggest to you in terms to  the continuing (or declining) appeal of the tea party?

Ruy Teixeira: The tea party concentrates in one place the most extreme and reactionary views of the GOP which is already too conservative for most voters in rising demographic groups: Hispanics and other minorities, Millennials, unmarried women, professionals, white college graduates, seculars and so on.  Therefore, while tea party activists may help drive up Republican turnout in the 2010 election, an election where the economic situation and historical patterns already ensure the GOP will make significant gains, the longer term political effects for the party will almost certainly be negative.  The demographic imperative for the Republicans is to move toward the center to compete for rising, relatively progressive constituencies.  But the tea party activists will have none of this and they will have more power, not less, over the GOP after the 2010 elections produce gains—gains the tea party forces will aggressively claim credit for.  This is the GOP dilemma—they feel the need the tea party in the short term but are trading off political flexibility in the longer term.  This loss of flexibility will, in the end, be very bad for the GOP but at this point I believe they are locked into their current path.

Daily Kos: Thank you, Ruy Teixeira.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:00 AM PDT.

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

  •  How much importance to long-term trends.... (5+ / 0-)

    ...do you place on the President's perceived job performance?

    I'm just remembering how Jimmy Carter's perceived job performance seemed to enable the conservative revolution, especially among people who came of age during the Carter/Reagan election.

    "Philosophy is useless; theology is worse"--Dire Straits

    by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:12:57 AM PDT

    •  Ruy's not in the comments today (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RudiB, wonderful world, James Kresnik

      afaik, but I can pass questions along later.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:15:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think that was inevitable. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snout, wonderful world

      It didn't have a lot to do with Carter's performance.  It was a backlash to a long period of progressive governance.

      Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

      by Drew J Jones on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:19:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then why did the Repubs run against Carter.... (4+ / 0-)

        ....for at least 3 presidential elections?

        And why are they still trying to run against Carter?

        "Philosophy is useless; theology is worse"--Dire Straits

        by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:25:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "A long period of progressive governance?" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson

        4 years? From 1952 to 1976, Democrats held the White House for 8 years. Then Carter, hardly a "progressive," was elected and completely screwed up thoroughly, both domestically and in foreign affairs.  

        •  I think it was in reference (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          immigradvocate

          to the FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter Administrations that dominated the middle of the 20th century. The generally pro-New Deal Eisenhower Administration should be given honorary mention.  

          I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

          by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:44:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Calling Truman "progressive" will come as a (0+ / 0-)

            surprise to actual Progressives, whose standard bearer, Henry Wallace, ran against him in 1948. How far have we fallen when Eisenhower is considered "progressive?" And Carter was far from progressive. In fact it was his embrace of Republican economic policies that prompted Ted Kennedy's challenge from the left in 1980, a challenge that would certainly have been successful had not Ayatollah Khomeini intervened.

            The idea that there has been a long period of progressive governance is absurd.

            •  Sorry But (0+ / 0-)

              You should brush up on your history.

              The Dems took over the House in 1932 and held it until 1992.  Some Presidents were more progressive than others, but society generally moved left until the Reagan Revolution.  

              •  "Society" = "governance?" (0+ / 0-)

                The original post described "a long period of progressive governance," not a general leftward drift of society. Stop moving the goalposts. And I didn't realize that a majority in the House equaled "progressive governance." for a lot of the period you describe, the Democratic majority depended on Southern racists. Some progressive governance.

                •  Ok Then (0+ / 0-)

                  Governance drifted left after the formation of the New Deal.  

                  You may want to read about political realignments.  

                  •  You may want to read the post I was replying to. (0+ / 0-)

                    And don't be so condescending. You're just blabbering. The post I was replying to said that Carter's defeat in 1980 "didn't have a lot to do with Carter's performance.  It was a backlash to a long period of progressive governance."

                    This is patently ridiculous. His defeat obviously had to do with his poor performance and there was no "long period of progressive governance" preceding his defeat in 1980. We had double digit inflation and interest rates that Carter did nothing to ameliorate. He supported the autocrat Shah of Iran (resulting in the the hostage crisis)  and pulled out of the Moscow Olympics in response to the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. Carter sucked. He wasn't progressive, and that's why he lost. Neither was Ford and neither was Nixon. LBJ advanced a progressive domestic agenda, but undermined it with a divisive, distinctly nonprogressive militarism. Ike was not progressive. Truman was not progressive. You, as well as the poster to whom I was replying, seem to think (if I can use the term to describe what you're doing) that Carter's loss was due to some inevitable tectonic shift in the body politic, a preposterous idea.

                    And even if you want to claim that the New Deal started a long period of progressive governance, there was certainly no backlash against it. The basic New Deal and Great Society programs are now and have been wildly popular. There has been no backlash against them. Even Tea Partiers are running away from their anti-Social Security and anti-Medicare rhetoric. You're just wrong and full of shit to boot.

                    •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                      You need to read about political realignments during the 20th century.  Do that, then we can have a substantive conversation.  

                      •  But you haven't offered any substance. (0+ / 0-)

                        I have. I give you facts and all you say is, "Oh, you don't know anything about political realignments," as though that means anything, or has anything to do with what was being discussed. You're not necessarily stupid, but you're arrogant--and with apparently very little to back it up--which is worse.

                        Aside from that, "political realignments" have nothing to do with whether or not a "long period of progressive governance" either existed after WW II,(it didn't) or caused Carter's defeat (which it also didn't).

      •  Like there was no (0+ / 0-)

        Iran hostage situation?

        "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

        by phastphil40 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:02:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  While short-term approval (4+ / 0-)

      fluctuations have no apparent effect on long-term trends, long stretches of high approval or disapproval are extremely important.  Presidential approval is one of the most important factors in shaping the partisan split of a generational cohort (in particular, the president's approval when you are 20 years old, give or take a couple of years).  There was a great graphic in the NYT a couple of years ago, based on a massive Pew Study (23,000 respondents, IIRC), showing the correlation between pres approval at age 20 and lifetime partisanship.  I'll see if I can find it.

      I don't care about your farm or mafia! Oh wait -- wrong forum.

      by cardinal on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:25:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the graphic (5+ / 0-)

        I couldn't find it online, so I uploaded it.

        I don't care about your farm or mafia! Oh wait -- wrong forum.

        by cardinal on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:33:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  hey, cardinal (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cardinal

          was hopign you'd stop by

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:57:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, it's funny. . . (4+ / 0-)

            my two favorite dKos features -- the Dawn Chorus Bird Blog and your "reviews/interviews of people who actually study this stuff systematically" feature are simultaneous.  So Sunday mornings are must-see blogging around here.

            The dark underbelly to the approval/party-ID relationship, of course, is that if Obama suffers from a sustained period of unpopularity, is booted out, and the new Republican is popular for at least a couple of years, then the folks who are perhaps 12-17 right now could become a mirror image of the millenials, looking more like another Reagan youth.  Long-term trends like the decline of the white working class mean nothing if, for example, the next generation of Hispanics or college graduates goes heavily Republican.  So I'm probably a bit more cautious, overall, then Texiera about the Democrats' long-term prospects.  Still, the current demographic environment gives us a rich playing field, if we can take advantage.

