Skip to main content

Republicans face a Stark future.
Last week, news broke of a demographic turning point for the United States: For the first time in perhaps a century, deaths among non-Hispanic whites outnumber births. The fact that the nation hit this benchmark is not astonishing: It was expected that at some point in the next 10 years, the baby boomers whose generational progress has shaped our nation's concerns and culture would pass away in numbers too great for the existing birthrate to replace them. What was future, however, is now present. That seminal moment in America's demographic history is now here, roughly 10 years ahead of schedule. And while the sociocultural consequences of America's continuing color shift are certainly up for debate, the political consequences are far less so.

Any analysis of this country's political predilections reveals that the metaphorical eggs of Republicans rest entirely in one basket: the votes of older white people. According to the exit polls conducted by the New York Times of the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney won 59 percent of white voters, and 56 percent of voters over age 65. The intersection of those two areas is the demographic base of the Republican Party, and it is dying. Markos Moulitsas posited this week that conservatives' endeavors to weaken the social safety net have made it harder for these seniors who comprise the Republican base to stay alive. Even without that, however, the simple demographics of the aging boomer generation would have ensured that this tipping point would occur sooner rather than later. Republican economic policies are still responsible for this milestone's overhasty arrival, but the real consequences are being felt at the generational front end instead:

Even before the 2008 crash, childlessness among American women ages 40 to 44 of all races and ethnicities had steadily increased for a decade, with the proportion of childless women doubling from 10 percent in 1980 to 20 percent today. But the negative trend has accelerated since the Great Recession began. In 2007 the fertility rate in America was 2.12 and had been holding nearly steady for decades at about replacement rate—the highest level of any advanced country. In just half a decade since, the rate has dropped to 1.9, the lowest since 1920 (when reliable records began being kept) and just half of the peak rate in 1957, in the midst of the baby boom, according to the Pew Research Center. Now projections of future U.S. population growth are diving, with the census estimate for 2050 down almost 10 percent from the mark predicted in 2008.
The white population, however, is going to experience a decline larger than that of other groups. Over the past three decades birthrates among whites have been lower than those of African-Americans, as well as those of Hispanic origin. So while the economic collapse has affected birthrates across all categories, whites have been particularly hard-hit in terms of being able to maintain replacement rate, especially considering the fact that the baby boom generation is predominantly white.

The resultant shift in the white electorate from conservative-leaning baby boom seniors to the comparatively smaller new generation currently coming of voting age would pose enough of a problem for Republicans strategists, even if it were happening at replacement rate: 18-29 year old voters preferred Obama by 26 points more than their counterparts above age 65 in the 2012 elections. Not all young voters, however, are created equal: While young minority voters preferred voted to re-elect President Obama in overwhelming numbers, young white voters narrowly favored Mitt Romney (call it the Tanner Flake and Joey Heck demographic). Unless there is a radical realignment in racial politics, white people will continue to make up the core, albeit an ever-shrinking one, of the Republican Party.

The one-percenters who control the economic agenda of the Republican Party have not yet figured out that young white people are just like anyone else. The millennial generation is struggling find a foothold in an economy that has been stripped of its security and saddled with debt, and is consequently postponing marriage, real estate purchases, and child-rearing—or forgoing them entirely. Some elements of the religious right are acutely aware of this problem: The so-called Ruth Institute, a branch of the anti-gay National Organization of Marriage focusing on evangelizing to college students, is petrified of the idea, while conservative ideologue Pat Buchanan has closely associated declining birthrates with the end of Western civilization. The religious right may attempt to socially engineer the millennial generation to produce more children through rolling back feminist gains and rolling back female sexual agency, but getting a cat back into a bag is no easy trick.

Conservative economic policies are fueling this so-called demographic winter. And if Republicans want to have any voters left who will support them, they will have to make sure that the economy works for the the generation that is currently producing children, instead of vacuuming up more wealth into the hands of those who already possess it.

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

  •  nature vs nurture, or the echo effect (10+ / 0-)

    something that may not have been figured into the demographic effects of declining white birth rates is the likelihood that whites born now and in the future will be surrounded by many people of different ethnic groups. As a result, it will be more difficult to instill the deep-seated racial identity and nativism so necessary to fuel republican conversions.
    Kinda like what's happening to attitudes about marriage equality.
    so, hopefully, there's that. too.

    Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

    by kamarvt on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:08:22 AM PDT

  •  Elder poverty will only exacerbate the trend (17+ / 0-)

    The lack of resources for the coming retirees will mean lower life expectancies, and curtailing Medicare and Medicaid quality of care and not adopting up-to-date effectiveness research will reduce the older generation as well.  It seems not to have occurred to the Sequestrators that they might be actually choking off their own voters, not just those other poor people.

    Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

    by Mimikatz on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:12:52 AM PDT

    •  There's a silly notion (7+ / 0-)

      That because older "silent generation" voters are more conservative, that older voters have always been that way.  Which is absolutely moronic.  I remember when I first came along in politics, I did a lot of initiative/referendum work, and maximizing outreach with older (usually white) New Deal generation voters was us lefties' top priority every time.  

      "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

      by ActivistGuy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:28:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At some point, the older voters just stop... (12+ / 0-), period.

        Consider my 96-year-old father-in-law, an Eisenhower Republican, retired Naval officer, and a veteran of World War 2. Despite being a Republican, his commission papers were signed by FDR, and he had a healthy respect for New Deal programs. By alienating moderates like him, the Republicans effectively cut out that part of their age continuum. The younger voters may vote Democratic, but the older voters just don't bother to vote. They probably figure that the Republican Party would rather see them dead.

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:43:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's true, it depends on the generation (4+ / 0-)

        The "Greatest Generation" group, who spent their teenage years suffering from the Great Depression and their 20s fighting WWII, were more liberal than average (with exceptions). This group is dying out by the day

        The "Silent Generation" (1930-1945) tends to trend more conservative. This group is also starting to die out by the day.

        The Baby Boomers tend to be split equally

        •  However Their Generation Ran the Vietnam War (0+ / 0-)

          and launched the Reagan Revolution. My impression was the New Dealers flipped right with Nixon or a little later, other than for senior issues like Social Security.

          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 23, 2013 at 11:58:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

            New Dealers lost respect for Democrats' because of Johnson's support for the Vietnam War. Nixon got elected by promising to END the war. It only took 5 years. Kind of like Obama's promise to end the Afghan War.