            I don't care about your farm or mafia! Oh wait -- wrong forum.

            by cardinal on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:10:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I think that overwhelmin disappointment with Dems (0+ / 0-)

        could actually cause these rising demographics to sympathize with the militant or revolutionary left. Movement conservatism offers nothing economically, politically or socially appealing to them.

        I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

        by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:50:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  2 things come to mind (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik

      a) Carter had less to do with the REagan revolution than people think. It enabled trends that were already there.

      b) As I say below, the real problem with the modeling to me is that it assumes the present two parties will continue to exist as they are now , but I question whether the US can sustain to right leaning parties for very long as  it has been doing now for 15 years especially where the economic policies of both parties are so closely related and those parties are leading to on going  cycles of economic crisis.

      I think a third party  of some kind is going to grow up and take over one of the major parties in some way. Either internally within a party or externally outside of a party somehow. I think the pressures are pushing us in that direction as a society. There are forces against my thesis, but I think its a mistake to ignore the pressure being built up in the system to push us in this direction.

      There are two posts I have read on other sites that sum up my view of American politics that make the demographic numbers hard to predict:

      a) One of these issues can be summed up here:

      "In earlier posts I've talked about the conflicts of interest between the two political parties and the electorate as a whole. Every elected official. candidate, political pro, professional advocate, and mercenary expert involved in politics has his own personal goals, and usually these are ordinary career goals -- money and power. If you compare the interests of political constituencies to the interests of the political insiders supposedly working for them, they are not only not identical, they're not even very similar, and often are clearly contrary. For example, the longer the politicos can delay the favorable resolution of an issue the longer they will have leverage over the voters committed to that particular issue. Politicos always have to balance the donors against voters, always to the detriment of the voters, and they're also always thinking about their post-political career on the lecture circuit, in think tanks, and in the media.  

      In a situation like this there are many incentives for the two parties to collaborate, and that's what's happening when you see a member of one party voting unexpectedly against his party, or when you see the elder statesmen of the two parties getting together in secret to bang out a compromise. It's not that the two parties don't compete at all, but as a rule when they do compete the party leaders keep in mind their common interest in maintaining their leverage over their two antagonistic core constituencies -- environmentalists and anti-environmentalists, for example.  

      Party collaboration on the big issues today is at a level not seen since the era of Grover Cleveland and the Bourbon Democrats 120 years ago..."

      http://www.openleft.com/...

      I don't think the present situation is sustainable due to the economic crisis that is going to inevitably be produced. We will see more crisis in health care (since the cost issue was not addressed in the prior bill) and other areas like Wall Street (since too big to fail amongst other issues were not addressed) by both parties are being used to solidify corporate support. I don't know how it will shake  out, but its a major factor hedging the demographic trends.

      Economic populism, in other words, will be a factor in all of this despite demographics.

      b) Which leads me to my second point in response to your question. That while approval ratings are not per se important in this, I think it is a mistake to not realize that these numbers are related to how people are viewing the party, including the approval numbers. Obama's numbers are tied to long term economic development, and yet, the administrations own numbers predict unemployment higher than 8 percent through 2012. We can't even pass a basic jobs bill or industrial policy- how is this sustainable without harming the party? I don't see it, but it may occur due to the demographic advantages.

      Of course, the real issue, is that my thesis brings up will Americans become more open to third parties due to their perceptions of the president's performance or (as I see his performance) party of a greater proxy for the party?

      The answer seems to be maybe.

      "The poll also learned that 46% of voters are comfortable with the idea of voting for minor party or independent candidates. "

      http://www.ballot-access.org/...
      This is part of the equation.

      We are already seeing early signs of this with labor groups.

      •  My question would be (0+ / 0-)

        that if one has this attitude about politicians in general:

        Every elected official. candidate, political pro, professional advocate, and mercenary expert involved in politics has his own personal goals, and usually these are ordinary career goals -- money and power.

        ,

        then how would a third party help? You're still dealing with the same kind of person, unless you think that third party candidates would somehow be above the fray?
        And until a third party gains a substantial number of members in Congress, they'll still have to caucus with the two major parties, so what exactly have you gained?

        Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul, And sings the tune--without the words, And never stops at all. -Emily Dickinson

        by skohayes on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:19:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  By the way, on the job situation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik

      for people of color is rarely covered, but is significantly worse than the rest of the population.

  •  Excellent work by all involved with this, (12+ / 0-)

    DemFromCT.  Are there any states whose demographics go against the trends discussed?  Michigan seems the state on the chart least affected by the changes in voter demographics, but it remains reliably blue.

  •  For progressives, this all sounds encouraging... (27+ / 0-)

    ...however, I have a couple of caveats:

    "...and generally display little interest in fighting over the divisive social issues of the past."

    On race matters and gender equality, this is no doubt true. But some other issues are less certain.

    Eighteen states have in the past six years passed anti-gay marriage (and, in several case, anti-civil unions legislation), often by huge margins. So, while millennials are more progressive in general on this subject, their not being interested in fighting "divisive social issues" is not such a good thing. Moreover, younger people tend to lean (slightly) less toward the pro-choice side when it comes to reproductive rights. That, too, is not such a good thing. In this case, millennials are ALREADY more conservative, and how they lean as they age IS of concern.

    As for outreach to young voters with a "high dose of personal contact," put me in the category of those who favor pushing that hard - not just a 50-state campaign, but a 300,000-precinct campaign. While congressional contests are important, we should remember that state legislatures also matter, and building progressive Democratic bases at the precinct level means better candidates and better legislators in the states, which, ultimately, means better Congresspeople.

    I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:21:23 AM PDT

  •  This piece provides a small basis for hope. (4+ / 0-)

    Maybe the rise in the number of voting millenials will lift the focus of political debate from the desires of the haves to the needs of the many.

    Our economy and our political landscape have been littered with the hopes and dreams of our vanishing middle class for too long. I hope the millenials fulfill the promise held out for them.

    You know there's a problem with the educational system that when out of the 3 Rs only one begins with an R. - Dennis Miller

    by 4Freedom on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:22:55 AM PDT

  •  graph on Dem leaning religious groups (12+ / 0-)

    from the author's report:

    Photobucket

    Thanks especially for the female evangelicals/Sarah Palin clarification.

    Very nice piece DfCT.  As always, I appreciate your good work.

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:23:28 AM PDT

    •  see this (8+ / 0-)

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:29:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  White Christian nation waning (7+ / 0-)

      Unaffiliated or secular voters, by the way, are the fastest-growing "religious" group in the United States—not white evangelical protestants. From 1944 to 2004 the percentage of adults reporting no religious affiliation almost tripled, rising from 5 percent to 14 percent. Projections indicate that by 2024 around 20 percent of adults will be unaffiliated.59

      This trend, combined with growth among on-Christian faiths and raceethnic trends, will ensure that in very short order we will no longer be a white Christian nation. Even today, only about 55 percent of adults are white Christians. By 2024 that figure will be down to 45 percent.60 That means that by the 2016 election (or 2020 at the outside) the United States will cease to be a white Christian nation. Looking even farther down the road, by 2040 white Christians will be only around 35 percent of the population and conservative white Christians (a critical part of the GOP base) only about a third of that—a minority within a minority.