            A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

            by edg on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:15:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  If they think they can FORCE women to have childrn (12+ / 0-)

    they better think twice. That will REALLY crash the demographics and leave a lot of winger men with blue balls.

    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 23, 2013 at 09:13:33 AM PDT

    •  This is probably a driver, if unconciously... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, splashy

      ...of professional women to decide to put off childbearing altogether. With the chipping away of reproductive rights and social safety net programs, why bother to have kids at all.

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:45:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        betterdemsonly, JeffW

        These right wing men expect women to give up everything that makes them happy to bear many children, in poverty, for the men, while the men enjoy being able to have careers, status and wealth.

        Buncha creeps.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:44:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No grandchildren for me... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mchestnutjr, JeffW, smartalek

        and I cannot blame my children. Huge school loans, jobs with no security, low wages, unemployment, no health coverage, housing tenative at best, and more struggles trying to make it every day. They have all decided to pass on children. Why would they want to bring a child into this when they cannot feel any confidence about their own futures? What they see from both sides of the aisle gives them no desire to bring others into this crumbling America.

        The American dream has shriveled up and is blowing away for them. The 1%ers have begun to pull up the ladder seriously. Though what they will do when they realize they have destroyed the foundation they stand on, I cannot imagine. My hope went away the day I saw the SCOTUS sell us out to Big Money. My middle daughter says she remembers the day. We were sitting together watching the TV when the annoucement came over and I started to cry like I did when JFK was killed and at 9/11. I knew it was a deadly milemarker, and every day since it has gutted more and more of our country.

        Now I treasure each day with them...knowing I will be leaving them to the American holocaust if things don't change and our country is defeated by greed and global warming. The dream of 'truth, justice, and the American way' is being hollowed out and will eventually be mentioned as just a 'snark' line.

        @}-;-'--- If we don't invest in the early rearing environment of our children, we will be paying the bills for the rest of our lifetimes...for mental disorders and physical diseases, and putting many of these kids in jail - Christopher Coe.

        by starduster on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 12:20:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing like a swift kick (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, happymisanthropy

      to solve the problem of "blue balls."


      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:20:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, they need to SUPPORT women (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      starduster, betterdemsonly, smartalek

      Not force them.

      They really don't listen to women at all, showing their arrogance and misogyny.

      Why would any thinking woman want to raise their children in poverty, hungry, homeless and sick from a lack of health care? What is wrong with these men? Why don't they think of women as human beings?

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:43:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The giddiness about demographics worries me ... (29+ / 0-)

    and it's being fanned by Kos himself on a regular basis.

    I lived through "Reagan Democrats." The idea that traditional Democratic groups can't be compelled to vote for the GOP is really flimsy. As is the current reason-du-jour for Hispanics voting Dem; because the GOP is anti-immigrant noxious.

    That's not necessarily a permanent condition, nor are any group of voters typically one-issue voters.

    Unless the Democratic Party moves back to it's traditional blue-collar labor issues, the idea that a growing Hispanic population---which is largely blue collar right now---sticks with Democrats just because the GOP sucks isn't very realistic. It's just as likely that the odd 15% of screaming GOP racists gets put back in the crazy attic where they belong, Republicans make 3-4 platform changes that don't belittle Hispanics anymore, and all bets are off about where they land on the political spectrum as a group, IMHO.

    I'll say this for myself, but I'm sure the sentiment is increasingly shared; that Democrats aren't batshit crazy is becoming a rather tiresome reason to support them.

    •  I agree (5+ / 0-)

      the ability to vote for the party that helps Republicans rat fuck the majority of us is not necessarily a great selling point, and young people are not as fucking dumb as the TV watching generations before them that watched this country run aground, and are still trying to row in the same direction....

    •  agreed - "not crazy" is only going so far (5+ / 0-)

      This is not a gimmie, and IMO the current centrists in control of the party do not deserve a gimmie.

      Whether attempting to sell unionism to Hispanics would work short term is an interesting question but it wouldn't be a game changer unless there was a huge revival of labor which would be awesome but is doubtful.

      We need more than "defend the New Deal" and "We're not the crazy haters"

      If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

      by jgnyc on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:28:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need a "huge revival of labor," and frankly (7+ / 0-)

        in my mind that's the only way Hispanics as a group might manage to stay with Democrats.

        •  all in favor but don't see it near term (4+ / 0-)

          The numbers are stark. The unions are basically broken. It would be great to see the Democrats go with some economic populism (I live in fear of Huckabee working it from the religious right). The current crowd can't but isn't up for reelection. We need national candidates that enunciate a fairer economic deal right now as we we have battles to win this and next year, not in some demographic rosy future.

          I'm all for labor but I think for labor to come back big we would have to be international. When US Longshoreman go out in support of dockworkers in Shanghai we'll be getting somewhere. Other than that the powers will just work race to the bottom as they have been since Reagan and Clinton.

          Note international doesn't always have to mean strikes. Refusing to handle goods - sort of labor based protectionism - until certain standards are confirmed by our brothers and sisters overseas.

          Don't take this comment as me saying "it's not worth the fight". Organize to shut down Walmart. Organize, better yet boycott, fast food. But short term a vision of a better economic deal for main street is needed.

          And some new national Hispanic political leaders (sentence without Hispanic also relevant). One national Hispanic figure leading a labor revival and I'll be overjoyed to eat these words.

          If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

          by jgnyc on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:48:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Defend the New Deal" would be fine with me. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy, Plantsmantx

        Now name me three Democrats in any of the three branches of government who, in the past ten years, have paid more than the merest lip service to that idea.  

        •  Grivalja Pelosi Gillibrand (0+ / 0-)

          Not going to source those because your mind's made up one way or another from the names. Obama has prevented Head Start cuts (until this year) against very strong opposition.

          If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

          by jgnyc on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:56:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, fair enough, and I could probably even (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            name you three more who have defended New Deal programs at one recent time or other.  But you'll notice that not even the tiny minority of Dems who are inclined that way ever say that that's what they're doing.  It's as if they privately regarded the New Deal and its progeny as so horribly last-century that they were embarrassed by it.  It's just one of many ways in which Dems have permitted the Repubs to control the debate.  Semantics count!  