      I'll assume civil war will have broken out by then.....

      Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

      by Scarce on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:10:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's not lose sight of the fact ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JaxDem, James Kresnik

        ... that while they are losing demographic power, they STILL have an operating organizational infrastructure. While most simply attend services once or more during the week and see it as simply positive ritual (faith exercise if you will), a critical mass of Movement Conservative activists take advantage of the natural audience to reinforce a message that goes unchallenged in those congregations every single week.

        They may end up like the defenders of Masada, but right now they are acting like the siege just started and the "Romans" are pissing in the wind.

        "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass

        by Egalitare on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:02:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem with this theory is what is the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        definition of "white". If its only people whose ancestors originally came from Europe,the future projections are correct. ut suppose it means people who look "white"no matter where most of their ancestors came from.

        Many "Hispanics" look as white as people whose ancestors came from Europe. And what about the rising rates of intermarriage in this country? When Jim Johnson marries Margarita Lopez,what will their children be? Do you realize that the majority of Asians already intermarry with "whites".

        This future demographic is pure bullshit. Because of intermarriage and assimilation,the majority of the descendants of todays Asians and Hispanic will become assimilated into the white majority in this country just like the ethnic immigrants of 100 years ago.

        Progressives cannot count on demogrphics for fuure political success. We need policies which will create high paying jobs and avoid useless military adventures. The children of Johnson and Lopez will vote for us,not because their mom was Hispanic but because our policies will help them and their children.

  •  Almost Any '10 Repub Gain Stops Progressivism (12+ / 0-)

    dead in its tracks, since the Democratic party is conservative in every issue that counts. VERY little is needed and that's why the Republican strategy starting in Jan 08 has been all crazee all the time. Turn out the base and to hell with everything else.

    If they can grab the WH in 12 they lock down the Constitution with a sociopathic SCOTUS majority into the middle of the century, and it's their country thereafter no matter what the demographic trends.

    Everything about their messaging and behavior looks to me consistent with them thinking this way.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:25:46 AM PDT

    •  Yes. (6+ / 0-)

      I think this piece of analysis overlooks money and other forms of power that come to bear. Demographics alone does not determine political outcome -- at least not right away. If it did, China and Iran would look far different today than they do.

      There are just 10 kinds of people; those who know binary and those who don't.

      by RudiB on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:31:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  nothing 'determines' outcome (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        panicbean, RudiB, skohayes, James Kresnik

        that's why there is GOTV.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:20:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  R's really ARE fomenting violence. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RudiB, James Kresnik, WineRev

        Their only hope in the intermediate and long term (politically) is an undoing of democracy itself, and they will provoke violence in order to be able to assert their power. (They are already packing heat, repressing public forums at town hall meetings.)

        First, bully tactics, then outright violence, then reaction (repression) and suspensions of certain rights with political peace only through "bipartisanship."

        We heard their impassioned rallying cry from John Boehner on the eve of the HCR vote ("No, you can't!") We have not yet heard the end of it.

        I'm a Democrat. That's why.

        by ezdidit on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:36:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Quite right (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ezdidit, RudiB, James Kresnik, dle2GA

          Sharron Angle's remarks about appealing to "2nd amendment rights", that is, from ballots to bullets, is very worrisome.

          All this appeal to "our way or else" is right out of the Weimar Republic by a certain political group ....

          They need to be answered and shamed at every turn, with the more egregious examples turned in to the Secret Service, the FBI and the police in general (Arpaio being an obvious exception.)

          Shalom.

          "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

          by WineRev on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:13:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Weimar, indeed. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RudiB, James Kresnik

            Dems are asking for it; Senate 'comity' is the hallmark of their cowardice through accommodation.

            But I will vote my heart out and try to convince anyone I can to do so, for

            Republicans must never gain majority power again.

            BushCo attempted the de facto suspension of the Constitution, and he succeeded in many ways. President Obama is merely fending off further attempts to do so by permitting BushCo arguments to lapse in the courts, but he is also postponing prosecutions that may be inevitable and necessary.

            I'm a Democrat. That's why.

            by ezdidit on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:40:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  They are moving beyond electoral politics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ezdidit

      For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

      by Paul Goodman on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:19:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you are too pessimistic, Gooserock (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes

      Can the GOP get a NET swing of +40 in the House to make John Boehner Speaker? No way. I just can't see it. They will pick up seats, of course, but capture control so they can stop everything more than they do now? Nope.

      In the Senate the GOP needs a net gain of +10....no freakin' way in November. They will be lucky to net +4.

      That leaves the White House in 2012....an eternity of time in politics from now. Ancient rule of running of office: "You can't beat somebody with nobody."

      And the GOP has.....who? Name me a (R)governor with a thumping mandate that can unite old school moderate Rs, the fightin' fundies, the tea baggers, all while appealing to Wall Street.

      Mitt? Wall Street yes, but the fundys know in their bones Mormons are from Satan himself.

      Sarah I-Quit-a -rod? Fundys yes, but even the lintbrains at Goldman Sachs know they can't sell her.

      Mike Huck-a-buck? Ix-nay from baggers and money bags.

      And now comes word Haley Barbour of MS thinks he's presidential timber....

      Anybody GOP in the Senate? Name one.

      The Dems and Obama are too centrist for a slice of folks around here but they are about as electable as possible for now.

      2016? Ah now there is an election where it could well be possible to take another step farther left and approach center-left. But genuinely left? Not this decade. And not in the 2020s UNLESS we do all the center, center-left, center-left stuff during the 2010s.

      FWIW.

      Shalom.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:07:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that the GOP is electorally dysfunctional (0+ / 0-)

        but in regards to the timing of any left-wing shift, disasters push electorates to the edge, and we seem to have no shortage of disasters created by systematic failures.

        I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

        by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:11:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tolerant of religious and family diversity? (0+ / 0-)

    Sounds like bad news for Democrats.

    To date, I've been unable to detect any tolerance for tolerance from progressives.

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:26:54 AM PDT

    •  from the 35%? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ezdidit, annieli

      who cares? that's the point. let them wallow in minority John Bircher fringe heaven.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:31:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  wallowing - but thy're packing heat and (0+ / 0-)

        repressing free speech at town halls. They are moving more to the right!

        I'm a Democrat. That's why.

        by ezdidit on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:38:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Being only slightly snarky. (0+ / 0-)

        There is a serious nose tilt to progressives.

        A sneer for folks whose finances lead them to Wal-Marts,
        another for those who stay married, raise children, and go to church.

        A sneer for those whose views differ, but the biggest sneers of all for those --- whether they be women, minorities, or LGBT  --- who dare to leave the plantation in their thinking.

        Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell must be pitiful Stepnfetchits because African Americans aren't allowed to be conservatives.