            •  "Semantics count!" excellent point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The Dems have been running scared since Reagan when the right wing decided to take no prisoners. Politicians sacrificing everything for short term gain (I'm shocked ... shocked ...).

              Now I believe there needs to be more but allowing the far right to control the debate is playing "prevent". And any sports fan will tell you playing not to lose generally means you lose.

              If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

              by jgnyc on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:38:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  The rumored death of the GOP is exaggerated (12+ / 0-)

      Greatly so.

      The Repugs and their allies have manipulated the education system to reduce the percentage of people with the sort of broad education making them capable of seeing through their bullshit.  This, and the resulting poverty, will also be a selling point for conservative Christianity, an all-enveloping exposure to RW propaganda.

      They are also likely to:

      Expel the overtly racist 5% of the population from their party who can't be bribed to keep their mouths shut.

      Pick up a significant percentage of Koreans, and more than a few Chinese and Hispanics, through evangelical Christianity.

      Set up their own conservative immigrant stream to the U.S., perhaps through religious unhappiness with liberal politics in Europe.  

      This, and a near-infinite money supply, should manage to keep the U.S. right wing at a motivated 28% or so of the population.  This number has been enough to maintain a working majority in our low voter-turnout country over the past half century.    

      •  The overtly and closet racist portion of the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe Bacon, Bronx59, smartalek

        Republican Party has to be more than a vocal 5%.  I marvel at the very visible minority members of the Republican Party who show up on cable TV defending a party that does everything it can to demonstrate that it dislikes minorities.  What can they be thinking.

        And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

        by MrJersey on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:47:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Their death may be exaggerated, but the Throne... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... they seem to be seeking in their version of The Game of Thrones was made of many swords. Rumor has it that it is most uncomfortable.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:44:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And we should also bear in mind... (3+ / 0-)

      ...that the Democrats, politically speaking, are today right where the Republicans were in the 1970s. Assuming the Republicans do become less and less relevant, more and more of them will jump ship for the Democratic party, leaving us with more and more conservatives.

      Basically, even if the Republicans do dwindle in significance over the next 20 years, we are going to find ourselves ruled by Republicans through that entire period.

  •  Well, stupidity is not RACE specific. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jck, DefendOurConstitution, JeffW

    Public memory and attention is short.  

  •  So (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Neoliberal domestic and economic policies.
    Neoconservative foreign and military policies.

    What reason is there to expect change in either, regardless of "demographics"?  Empire transcends such mere bagatelles.

    "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

    by ActivistGuy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:16:09 AM PDT

  •  The religious right has tried to prevent this for (9+ / 0-)

    years by preaching their Quiverfull ideas. Gotta keep making soldiers for Christ, doncha' know!

    Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

    by GrannyOPhilly on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:17:20 AM PDT

    •  Another turn-off... (6+ / 0-) professional women. Why should they turn into baby Suzie Homemaker ovens, after putting in years to get educated and build a career. A tubal ligation is cheaper and less harmful to their long-term health.

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:48:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So are vasectomies but I think that's one of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, viral

        their commandments: Thou shalt not mess with a man's best friend.

        Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

        by GrannyOPhilly on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:58:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some already have... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GrannyOPhilly, Calamity Jean, splashy

          ...and then discovered that they still had to use a condom to protect themselves from sometthing nastier than a pregnancy!

          Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

          by JeffW on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:05:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ahem. As long as men are free to walk away from (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW, Calamity Jean

            the children they make, but women are condemned for doing so, this will continue. Making women poorer does not make the men who won't take the lifetime responsibility of  raising kids and supporting them after making kids, only the thin honor of generating them, more likely to stay with the mother, assuming only one, of the children they have made.   All they are doing now is punishing women for managing to adapt to this expectation of abandonment.

    •  Fortunately, non-believers are the most rapidly... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy, jes2, smartalek

      ... growing "religious" group in America. Believers in America are on the decline, particularly among those 25 and under.  In fact that age group may be currently woefully under-reported as not believing and particularly among evangelicals. It's hard to say right now but some statistics suggest it.

      As the solutions and exponential expansion of science, technology, and a knowledge based service economy provide a larger footprint, the scientific method and evidence based reasoning grows and more. Younger people will become familiar with them as they learn the basics of science and mathematics which annually becomes more of a required career path. That requirement for testing one's arguments and assertions becomes more corrosive to the a priori assumptions of religion as more people need to use it in their day to day careers and education.

  •  I Applaud White People (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jck, JeffW, eps62, splashy, kitebro

    For having fewer children. Since I think people are having too many damned and damnable children anyway I would be quite happy if this trend manifested itself across the board regardless of ethnicity or nationality.

    •  the fertility drop is across the board (6+ / 0-)

      Hispanic Pregnancies Fall in U.S. as Women Choose Smaller Families

      Hispanic women in the United States, who have generally had the highest fertility rates in the country, are choosing to have fewer children. Both immigrant and native-born Latinas had steeper birthrate declines from 2007 to 2010 than other groups, including non-Hispanic whites, blacks and Asians...,
      That drop is also happening in Latin America (like Europe and east Asia). For example, Mexico's fertility rate isn't much higher than the US, and is barely over the replacement rate.

      Which also means that immigration in the next decade is going to look very different than it has in the past, regardless of any US policy changes.

      •  True for black women as well (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splashy, Plantsmantx

        ...married AND unmarried.

      •  I'm thinking the OTC morning after pill(s) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Will really lower the birth rate.

        More and more women are actually able to choose when they have children, which means that since women are generally very practical they will only choose to have them when they can feed, clothe, shelter, and provide for other necessities without suffering.

        Overpopulation is caused by men, not women. Women are blamed for having "too many children" but that's all because they had no choice in the past.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 12:03:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't get this large family crap. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smartalek, buffie

      We are so frighteningly over populated now that the idea of 2 people producing any more than 2 other people borders on criminal. That goes for every race on the planet.

      Welcome To The Disinformation Age!

      by kitebro on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 02:43:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As a middle-aged white person (9+ / 0-)

    I look forward to the coming change in demographics. The old white folks of both parties have roundly screwed our country over the last thirty years. This might be the only way we will ever see change for the better.

  •  Demographics are key to not only (8+ / 0-)

    the future of the Democratic Party but to a more liberal America.  Nonwhites are generally more liberal than whites.  Some on the left have argued that the mere discussion of these demographic realities is engaging in identity politics, but to ignore them is foolish and a mistake for anyone who wishes to have a more liberal country.

    Besides, the problem of identity politics is not on our side.  The coalition that propelled Obama to victory contained a wide diversity of identities - white, black, Latino, Asian, gay, straight, conservative, moderate, liberal.  It is the other side, which is nearly 90% white and virtually all conservative, that appeals too narrowly to a particular identity.  

    "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

    by puakev on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:24:16 AM PDT

    •  Do you really think (4+ / 0-)

      that the Hegemonic Empire of Globalized Capital will tolerate any deviation from neoliberalism at home and neoconservatism abroad?  Has Barack Obama indicated the slightest dissatisfaction with that agenda?  Cory Booker?  Different ethnic/racial elements can be loyal agents of empire.  All else would summarily be deemed "unelectable" by our opaque American Guardian Council, just as happens to white candidates that threaten to rock the boat.

      "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

      by ActivistGuy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:40:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Demographics are barely relevant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I don't know why folks think that a future with less whites means a more liberal future.  Sure, older whites are still voting for Reagan, but younger whites are not.  It is reasonably likely some other demographic is going to be the conservative one in several generations.  (Aren't Cuban Americans already?)  The only thing that is clear is we have several generations with significant numbers alive today and the older ones are more conservative and are dying off.  That is not predictive of how the youngest generation will end up, regardless of race.  

      The problem with Republicans and race right now is they have no compelling governance issues with which to draw in the vast majority of the voting public.  They need their dog whistles to get people to vote against their interests.  The racism of the past is not as prevalent in the youngest generations; so appeals to racial pride are less effective motivators.  Religious appeals are also of diminishing effectiveness.  Race is incidental.  

  •  Good post. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  I'm older than the boomers.... (9+ / 0-)

    Never voted anything but Democratic.  I'm working on outliving them.  The only way my votes can outnumber them?  I never did understand how all those "activists" of the late '60s voted for Reagan. I was so sure they were firmly in our camp...  Don't count your chickens. They don't vote logically!

    •  Overwhelmingly the activists DIDN'T vote Reagan (5+ / 0-)

      But it served well as a convenient divide-and-conquer myth.  There were untold millions of "silent" conservatives in the same generation, that later came to the fore.  The David Horowitzes were rare enough that we can identify them by name.  The millions of Boomers who were the backbone of Reaganism were either never in the streets, or rioted against the admission of James Meredith to the University of Mississippi.

      (By a second-half Boomer, a category to itself.)

      "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

      by ActivistGuy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:44:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The "activists" didn't vote for Reagan (0+ / 0-)

      In fact, many didn't vote at all. They had dropped out of the political system because many were afraid and/or frustrated.

      After all, they were arresting, beating, jailing and killing liberals in the late 60's and early 70's.

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 12:06:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a boomer. (0+ / 0-)

      Never voted anything but Democratic. As did my parents. And their parents. Where do you come up with these silly ideas that "activists" voted for Reagan? If anything, they probably sat out the election because of the massive letdown many felt when Jimmy Carter proved not to be the "messiah".

      A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

      by edg on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:22:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think the age demographic bites them another way (11+ / 0-)

    The fundamental ethos of the GOP white baby boomer conservative base is selfishness.

    In order to rebuild anything, including a party, you have to be willing to invest. I don't see the GOP base being willing to invest in anything except themselves. Right here. Right now.

    Have you noticed that they never offer to contribute any of their wealth or income to help out those needy future generations.

    Even when they pay lip service to helping "our children and grandchildren", it only goes as far as looking for a way to pillage some other group's meager wealth or income potential to help pay for their kids.

    My point is that I don't think the GOP can ever get their base to invest in the next generation - so they can never do much to attract their support.

    Their base is content to live out their remaining days hoarding their wealth. They won't be around to see it, so nothing in or about the future really matters to them.

    Maturity: Doing what you know is right - even though you were told to do it

    by grapes on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:30:30 AM PDT

    •  They give in ways you don't see (4+ / 0-)

      Large donations to the private religious schools their parents sent them to as "seg academies" in the wake of school integration, for one.  Such contributions very much sustain the viability of their culture, particularly as "centrist" austerity runs public education into the ground.

      "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

      by ActivistGuy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:48:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's still very narrow ... at most to "us" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rlochow, EverGrateful

        I have no doubt that there are a lot of GOP base that sacrifice for their children and grandchildren. Some are sacrificing for their community or church.

        But that seems to be as far as their generosity can extend.

        Not everyone. But enough fall in this category that it influences the GOP's options to renew itself.

        Maturity: Doing what you know is right - even though you were told to do it

        by grapes on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:57:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  long term? maybe. Short term? (6+ / 0-)

    What about next year? This demographic shift doesn't look like it's going to flip the House (yet ... damn it). It's now common knowledge that the current House intends to defund everything but big ag and defense next year BEFORE the midterms. Maybe the centrists can hold the line somewhat but for two more years after that?

    Stop saying eventually we'll win this. 2010 put us in a deep hole and waiting for Hillary's second term isn't a plan.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:31:01 AM PDT

    •  Gerrymandering in states whose representation in (0+ / 0-)

      the Senate gives large power to small states is also part of their answer. The right number of small states and congressional districts in larger states under unified R control thanks to Gerrymandering  effectively disenfrancises the entire rest of us, courtesy of the Hastert rule and similar matters. And we can't age out of gerrymandering.

      •  the senate is a permanent gerrymander (0+ / 0-)

        as is the electoral college. My vote would be worth a lot more if I lived in Utah. That the House is now skewed is a further insult. 2010 was the wrong year to botch. Unless something turns around before nov 2014 that, and not HCR, will be Obama's legacy.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 06:20:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Young white people preferred Romney? (2+ / 0-)

    Sheesh, what a disappointment.

  •  Right now it's the Democrats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Desert Rose, EverGrateful

    who are "ensuring their own demise," right here on dKos.

    I'm 50.  I've voted almost exclusively democratic for 32 years.  I've given thousands to dem candidates.  I've canvassed.  I've defended the Dems passionately.

    Watching my fellow "progressives" attack Ed Snowden as a "traitor" and attack those of us who support him as worse is sickening.