        Sarah Palin, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Nikki Haley can't possibly be feminists (not to mention millions of women in South America, the Middle East, Africa, and India) because feminists believe wholeheartedly in the practice of abortion.

        Unless, that is, you're a Chinese woman aborting a female fetus because she wants to have a boy.

        Maybe that's why you cling to demographics so...
        A sincere hope that people will be obligated by their ethnicity to think and vote a certain way.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:18:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's your view and your view alone (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes

          mine is that a president and a government are everyon'es president and everyone's government, and that we are all in this together. It was true after 9/11 and it is true now. Entitlements and employment need to work for everyone, not just blue states.

          the people that go out of their way to say "no he's YOUR President, and this is REAL America" can go hoist themselves on their own petard. The represent a small slice of America, are not interested in facts, cooperation or outcomes. These are the Palin voters, and they need to be identified as a minority of a minority and not given the keys to drive.

          If they want to play victim because of it (and conservatives make an industry out of playing aggrieved victim to rev up their base, especially when it is not true), that's their problem.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:28:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not my view alone, and, for what it's worth, (0+ / 0-)

            Obama is my President just as much as yours, but

            I seem to recall an awful lot of "He's not my President" and "President Gore" during the Bush administration.

            If there is one universal constant across all political stripes, its the power of a short memory.

            Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

            by dinotrac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:39:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  especialy those that ignore what happened (0+ / 0-)

              after 9/11, which you do every time we had this discussion.Bush had 90% approval and a united country. what he did with it...

              But I am not talking about republican voters or conservative, I am talking about Palin voters and her enablers. Poll after poll shows her with dismal approval ratings from the public except for her small cadre.

              That's exactly what Ruy addressed in question 5.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:53:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I never ignore what happened after 9/11 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DemFromCT

                It was the source of all those Democrats in Congress who united behind the President when they were afraid the country would show its wrath on refusal to get in line.

                Surely you remember "I voted for it then I voted against it."

                By contrast, rank and file Democrats are, first and foremost, people and citizens.  It's just like great natural disasters -- nobody asks the politics of the person passing out blankets and not chocolate.

                Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

                by dinotrac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:30:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  snarky my ass (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          killjoy

          you've swallowed the beckian line whole and are afraid to admit it. And you're just as wrong as he is for the same reasons.

        •  those are right wing talking points, dinotrac... (0+ / 0-)

          The people I see clinging to demographics are reactionary white Christians, who expect to win because of their higher birthrate.

          •  Reactionary white Christians have a higher birth (0+ / 0-)

            rate?

            Than who?

            Come to think of it, how do you get those numbers.

            I don't recall a "reactionary white Christian" box on the census.

            Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

            by dinotrac on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 05:41:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  oh, pshaw (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, dinotrac, missississy

      Maybe you need to adjust the tolerance on your tolerance detector.

  •  I'm optimistic about the long term trends. (7+ / 0-)

    But increasingly anxious that the shifting dynamics won't occur fast enough to help shape policy to meet catastrophic climate change.  I hope we make it.  

    Life is good. Injustice? Not so much.

    by westyny on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:27:41 AM PDT

    •  I tend to agree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wonderful world, James Kresnik

      Americans don't fix anything unless it's staring them in the face.

      Add to that the fact that any meaningful climate change measures have to include the rest of the world and......whoa.

      "Philosophy is useless; theology is worse"--Dire Straits

      by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:32:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        Americans don't fix anything unless it's staring them in the face.

        Or for that matter, any civilization in history facing the spoils of it's reckless and shortsighted ways.

        That "Change" thing really is the Holy Grail, especially on the scale we need it to happen now.

        This is what chump Change looks like.

        by Wamsutta on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:51:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Being brown or non-christian (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mydailydrunk

      doesn't make you ideologically leftist.

      A huge chunk of that demographic characterologicaly conservative.

      For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

      by Paul Goodman on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:22:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but as the right is going out of their way (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes, James Kresnik

        to alienate these groups, there's an opportunity for us to present our case through a calm, meaningful dialogue.

        Xenophobia and Christian fundamentalism is only going to get you so far in this country.  They don't even have enough sense to appeal to a generic version of religious fundamentalist values - you have to be Christian to boot.

        If I were to design a trojan horse to bring down the Republican party, it would bear an uncanny resemblance to Rand Paul. - #104758

        by mydailydrunk on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:50:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Superb Summary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WI Deadhead, wonderful world

    Having said, that, and alas the author of the report is not here:

    If you make the plausible assumption the Republicans will stay Republican, and move the demographics forward in time, where does a void space appear?

    That is, at some point the people who are not climate change and evolution deniers, and who do no support Democratic Party policies of the large safety net, ate going to be large enough that they will summon from the starry void or wherever a political party.  I do not think it will be the Greens, and it certainly will not be the Constitution Party, which is sort of like the Republicans except conservative.

    What sort of positions might the actual unserved demographics find that they want?

    •  There will eventually be a new party (4+ / 0-)

      Either the current standard-bearers of the GOP will eventually cast out the ultra-right wingnuts and move toward the center, thereby leaving the bat-poo crazy tea party members, Birchers, Birthers, Militia crazies and Deathers to form their own third party, or the wingnuts will take over the GOP and go the way of the Whigs, leaving the currently non-crazy portion of the Republican Party and a few of the Blue Dog Democrats to form a new opposition party to the Democrats, probably the New Conservative Party or Liberty Party or something like that.

      •  Nope. We'll Always Be a Two-Party Nation.... (0+ / 0-)

        The parties will adapt with the times and even change their positions on issues to court favor with a large enough demographic faction of Americans to be competitive in elections.  In the case of Republicans, they will align with white seniors trying to save their Medicare and Social Security checks against younger minorities "taking over the country and demanding welfare".  The fact that Republicans have historically been critics of retiree entitlements matters not at all.  They'll amend their platform to adjust with the times.

        •  Which is sort of what I said earlier (0+ / 0-)

          Either the wingnut branch of the GOP will be cast aside and eventually form a fringe party which will wither and die, or the Republican Party itself will eventually die, with a new party formed from currently disaffected Repubs and blue dog Democrats. It will still be a two-party system.

          •  Well, it depends on what you mean by 'two-party.' (0+ / 0-)

            There is nothing stopping the rise of different two-party systems from state-to-state that would form loose coalitions at the national level. The truth is that the large national parties are losing their marketing edge, as witnessed by the increasingly desperate attempts of both parties to corral and energize their increasingly wayward base.

            I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

            by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:27:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  But we have not always had the SAME two parties (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes, James Kresnik

          That's what 728huey was getting at. The Democratic Party has survived to the present day by repeatedly re-inventing itself (they started as the "Anti-Federalist" party, then adopted the label "Democratic-Republicans", then dropped the "-Republicans" after the schism of the early 1820's).

          The Republican Party, however, is at least the third "other party" to arise. The Federalists had a rigid ideology they would not change, and they were no longer an effective force by circa 1820 and went extinct soon afterward. The Whigs on the other hand never quite seemed to agree on what they were for (as opposed to what they were against) and were an unstable coalition that finally broke up (part of the core became the nucleus for the new Republican Party).