    I've already changed my registration to independent.  My next votes will be for libertarians.  Not another dime for any dem candidate. Enough of this.  There is no difference between democrats and republicans on the most important issues of war, torture, corporatism, or surveillance.

    •  But there's a lot of difference (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eps62, MrJersey, Theodore J Pickle

      between Democrats and Libertarians on questions of race, so you are moving into a largely White formation, matched demographically with the Republicans.

    •  So you've joined Rand Paul's gang? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, betterdemsonly, Plantsmantx

      Then you were never really a Democrat in the first place.

      Libertarians are naïve fools whose version of government does not work in the real world. You're welcome to join them, but don't expect much.

    •  It is true they weak on civil liberties (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and war.  The libertarians are weak on social justice?   Rand Paul would eliminate public education in favor of home schools and private schools.  He would also privatize social security completely! Why not vote green?  You get a party that defends both civil liberties and social justice? At least you wouldn't be encouraging centrist economics, which are closer to libertarian than the New Deal?

    •  I get your point. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebus Cannebus, buffie

      Obama talks like a liberal and governs like a conservative. It is frustrating.

      However, I'll still stick with the party of Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Ron Wyden, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, and Jeff Merckley.

      (Frankly, I wish there were about 40 more senators that were clones of independent senator Bernie Sanders.)

      Do I agree with every stance these senators have taken? No, but when libertarians start talking about dismantling the EPA, well, that is where they lose me. You can be a democrat and still be against torture, wars, corporatism, and surveillance.

  •  20 or 25 years ago... (8+ / 0-)

    Memory fades a bit, but I recall enduring one of those "team building" retreats for the employer I worked for at the time.  Even that far back, one of the facilitators who was discussing diversity issues with the mostly white middle management crowd said, "Look to your left; look to your right.  In a generation, the person on your left will be a woman.  The guy to your right will be a person of color, and most probably an immigrant at that."

    This was during the Michael Hammer era / Harvard Business School years of senior executive development.

    The bottom line is that the GOP leadership and Wall Street bagmen have known this demographic shift was coming for a long, long time but they made no real effort to prepare for the event, or appeal to the participants.  And now it's here. Boo friggin' hoo.

    How do I know they knew?  The economic meltdown of 2008 was caused in large part by big money running for the exits when it was clear that a black man was going to be occupying the White House for the first time.  It was time to cash in the chips.  Don't give me this crap about toxic, high-risk mortgages poisoning the economic well.

    There's another component: the religious angle.  A not insignificant portion of the GOP felt (and still feels) that the end times will occur during their lifetime.

    Combine the two, and the behavior of not embracing demographic change isn't particularly surprising.  Lindsay Graham and folks like him are just starting to acknowledge the reality that Jesus probably isn't riding back into the stable any time soon, and that the 1% have drained the economic engine of the country.

    Like I said, boo friggin' hoo.

    "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

    by Richard Cranium on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:46:43 AM PDT

  •  So we have to wait for X number of them to (6+ / 0-)

    'vacate the premesis before we can get sufficient intelligent progressive change.

    Literally, more of this demographic have to die off so we can move forward.

    Oh well.... I didn't make it this way.

    As always, we asked politely more than enough times, now we just wait them out.

    Apologies to all those needlessly ruined by the need to wait politely to change stupid shit.

    •  Unfortunately (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      all those people can die and not a thing will change, until some group of people, somewhere, undertake the onerous  and oft-ridiculed task of facing down the Empire of Globalized Capital.  The stars and stripes is its "flag of convenience" and will be expected to lead the way in ensuring economic neoliberalism and strategic neoconservatism, regardless of how the national leadership does on the paper bag test.

      "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

      by ActivistGuy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:56:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOP also creating more minorities (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DownstateDemocrat, eps62

    through their anti-abortion policies. I think I read the GOP cut Planned Parenthood funding in Texas so there were going to be 24,000 new babies -- I'm assuming minorities as well as whites.  The sequestration hits soldiers, vets and their families who were traditionally a Republican favoring group.  Their policies are having a huge negative effect on the middle class and the poor.  it's a matter of getting those folks to be aware of it.

    President Obama has built an awesome organization that is doing grassroots work right now for his progressive policies like immigration. Continuing that work and helping it grow, registering voters, helping them understand the importance of voting for Democrats at state and local levels too as well as GOTV would give a big solid base for progressive Democratic values.  Education, registering voters and GOTV is key.

    “I have this dark side. It wants out. It wants to buy new shoes.” Will Farrell, The Other Guy

    by ParkRanger on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:53:25 AM PDT

    •  Build the Democratic bench (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eps62, happymisanthropy

      Now, if the Democratic Party were a national grassroots party instead of the Clinton-Obama machine like it actually is, building a stronger bench of state and local Democratic officials would be a lot easier!

      "It's not enough to be in the majority, you have to stand for something." -Russ Feingold

      by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:23:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Famed economist Paul Samuelson once commented (6+ / 0-)

    on the slow acceptance of Keynesian economics by the classical American economics community that, "Sometimes progress can only happen one funeral at a time."

    It looks like that's the case here too.

    Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. --Margaret Mead

    by The Knute on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:02:51 AM PDT

  •  Time for Democrats to push for... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Noodles, EverGrateful

    ...a Second Progressive Era in America.

    Sadly, most of the names I've heard floated as 2016 Democratic presidential candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, and Joe Biden, among others, lack solid progressive credentials.

    Elizabeth Warren doesn't relate to ordinary voters all that well, Alan Grayson is too much of a loudmouth, Dennis Kucinich appears to be done with electoral politics, Tammy Baldwin doesn't appear to be interested in executive races, and Russ Feingold reportedly wants his old U.S. Senate seat back.

    I read here that at least one Democrat in Wisconsin is apparently pushing for Chris Taylor, a little-known state legislator from Madison, Wisconsin, to run for "national office", implying a run for President. I'd vote for her in the primary if she ran.

    "It's not enough to be in the majority, you have to stand for something." -Russ Feingold

    by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:20:29 AM PDT

    •  We have no national progressive leaders because (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      we probably need to start by doing the hard work at the school board, local offices, and state office levels. We need more progressive mayors and governors, not only to put people in office and to give them time to grow, but to demonstrate to their constituents how progressive policies benefit them.

      And to tweak those policies as well. As much evidence as we have in New Deal policies, the very progressive taxation and wise government investments as we saw from the mid 30's to the '60's, and in the need for unions and higher wages among the 98% of Americans, they will need to be modernized and tested.