          It's beginning to look as though the present-day Republican party has developed both of those self-destructive flaws: rigid, unchangeable ideology and disagreement over everything but what they are opposed to. All that's needed is an internecine quarrel or an act of extreme, blatant stupidity (what killed the Federalists was an open attempt to have New England secede from the Union) that drives away enough of the saner members to form the nucleus of a new successor party.

          If it's
          Not your body
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          AND it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:19:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We're Already Seeing The First Signs..... (0+ / 0-)

            ...that Republicans do plan to change with the times.  After decades of opposing the very existence of Medicare, the Republicans took a hard line starting in July 2009 that they were gonna stand in united opposition to a single penny in Medicare cuts during the health care debate.  The Republicans realize their future lies in being the party of older white people who want to maintain the unaffordable Medicare status quo, and are positioning themselves to be just that.  

        •  three or four partys are the future (0+ / 0-)

          the GOP for sure can't exist as it's now constructed because the far right TP types can't govern and have decide to purge their party of all moderates. White seniors certainly aren't their alternative. Soon the GOP will have to split into two and battle for the center right vote to add to the rightwing.

          The other question is will the dems also purge themselves into a true left party? If they do the rejects from both parties may coalece into a center party that can actually come to power.

  •  Personally, I'd like to see the Mama Grizzlies & (6+ / 0-)

    the Cougars duke it out.
    Seriously,
    If an intellectual, attractive, group of women (like Susan Sarandan, Fran Dresher) went up against the crazies (Palin, Bachman, etc) That would be good for the country and good for women in general.

    United we stand - Divided we are all truly screwed. Keep them blaming one another - they'll never notice what's really going on.

    by Cassandra77 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:30:36 AM PDT

    •  I know a few women who wouldn't know what to do. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LynChi, wonderful world

      Palin seems to attract women who really aren't much like her at all.

      I know some Hillary fans, for instance, who've become Palin supporters.

      I can only believe it's for two reasons: 1. they hate obama; and 2. they have no alternative role models.

      "Philosophy is useless; theology is worse"--Dire Straits

      by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:35:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only women I know who are Palin (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        panicbean, dle2GA

        supporters are evangelicals.
        My friends all cringe whenever her name is mentioned.  We are appalled by her.
        That would be an age group between 35 and 75.
        We can't stand to hear her voice.
        I know of no Hillary supporters who would vote
        for Palin.
        But, maybe in your area or circle it's different.

        United we stand - Divided we are all truly screwed. Keep them blaming one another - they'll never notice what's really going on.

        by Cassandra77 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:52:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good morning! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nina, wonderful world

    Now I will go back a read the interview.

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/206488-1 at 1:31:20

    by TexMex on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:36:39 AM PDT

  •  Wise to set the rules now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, wonderful world

    If "white christians" will only be 45% in 2024, it seems obvious to me that THEY should be the ones supporting a legal framework for tolerance while they still hold the reins of power so firmly.

    The argument has always seemed to be "we are the majority, so do what we say or shut up".  That works as long as you are the majority, not so much when you are the minority.  By working now to put tolerant structures in place they can assure themselves of tolerance in the future.

    Coming from a formerly oppressed minority religion (Mormonism)I never understood the attitude of WE ARE IN CHARGE, especially in Utah.  I would think they would be MORE aware of what it is like to be oppressed and hounded from your home over religious differences, but it never seemed to work out that way.

    www.dailykos.com is America's Blog of Record

    by WI Deadhead on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:39:05 AM PDT

  •  Cool, encouraging, and unsurprising (4+ / 0-)

    No matter how much noise they make, wingnuts are declining in both absolute and relative numbers, which they probably realize and which likely accounts in part for their increasingly shrill resistance to change. Obama's election was their "wake up moment", when they finally realized that they were no longer the biggest and baddest kid on the block, that time has moved on and they're being left in the dust AS white racist money-obsessed upper middle class (and  poorer wannabe) conservatives.

    The rest of the country isn't necessarily turning progressive. But most are rejecting far-right conservatism, leaving wingnuts as an increasingly smaller and less important minority. Must suck for them. Thus their reaction:

    Photobucket

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:45:51 AM PDT

  •  An Understatement, Methinks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missississy

    And Democrats are likely to remain in a strong position though policy failure could certainly compress their advantage.

    This is what chump Change looks like.

    by Wamsutta on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:45:59 AM PDT

  •  If I'm reading this right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Kresnik

    The best outcome in Nov would be for some teabagger successes, but not enough to take back the majority in the House, thus ensuring conservatives learn the wrong lesson and keep pulling the GOP further to the right. Is that too Machiavellian?

  •  Will there even be a Republican party in 20 yrs? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Kresnik, JL

    If it exists, it will look very different from today's, which is shaking to pieces. I'm thinking that it will survive for one, maybe two, more election cycles, depending on results. If they manage to take the Presidency in 2012, they'll hold on for another 20 years. If not, they could be gone as an effective national party by 2016.

    All the more reason to work hard to re-elect the President.

    "No, it's all right," said the prospective diner. "The slugs have formed a defensive ring." -- Moving Pictures. Terry Pratchett.

    by wonderful world on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:48:53 AM PDT

    •  Yes, And It'll Be a Majority.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wonderful world

      The Republicans will be the party arguing on behalf of providing mostly white seniors their promised retirement entitlements.  The Democrats will be the party arguing on behalf of education and public assistance for mostly Latino working-age Americans.  THere's not enough money for both.  And at least for the next 40 years there will still be more whites than minorities.  Expect voting to break down by ethnic lines nationwide just as it does in Mississippi and Alabama, other states with high minority populations where Republicans nonetheless maintain their dominance.

  •  One thing jumped right out at me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ezdidit, James Kresnik

    Teixeira appears to treat "working class" and "college graduates" as mutually exclusive. I'd like to see him define those terms more precisely. As jobs shrink or go offshore, or go to foreigners on H-1B visas, one hell of a lot more college graduates in this country will be doing scut work for shit wages. Too many are already.

    "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

    by Ivan on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:54:24 AM PDT

    •  I submit a lot of those "college graduates" (0+ / 0-)

      are community college graduates, in some cases people holding a BA in History or English or some other thing that does not have a logical connection to the modern job market.  Hence the many stories of college graduates working at Starbucks.  You have to pursue an education leading to employment if future employment is a concern in your life.

      •  College was never meant to be vocational school (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rosita, James Kresnik

        We HAD an excellent vocational school system until it was wantonly destroyed by the obsession with "a college degree at all costs" (called the Sheepskin Psychosis in the 1960's, though I don't think the term is widely remembered now).

        Employers were a major destructive force in this respect, with their DEMAND for a BA as a minimum entry-level requirement even when it was totally unnecessary. (It was a quick and easy way to whittle down the pool of applicants, so they ALL started doing it.)

        If it's
        Not your body
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        AND it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:28:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Employers other demand (0+ / 0-)

          was large numbers of highly-educated workers while externalizing the high cost of educating that work force, i.e. lower taxes, tax-abatement, in-sourcing and out-sourcing educated workers, etc.

          I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

          by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:19:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  To what extent are younger voters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Kresnik

    becoming interested in or committed to authoritarian policies, undemocratic, authoritarian repression & authoritarian parties?

    Via Tea Party movement strategy & tactics, R's seem to appeal to the very worst extremes of politically authoritarian and repressive sympathies. To what extent do these tactics appeal to younger voters?

    As extremists rise to prominence within a culture, to what extent do you think we may be losing our grip on democracy itself?

    IOW, will the rise of R's at the midterms give them tacit approval & encourage more of same?  

    I'm a Democrat. That's why.

    by ezdidit on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:22:54 AM PDT

    •  It only takes 25% of the population (2+ / 0-)

      to rule a modern country via terror.

      For the elite there are no material problems, only PR problems. Time for a new elite.

      by Paul Goodman on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:25:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. Even at the height of VietNam protest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        only one left wing terror group (Weathermen) comes to mind.
        There are literally hundreds of militant right wing hate groups now.

        I think representative democracy is a very fragile system, and R's have no interest in maintaining a system where their cohort are fewer and fewer. Dems seem all too ready to comply and cooperate.

        Even with a 59-vote Senate majority, R's virulent 100% opposition must be exposed. But our feckless Dem. electeds will not even provoke an actual filibuster. THAT would be something to see. Not seen since D'Amato in 1992. Reid spoke for 8 hours on this very issue, the issue of the filibuater itself.

        I'm a Democrat. That's why.

        by ezdidit on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:52:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Demographics favor Dems (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynChi

    Thanks. I needed that.

  •  Great Interview! (0+ / 0-)

    Answered some important area of concern -- especially the strategy of targeting Millennial Generation "new" voters.  Absolutely agree that's the way forward.

    Question:  Both major parties are losing affiliated voters, yet "Party identification is the single strongest predictor of how people vote."  Can that be interpreted to mean Democrats must pay greater attention (in addition to above Millenials) to Independents?  Obama won with the new and the independent voters in '08.  Will all Democratic candidates have to depend increasingly on appealing the "I"s?  And doesn't that imply a move away from progressive ideals to centrist or pragmatic politics?

    Finally, couldn't agree more that the GOP has hitched its neck to the anchor of the Tea Party.  We're watching what happens to a major political party when it throws itself overboard in pursuit of the bottom feeders.

    "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Kennedy (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

    by Limelite on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:38:58 AM PDT

  •  "I Want My Country Back!" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynChi, Detroit Mark

    Teabaggers Unite!  

    The rich will do whatever it takes to retain political power -- Lie, Cheat, Steal, & Kill!!

    The right-wing "news" misinformation media is a major part of the plan -- that's why there has been a perversion of the "news".

    Right-wingers talk lots of shit about the Constitution, Freedom, Christianity, and the Rule of Law, but it's all just outright lies.

    •  It reminds me of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bleedingheartliberal218

      Scar and his pack of cowering hyenas from Lion Ling.  No matter how dedicated the "kingdom" becomes to social justice, the middle class, food enough for everyone and freedom from religious tyranny ... there will always be that small group of anti-matter that will try to exploit what truffles and gold dust they can find in the dark side.

      Catholic Church: Example of Religion thats TOO BIG TO FAIL

      by Detroit Mark on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:49:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow! Great stuff. (0+ / 0-)

    I hope I live that long.  lol

    If not, at least when I get to the other side I can brag that I was here when it was just about going to hell in a handbasket.

    That oughta be worth a few looks.

    Catholic Church: Example of Religion thats TOO BIG TO FAIL

    by Detroit Mark on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:47:33 AM PDT

  •  not quite happening like that in CA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cacamp, James Kresnik

    California in some ways is the leading edge of this change, but the state has massive problems with inequality,with a gini that is not far from the Deep South.

    The state does send Democrats to office, but the lay of the land of the state - if one looks at the K-12 system, and prisons, is not nearly as progressive in action as is supposed.

    Not to mention, another Republican might win the governorship.

    Inequality is only growing in CA and the US, despite the supposed progress on racism and the like.

    •  Look at who actually holds the wealth in CA. (0+ / 0-)

      You'll find you answer right there.

      I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

      by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:21:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  While I agree with the general thrust, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Kresnik

    there are two problems I see with the arguments (which may have already been covered in the comments), that include:

    a) The issue of the Democrats actually passing policies that voters feel helps them. It is not just enough to have affinity. There must also be a sense of emotion 'they are helping me." Look at self identified LGBT voters who represent 5 percent and soon to be higher percentages. Right now, they vote Democratic 70 something percent. Will that last if the Democrats continue to fail us?

    b) I wonder the impact of third parties on this equation. I think his argument only makes sense in a two party analysis that assumes people will remain in  two major parties rather than on of the major parties dying off to be replaced by another over time. What happens with his model if one party dies off?

    •  I think the key is... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DemFromCT

      ...to keep our coalition together while the GOP's fractures.

      Sadly too many of us seem to want to fracture as well.  Talk about pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.

      Your outrage is duly noted.

      by snout on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:12:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  agree 100% (0+ / 0-)

        can't agree more than that, even for extra credit.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:16:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's again determined by policy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        I don't even understand the argument keep us together since "us" is just a configuration based on interests that each constituency has. THis isn't a social club however much it seems like one here on this site. Most people's view of politics begins and ends with their other identities and whether you are serving those interests. F

        •  You need a big tent to govern. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mariachi mama, skohayes

          Any tent large enough will surely make its inhabitants feel as if they are compromising themselves at least somewhat being in there.  There is no way to have a governing majority that responds individually to all of our policy priorities.

          What we know right now is that there are three options:

          1.  A GOP tent that aggressively stands for things most of us cannot stand.
          1. Joining a small indy tent - which effectively empowers the folks in the GOP tent by denying the Dems our vote.
          1.  An imperfect Democratic party tent that may fail to inspire us at times, and may seem downright corrupt at other times - but where progress does happen.    

          Your outrage is duly noted.

          by snout on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:27:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Voters don't care about the big tent (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Kresnik

            that's DC speak.

            •  Voters make binary choices. n/t (0+ / 0-)

              Your outrage is duly noted.

              by snout on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:41:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That has nothing to do with my original points (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                James Kresnik

                The assumption that the two parties as presently configured will continue to exist is one of the issues   I bring up in this diary.  That they will be forced to make the same 2 choices.

                More importantly, Big Tent doesn't discuss their interests, which you ignored, and then tact on oddly as DC speak discussion. That's something the Democratic insiders worry about. Voters don't give a shit about your big tent.

                They are only in the tent to serve their interests.

                •  Call them what you will (0+ / 0-)

                  Two major parties will exist.  Even if you have more than two parties, ultimately elections will come down to two choices.  

                  The coalition that the democratic party currently has should dominate going forward.  Unless we fuck it up.

                  Your outrage is duly noted.

                  by snout on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:15:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If you don't think we are fucking up (0+ / 0-)

                    right now, you don't understand the policies being passed.