      But you certainly hit the nail on the head. Good analysis of a dreary short term future. Might I suggest Biden MIGHT be at the head of that pack for me, maybe? But as you said he is no progressive. Yet I wonder if perhaps he's coming around? It's hard to tell if that's so with him sitting in the VP chair. I'd at least give him a second look. I hope at least he'll run. Clinton needs a challenger to poke some holes in her DLC, centrist right love.

      •  Biden is someone I'd support... (0+ / 0-)

        ...if no credible progressive runs, largely because he is the incumbent Vice President.

        "It's not enough to be in the majority, you have to stand for something." -Russ Feingold

        by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:45:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He did force Obama's hand on gay rights so... (0+ / 0-)

          ... there's that bold move. Does that make him progressive leaning? I dunno, but I would have taken him over Clinton back in 2008.

          •  Biden doesn't come across as a progressive (0+ / 0-)

            He's known more for being a negotiator than having any progressive credentials.

            Biden had a liberal rating of 72 and a conservative rating of 13 during his U.S. Senate career, which is indicative of a center-left voting record.

            "It's not enough to be in the majority, you have to stand for something." -Russ Feingold

            by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 03:31:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  You seem to be setting a high bar (0+ / 0-)

      And a very unreasonable one. I'm less concerned with a 100% ideological test and more concerned with a candidate who can win and govern. That's what the GOP does and that's what's currently killing them along with the demographic change. That's not us.

      •  I'm interested in a Second Progressive Era (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not interested in post-partisan BS or corporate Democrats kowtowing to special interests.

        I want a candidate who will fight tooth and nail for a progressive agenda and won't compromise on core principles if he or she gets elected to the White House.

        "It's not enough to be in the majority, you have to stand for something." -Russ Feingold

        by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:51:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  nice coat that guy has (0+ / 0-)

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:21:51 AM PDT

  •  NYT Mag article on 2012 re-election quants (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    one in particular had a program to save Social Security a cool billion until shutdown by austerity measures, glad he helped re-elect our president, but what a short sighted shame.

    The quants in question are data analysts who sift through demographic data and such to shake out likely voters, some, but not all, went on to industry to identify likely customers.

    "O you can't scare me, I'm sticking to the union" - Woody Guthrie from Union Maid

    by dkosdan on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:27:23 AM PDT

  •  TFR in the USA has been stable (0+ / 0-)

    TFR (total fertility rate) is the number of children that women of a nation or region is expected to have based on age-specific birth rates. TFR in the United States has persisted at ≈2.0 since the early 1970s. In all other countries of the world, TFR has diminished substantially since the 1970s.

  •  '92 millenial here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlochow, EverGrateful, Says Who

    Most of the people my age I associate with are either Dems, some flavor of leftist third-party, think they're too cool to vote, or don't know what the government is.

    "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?"--Obi-Wan Kenobi

    by punkRockLiberal on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:31:17 AM PDT

  •  Demographic winter could accelerate Marx' thesis (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eps62, EverGrateful, starduster

    His argument was that the revolution of the proletariat would not occur until capitalism had reached every corner of the globe.  With declining birthrates, caring for the aged will not be the only thing affected.  The ability to find cheap low cost labor will also begin to decline.  What happens when capitalists can't simply move to the next low wage country to maintain the profits of the 1%.  Either capitalists will have to start paying people more, or capitalism will enter a phase of crisis as they push leaders to force workers to accept lower wages.  We already have GOP leaders insisting that people must accept lower wages to ensure that they are employed.  When will those manipulative claims change to undemocratic insistence.  How many more Republicans will begin to insist that managers take over democratically elected local politicians for the good of the people like they do in Michigan.  Its nothing but a creeping form of fascism.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:35:58 AM PDT

  •  I'm white and over 65 (10+ / 0-)

    Every time I see stats that people in my demographic voted for Romneybot, I feel sick.  I'd have voted for Bernie Sanders if I could.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:36:09 AM PDT

  •  Too bad Dems count on Republican irrelevance (4+ / 0-)

    They should be mindful of their own potential irrelevance when most of their politicians don't seem to stand for anything but continuing the status quo.

    I remember (it could dozens)  years ago, when I cheered Chuck Schumer for his withering attacks on the NRA. Now, he seems completely whored-out.

  •  Elderly Boomer Population Starts Crashing in 2030 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The peak of the Baby Boom ended in 1960 and once they hit 75 in 2035, the baby boom cohort will be dying off at an ever accelerating rate until only a few percent are alive in 2050.   The effects will be apparent even in 2030 as the people born in 1950 reach 80.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:53:16 AM PDT

  •  Couldn't be happening to nicer people. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:01:25 AM PDT

  •  When conservative ideology meets financial reality (2+ / 0-)

    ... of cuts to the social security and Medicare that you've started relying on, the Dem's might start looking like they are the party that has your interests at heart.

  •  Yes **yawn** (0+ / 0-)

    Every post-election the Democrats point out the clear truth that the Republican Party is shrinking.  Then every election run-up the Republicans are resuscitated, their numbers all swelled with people who don't like the Democrats for what they've become -- a conservative party that pretends to be liberal.

    "It's not my fault reality is marxist." - Che Guevara

    by Cassiodorus on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:07:18 AM PDT

  •  Dem policies will also start playing better (0+ / 0-)

    with Gen-X and Boomers.

    If you look at the finances of your typical 40-60 something, they can't afford to retire, they can't afford their health insurance premiums, they're one paycheck or serious illness away from bankruptcy, and nobody wants to hire them because they're old.

    Suddenly the social safety net looks a lot more welcoming when it's you tightrope walking over the abyss.

  •  Right now, at this very monent, there is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a black/brown/Asian person, already born,  with an immigrant family personal story, who will become a Senator, governor, or Potus, And that person, male or female, gay or straight, will have a rich history of standing up for equality and justice.

    the Republican brand is totally bankrupt.

    by vlyons on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:18:41 AM PDT

  •  Why they won't change (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    starduster, buffie

    I also am a white baby boomer from the 'heartland'.  I have voted for a total of two Republican candidates.  (I don't count John Anderson for president.)  So I understand that demographics is not destiny, but the Repugs have painted themselves into a corner.    