                    There is no ultimately. Parties have died before in this country and been replaced by another.

                    The problem right now is that the voters are being offered the same economic choices as far as the parties go.

                    here are scenarios that can happen when they are being offered 1 choice being called 2:

                    a) one party can die to be replaced by another
                    b) One party can split up
                    c) One party can move away from the ideological sameness.

                    Its not calling them what you will. Its understanding that the present two parties may not even exist in 2 decades given the ideological sameness that they present convey. This is like saying the present GOP is the same as the party of 1860. Or that the present Democrats are t he same as the party of Jackson. Andrew Jackson. If any thing, you are using labels as proxy and group meaning, when I am trying to substantively discuss what voters interests are and how they are reflected in party dynamics without regard to labels or present configuration. I don't assume that these confirguations will last because the policies aren't going to help the groups in question in the long run.

                    For example, the economic impact of the Dems policies are actually worse for people of color if you look at the impact of neo-liberalism on them on people of color over time.

                    I will repost a link that I posted earlier.

                    ""In earlier posts I've talked about the conflicts of interest between the two political parties and the electorate as a whole. Every elected official. candidate, political pro, professional advocate, and mercenary expert involved in politics has his own personal goals, and usually these are ordinary career goals -- money and power. If you compare the interests of political constituencies to the interests of the political insiders supposedly working for them, they are not only not identical, they're not even very similar, and often are clearly contrary. For example, the longer the politicos can delay the favorable resolution of an issue the longer they will have leverage over the voters committed to that particular issue. Politicos always have to balance the donors against voters, always to the detriment of the voters, and they're also always thinking about their post-political career on the lecture circuit, in think tanks, and in the media.  

                    In a situation like this there are many incentives for the two parties to collaborate, and that's what's happening when you see a member of one party voting unexpectedly against his party, or when you see the elder statesmen of the two parties getting together in secret to bang out a compromise. It's not that the two parties don't compete at all, but as a rule when they do compete the party leaders keep in mind their common interest in maintaining their leverage over their two antagonistic core constituencies -- environmentalists and anti-environmentalists, for example.  

                    Party collaboration on the big issues today is at a level not seen since the era of Grover Cleveland and the Bourbon Democrats 120 years ago..."

                    http://www.openleft.com/...

                    I can tell you that the policies being passed right now will lead to continued economic crisis going forward into the future. Its in the nature of the policies being passed.

                    For example,how will an American lost decade affect he configuration of voters?

                    Or despite the rhetoric the health care bill, it did nothing to address cost containment, and that will almost certainly lead to an economic crisis in less than 10 years in health care.

                    If you want others, in trade, we are not only following WTO rules, but allowing others such as CHina to skirt those rules.

                    If you want another, the present Wall Street bill almost certainly will lead to another economic melt down at some point.

                    How will these future fuck ups that are predictable from present policy affect political alliances?

                    You aren't answering that so much as giving me a generic discussion of big tent politics which is a DC construct. I am discussing what forces will pull people apart to create new alliances to reflect the tension produced by the Democratic and REpublican Party being controlled by similar economic ideological underpinnings.

                    THis is true, by the way, especially as the social policy issues recede as important.

                    •  Demograhics will determine the character (0+ / 0-)

                      ...of the parties going forward.

                      I appreciate your critique of the current Democratic party, but you are hardly a typical Dem voter.

                      Your outrage is duly noted.

                      by snout on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:06:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  its clear you don't understand the conversation (0+ / 0-)

                        and are only capable of  non sequiturs.

                        •  You flatter yourself. (0+ / 0-)

                          I do not accept the terms of the conversation as you define them.

                          Your outrage is duly noted.

                          by snout on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:35:55 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Voter interest politics is a pretty basic (0+ / 0-)

                            political science concept that has nothing to do with the speaker or flattery myself.

                            The problem really is that your responses are sequitur.

                          •  voter interest does not align with your comments (0+ / 0-)

                            The American people as a whole do not see both parties as offering the same economic policy.  That is your conceit.  

                            Your outrage is duly noted.

                            by snout on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:35:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Except that they don't view them as different (0+ / 0-)

                            hence the polling numbers about the parties, and how the voters see them generally. If you want to claim that congressional numbers are great right now iwth the Democrats in control,, by my guest- go for it.

                          •  its funny reading your comment (0+ / 0-)

                            by the way. You are all labels and form over substance. I am discussing substantive a) what the voters believe b) what the polling data is showing us regarding their views on congress c) how thats going to work out in the long term (for which you use the short term as an explaination of how they will view in the long term) etc. The truth is that we are only in the last 15 years dealing with these issues that I am discussing in terms of political consolidation of power in both parties. The issues we are discussing takes decades to form. Even the argument over demographics, if I were to play your misdirection, would not be valid if we looked at the last 10 years saying "oh, that tells us something long term." Are you sure you want to play that game with me? I am happy to pretend if you are, but it defeats your own argument to do so.

                          •  just to be extra clear (0+ / 0-)

                            you can not switch as you are doing between long term discussions for demographics as the diarist is doing, and then flip back to short term as a rebuttal  of my argument. Its at best non sequitur to do so. what the voters see right now is not the same as what they will see over time as economic policies now being enacted fail.

        •  it's a voting bloc (0+ / 0-)

          not a social club, determined by election outcomes.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:30:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Here's What Is Missing From This Analysis..... (0+ / 0-)

    Age demographics and limited public resources assure us that the political faultline of the coming generation will be as such:  Do we spend dwindling public resources on older white people who've been promised unaffordable Social Security and Medicare benefits?  Or do we spend dwindling public resources on young Latinos for education and the public assistance benefits that inevitably come with the low-wage, high-poverty economy that the pro-illegal immigration wing of the left is pushing for?  

    The demographic factions will vote accordingly, with tens of millions of lifelong Democrats in the Baby Boomer generation becoming Republicans so that they will get their Social Security money rather than "some illegal immigrant".  American politics of 20 years from now will be divided along ethnic lines much like Mississippi and Alabama are today.  The Democrats are very much overselling their long-term partisan advantage.

    •  That's a recipe for all-out civil war (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dle2GA

      We've already had one, thank you very much. And there WOULD be enough money for everything if only we could stop these stupid insane wars.

      If it's
      Not your body
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      AND it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:32:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Stop wars and trickle up economics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes

      You seem to be stuck on the fact that Latinos will be on welfare and Democrats will desert Social Security. Both are plain wrong. Latinos will boost the economy and Democrats will continue to be the party that protects SS and senior incomes. The GOP wants to eliminate SS and Medicare and the farther right they go with Palin and Paul the more seniors will become Democratic.

      America has and will have plenty of money for the social safety net if we stop the rush of money towards the top 1% that the GOP fights for and if we stop the massive outlays on the unnecessarty wars.

  •  Interesting analysis; thanks! (0+ / 0-)
  •  Yup - demographics are with us. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WineRev

    That is why the current despair is so silly.  There is no reason to treat this administration as if it is the last one we will ever have.  This is a start, not the "final battle for all of the marbles".

    Your outrage is duly noted.

    by snout on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:10:49 AM PDT

  •  Hope, at last. (0+ / 0-)
    Thanks.  These are interesting demographics and I now have hope that Progressive goals will soon be embraced.  2040 will be too late for me but I'm hoping this means we'll get better health ins reform by 2020.

    "There's really nothing I want out of the past except history." - Autoegocrat

    by rainmanjr on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:17:01 AM PDT

  •  What will happen to the Hispanic demo... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Utahrd

    If comprehensive immigration reform was passed and that single issue was no longer an issue?

    I contend there is political gain for the Dems not passing comprehensive reform and that is reason why they're not touching it.  

     

    Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

    by Jonze on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:25:25 AM PDT

  •  Points out damage Obama did betraying Millennials (0+ / 0-)
    Millennials would have been the key to more liberal government going forward but they were betrayed by Obama on every issue, mostly on the transparency, no lobbyist, change issues rather than specifics.

    Obama's secret lobbyist deals, the say one thing do another (oil drilling, gay rights, public option, Guantanamo) government lead to the new voters getting angry and voting GOP as we saw in MA as it was Obama new voters, millennial, who had voted for Obama who now voted for Brown in protest of being betrayed by Obama.

    A key demographic that could have become a key election pillar was turned off and now will not vote or will protest vote. Any hope of long term affiliation with Democrats gone.

  •  will the GOP split? (0+ / 0-)

    it seems the tea party types will continue to hold the GOP hostage in an uncompromising grip. Thus normal conservatives who think about actually governing will be left out in the cold.

  •  Can any amount of money or strategy or tactics (0+ / 0-)

    make up for a lack of fulfillment on the part of the "new" voters?  

    Is this really the change they voted for?  Or more importantly, will they vote for this "change" again?  How many of these new voters are now alienated by words to the left and actions to the right of center?  Is there a way to convince them that this time will be different (trust me)?

    Is this not the same thing that happened to labor (or the white, working-class voters mentioned in the story) in the '90s?  They got nothing for their efforts wrt their economic self-interest, so Dems lost them to people that would forcefully represent them on their R-defined "moral" self-interests.

    I guess this is the way it goes when a party forsakes principled strategy for money to effect tactics.  I hope these tactics work otherwise Dems are left with an alienated activist base, skeptical new voters, an increasingly non-responsive policy mix (to the interest of voters they are trying to reach in the next few months, big biz is doing just fine, thank you very much; deficit reduction is a campaign issue, how?), and a lot of untapped anger that's going to go somewhere.

    Great interview.  I don't mean to be overly negative, but it's getting increasingly difficult to overlook the increasingly narrowly-defined manipulations (or voter pool if the target is independents/centrists).  Fighter pilots used to call it target fixation.

    "Dega dega dega dega. Break up the concrete..." The Pretenders

    by Terra Mystica on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:25:05 AM PDT

  •  Is a rise in "hopelessly poor white" vote (0+ / 0-)

    accompanying the decline in "working class white" vote?

    If so,  that's probably a bad trend.

  •  Insightful (and hopeful) information ... thanks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dclawyer06

    ... but the fact that there is seeming surrender over the fact that what the GOP is spewing is not enough to motivate voters now is most disturbting. Why is it we always have to wait until things fall completely apart under GOP rule, and then the Dems are saddled with cleaning up the mess instead of moving forward with their own agenda?

    Not that Dems are also not contributors to the mess by going along to save themselves politically, but two wars, economic recession, deregulation, civil and human rights, lack of healthy care, infrascture, immigration, the environment, and the list goes on ...

    Isn't that motivation enough to stop the predicted juggernaut against Dems in the fall (whether it materializes or not)? Isn't that enough to motivate Dems and people they need to recruit to ensure that our majorities are safe? It seems to me that if the right strategy is used (see: Dean, Howard -- 50-state strategy), and the right populations are targeted, motivation will follow, admittedly with a lot of hard work (but well worth the effort).

    What are we waiting for? 2012? Makes no sense.

    Barack Obama is my president!

    by RevJoe on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:27:06 AM PDT

  •  So Dems will win in 2020? I can't wait. (0+ / 0-)

    To generalize, Republicans know how to win elections and Democrats don't. Republicans aren't "locked in" to anything. They are chameleons and expert at shaping and/or conforming to public opinion. They watched Obama win an election with populist themes in 2008, and now are populists. They have successfully devalued the Democratic brand since the 1980s. Given their absurd ideas and even worse candidates, it's ridiulous that they are even functioning as a majorty, let alone about to smoke the Dems in November. Democrats suck at politics.

  •  Eventually Republicans will Split (0+ / 0-)
    How long it will take is unclear.  But there is already a center that doesn't feel represented by either party: the old school Rockeller Republicans, Bush Sr., Eisenhower types (As a character "type" well represented by the people on Madmen).

    At some point that group of people who have been driven out of the Republican party will be larger than the base that has taken it over.  Then, suddenly we are likely to see a lurch back to the center from the Republican party and the extreme right will be left scattered and without representation.

    Granted, this is my fantasy, but I think the signs point, perhaps over a period as long as 50 years, to this outcome.

  •  Most Republicans I've known accepted conservatism (0+ / 0-)

    the way arranged marriages or religion were "accepted".

    Early on conservative teaching from the parents mapped out the "path to success" for their offspring and any variation from that was considerd failure and socially unacceptable.. and punishment and/or distain usually followed.

    In order to raise the millenials to follow and support progressive lives.. successful progressive avenues must be taught/learned and encouraged...with demonstrative results for younguns to see for themselves.

    The choices made by new voters will be seen as acceptable and productive with a lucrative future for them.

    The unconservative and rewarding life path has to be real, understood and available for it's future constituents to travel.

    This country can and will grow new progessives voters..if the tools for success are there to use.
     
    Plus us DFH aren't ready to be put out to pasture just yet...

    It therefore seems unlikely that aging will make this generation any more amenable to strict economic and social conservatism. Here as elsewhere the GOP will have to move to the center to compete for these voters and mitigate their currently large disadvantage.  And Democrats are likely to remain in a strong position though policy failure could certainly compress their advantage.

    I don't want your country back..I want my country forward - Bill Maher

    by Eric Nelson on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:23:41 PM PDT

  •  Democrats are going to lose all those new (0+ / 0-)

    voters as Democrats desperately cling to Reagan's VooDoo Economics.

    Harry wants to keep his seat, it's time to take an issue and don't goddamn give away the farm without a fight.

    These new voters are going to stay at home.
    They are going to be motivated to vote for the Party of Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Bart Stupak.

    We think TeaBaggers are giving the Republicans heartburn? I think if Democrats don't stop acting like stooges for the ghost of Ronald Reagan and start taxing some of the damn wealth inequality, they will lose all of these potential gains.

    James Carville emerges from the conflagration, riding a burning alligator.

    by shpilk on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:45:51 PM PDT

    •  left out an important word .. (0+ / 0-)

      They are NOT going to be motivated to vote for the Party of Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Bart Stupak.

      James Carville emerges from the conflagration, riding a burning alligator.

      by shpilk on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:47:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site