    They merged with the religious right, and then got taken over by the exclusionist far right that I call the Fox party.   They are a racist party.  They truly believe that rich white fundamentalist christian men are superior to all other lifeforms on this planet.  

    The majority of their base voters don't have to worry about the future - the white christian God will soon rapture them.  

    The leaders know that they will soon be kicked out of power in the US, so they are moving their money to the Cayman Islands like Romney or to  Bahrain like Cheney.  The longer they can stretch out their complete fall in the US, the more they can accumulate elsewhere.

  •  Blowing off their own foot (0+ / 0-)

    It's interesting that the policies backed by the corporatists and their GOPer shills have accelerated the "demographic winter": unaffordable college, crushinginly high student debt, low wages, high unemployment, offshoring, high medical and insurance costs, etc.  However, I expect that the affects of these policies on the young are depressing birth rates all across the population spectrum.  

    The obvious GOP solution ought to be to selectively allow immigration of "desirable" aliens (there was (?) a quota system alloting immigration slots to various regions of the globe.  

    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    "Shared sacrifice!" said the spider to the fly.—Me

    by KingBolete on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:27:26 AM PDT

  •  The right wingers don't get (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That women, especially educated women, will have more children if they feel secure, have support from businesses, and can take the time away from their careers without penalty. Give them places to have their children around when they are working, make it easy to breast feed, and let them have flexible hours so they can do what they need to do when they need to do it.

    The right wingers don't listen to women, they just ignore them and want to force them to sacrifice everything, including their lives, to produce more children. You know, "for the good of the country," with no compensation or help.  

    Too many of the right wingers are men who don't care about the women except as child producers. They would prefer incubators without brains, if they had their druthers. Slaves is what they want.

    Gee, if they would just go back to having welfare like they used to have, I bet there would be lots of poor white women that would have children, happily. They used to, but now it's just a totally losing proposition for them.

    Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:33:05 AM PDT

  •  More Pew (USA Today) on Immigration (0+ / 0-)

    On MSNBC just moments ago this poll result was highlighted:

    Those who aren't Latino are skeptical that passing an immigration bill will do the GOP much good politically. About two-thirds of non-Hispanics say it won't make much difference or might even hurt Republicans.

    Among Hispanics, however, 55% say passing an immigration bill would help Republicans in national elections. Seven of 10 Latinos say it's extremely or very important to them that immigration legislation pass this year. Nine of 10 say there should be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States legally, if certain requirements are met.

    Which sounds intuitively right - failure to pass would be punished at the polls by current and future generations of the GOP. Passage would allow the GOP some measure of a pass for changing their ways.

    There are three serious caveats to offer. The underlying poll sought the opinion of an impressive 1500+ respondents. So it has an MOE of just under 3 point.

    But the Hispanic respondents constitute less than 10% of those polled - raising the MOE for that sub-set to nearly 9.5 points.

    Secondly, the question broke down as 55% of Hispanic respondents said passage of immigration reform would help the GOP - 16% say it won't help the GOP, 32% say it will make no difference.

    At the extreme end then this could be taken to suggest that as few as 46% of Hispanics believe immigration reform passage would help the GOP, at the extreme up to 57% say the cake is already baked to the GOP's disadvantage.

    Third, I think the question unasked is vitally important. Would passage of immigration reform make current and prospective Hispanic voters more likely to vote for a GOP candidate?

    I cannot imagine passage helping say, Ted Cruz with Hispanics in any way, shape or form. It is a complicated issue whether immigration reform helps the GOP in States within which immigrant or Hispanic populations are growing. As so many are presently very red, quite TP infested, I lean to this not helping the GOP, where they most desperately feel that need.

    Sucks to be them.

    •  Essentially, the GOP has no good options right now (0+ / 0-)

      If immigration reform is passed, Obama and the Dems will get the lions share of the credit and it will further enhance their strength among Hispanic voters. But if the GOP kills it, they will get the blame and pretty much screw themselves over with Hispanics for the long term.

      They basically have to take the least bad option. That's why Lindsey Graham was warning the GOP that if they want any hope in 2016 and beyond, they have to pass this. Better they support it and leave open some hope of competing with Hispanics then oppose it and destroy any hope.

  •  Reap wht you sow GOoPers. (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone is crying out for peace; no one's crying out for justice...

    by mojave mike on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:38:55 AM PDT

  •  Demographic winter for republicans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    starduster, brae70, wdrath

    The right still has all kinds of money, they have packed federal judgeships and they gerrymander very effectively. I think rumors of their death are premature. Looking on the bright side, if the dems could step away from the bankers, hint at being slightly populist, they will probably win big.

  •  Sooner, not later, Democracy itself will be (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, starduster, buffie

    contrary to GOP interests.

    When it comes to pass that all has failed -- rebranding attempts to appeal to different voters, voter suppression to exclude the wrong kinds of people, gerrymandering to create artificial majorities, and plutocrat-financed propaganda -- when all of that has failed, then they will just have to do away with voting altogether.

    I hope it doesn't come to that.

    “Americans are fighters. We're tough, resourceful and creative, and if we have the chance to fight on a level playing field, where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot, then no one - no one - can stop us. ”-- Elizabeth Warren

    by Positronicus on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:50:01 AM PDT

    •  That Would Be 1980. Their Goals and Their (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      interest groups have been anti-democratic since the rightwing movement got strong enough to produce Reagan.

      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 23, 2013 at 12:00:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's the thing: a lot of people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    thought the Republican party was dead after 2008 too.

    And then look at 2010.

    "Demographically" people today project the Republican party dead in a few years.

    Does that help if the Democratic party is morally bankrupt?  Does that help if people grow so cynical they won't participate in politics?  If the non-voting numbers increase over time?

    Democrats have to do more than just sit on our asses and wait for Republicans to collapse and permanent rule to arrive.

    We have to govern responsibly, according to the standards and ideals of this nation.  We have to believe in and govern by the Bill of Rights (first in my mind), the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    Continuing down the path to a security state which spies on 100% of its citizens in the name of "safety" is a fool's errand.  The sooner this abomination is shut down, the better.

    Because there is a lot more to life than just winning elections.  We actually have to live free from surveillance and privacy invasion if we are truly to be free.

    We are a long way from that today. A very long way.

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:53:53 AM PDT

  •  I was completely shocked yesterday when one of (0+ / 0-)

    the young self-identified "pragmatist" Kossacks here declared that the activist liberal generation of the 1960's "didn't accomplish anything" (his words). He seemed to think LBJ and Nixon just gave them all to us out of the goodness of their hearts.

    If he is at all typical of the younger generation (and I hope to Jeebus that he's not), it is no wonder that today's new Dems are unwilling to defend the things we fought and struggled for---they don't even remember them anymore.


  •  qwatz (0+ / 0-)

    rethugs trying to roll back the date of their eclipse by voter suppression.  please advise about state level elections - how does this demographic shift affect state level elections where the republicans have been so successful?

    Bill Belichick also has 10 million gallons of crude oil stashed away, just in case.

    by 2liberal on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 12:10:11 PM PDT

  •  Tyranny of the Minority (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    plembo, wdrath

    It won't matter if the the Republicans become a party that represents an ever increasing minority of the population. The electoral college system, (although that may change if the Hispanic vote finally wakes up in Texas),  and the free use/abuse of gerrymandering and the filibuster, will ensure that the minority will inflict its will on the majority for the foreseeable future. Not to mention that the Republicans have just turned their sights on the state houses, where they've discovered they can do way more damage and inflict way more misery on their adversaries (unions/women/minorities/teachers/working people/children) then they ever could at the federal level.

  •  I know this is backed by statistics.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    plembo, wdrath

    .... but every time I hear this subject brought up I cannot help but be reminded of the morons in the GOP who were proclaiming their "permanent majority" last decade.

    Plus, you CANNOT ignore gerrymandering as shown by the GOP in North Carolina (and Texas as described by TotM) - over half the votes in 2012 were for Democratic US House candidates, yet the GOP holds 9 of 13 seats.  The GOP also owns a disturbing majority in both houses of the NC legislature and the third Koch brother (Art Pope) owns the Governor (playfully described as Deputy Assistant Governor McCrory by

    •  Democracy overcome (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The Republican Legislature and Courts here in NC have effectively nullified my vote through gerrymandering in all but state wide elections. Basically they've already overcome democracy here.

      For decades (or more) the most ideological conservatives have declared that this country is not a democracy, but instead a republic. What exactly do they mean by that? Why the hostility to the word "democracy"? What kind of republic do they mean? Rome under Sulla?

      Not that it matters any more. With the NSA and other military intelligence agencies now conducting surveillance of every one in the world you have to wonder if even the most idealistic politician will risk their livelihood, and possibly physical security, in futile efforts to oppose the system.

      If there's anyone out there on the Republican or DLC side who wants to persuade us otherwise, time to speak your piece.

  •  You are so confused. (0+ / 0-)

    You make this inane statement "conservative-leaning baby boom seniors" without realizing that the Baby Boom was from 1946 to 1965. This is 2013. The oldest boomers, those born in 1946, are turning 67 this year. Last year, they were 66 or younger.

    But you also note that 56% of people older than 65 voted for Romney. Obviously, to anyone with a modicum of common sense, those were no Baby Boomers voting for Romney, as only a small percentage were over 65 for last year's election.

    I would hope that articles reaching the front page of Daily Kos are subjected to a higher standard of research, writing, logic, and editing than this one has received. The diarist should be ashamed, as should whoever allowed this diary onto the front page.

    A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

    by edg on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:07:19 PM PDT

  •  Nice try (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Markos Moulitsas posited this week that conservatives' endeavors to weaken the social safety net have made it harder for these seniors who comprise the Republican base to stay alive."

    However delicious the irony, the original conjecture was speculation not backed up by anything in particular. The life expectancy for a 60-year old white male is 81, 84 for a 60-year old white female. Since the recession has widened the wealth gap by ethnicity, it's even hard to make the argument that Republican policies have reduced the wealth of aging whites.

    "There is no room for injustice anywhere in the American mansion." Lyndon Johnson

    by pkgoode on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 02:25:31 PM PDT

  •  When a link to this story was tweeted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at the #mepolitics (Maine politics) hashtag, it was amazing how quickly white supremacists began to tweet how "traditional values" and "American heritage" were threatened.

    These people ARE the Tea Party. It is their one defining idea.

    Form follows function -- Louis Sullivan

    by Spud1 on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 03:53:37 PM PDT

  •  Republicans don' t need no stinkin demographics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite least that is the conclusion that this kossack has come to, in terms of their thinking.

    Ever since the abomination known as Citizens United, Republicans know that, now that they have access to unlimited amounts of secret corporate cash (thanks to five of the most corrupt Supreme Court Anti-Justices in American history (Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, William Kennedy and John Roberts), they can continue to keep themselves artificially competitive.

    Massive amounts of secret corporate cash can keep you competitive. can even buy you an entire state or two (Wisconsin and Ohio come to mind).

    While it is true that demographic trends seem to favor Democrats long-term, there are a couple of warning signs that go up every time this argument is made:

    a) As someone who lived in Texas back in the 1980's, this kossack remembers hearing the exact same arguments then. The demographic changes would, eventually, benefit Democrats in Texas. And, since the early 1980's, when people were saying that, look what's happened. The Democratic Party has virtually disintegrated in that state and Republicans have taken complete control.

    b) While these national demographic trends will, in fact, benefit Democrats, at least to some extent, it would be a mistake to pin too many hopes on that alone. The reason: Republicans have already come up with numerous ways of trying to counter that advantage and are likely devising, in back rooms, ever new ways to do so. Examples: efforts throughout the country to fine ever newer ways to make it harder and harder for many demographic groups that vote Democratic to simply vote.

    c) Republicans have always had a financial advantage over Democrats. And now, since Citizens United, not only can they continue to count on all of that special interest money (big oil, Wall Street, banks, agri-business, pharmaceutical, teh Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, wealthy evangelicals and their organizations), but that financial advantage is now buttressed by secret corporate money.

    Republicans have been shameless in their obstructionism ever since Citizens United. And it's obvious to me why. They think that new money can keep them competitive. And, at least to some extent, they are right (it bought them control of the House of Misrepresentatives in 2010...and they're hoping that, as they perfect the use of all of that secret corporate cash going forward, they can simply purchase themselves the Senate and White House, too).

    Granted, money isn't everything and doesn't automatically win elections. But it can sure keep you artificially competitive...for a very long time.

  •  Thanks for that (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:24:25 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site