Gallup has data out suggesting that 89 percent of self-identified Republicans are white; the comparable figure among Democrats is 65 percent. These numbers closely match those from last November's Presidential election, when 89 percent of John McCain's voters were white as were 60 percent of Barack Obama's, according to exit polls.
This, however, is not exactly anything new. 88 percent of George W. Bush's voters in 2004, and 91 percent of them in 2000, were white. And nearly 98 percent of Ronald Reagan's voters in 1980 were white as were 96 percent of Gerald Ford's in 1976. The GOP is, in fact, slightly less white than it once was, as they do relatively better among Hispanics and Asians than among blacks (if still not particularly well), and Hispanics and Asians are starting to make up a larger fraction of the nonwhite (and overall) voting pool.
The Democrats, however, are becoming less white at a much faster rate than the Republicans. Whereas 85 percent of their votes were from white voters in 1976, the number was just 60 percent last November. This is, of course, a helpful characteristic, since the nonwhite share of the electorate, just 11 percent in 1976 and 1980, represented more than a quarter of the turnout in November.
Consider this remarkable statistic. In 1980, 32 percent of the electorate consisted of white Democrats (or at least white Carter voters) -- likewise, in 2008, 32 percent of the electorate consisted of white Obama voters. But whereas, in 1980, just 9 percent of the electorate were nonwhite Carter voters, 21 percent of the electorate were nonwhite Obama voters last year. Thus, Carter went down to a landslide defeat, whereas Obama defeated John McCain by a healthy margin.
In certain ways, I wonder if the GOP isn't paying a price for a strategy adopted years ago -- namely, the Southern Strategy. The Southern Strategy undoubtedly won the GOP many elections over the years, but it was adopted at a time when probably less than 10 percent of the electorate was nonwhite (if minorities were allowed to vote at all), whereas now about a quarter of the electorate is. The steady drumbeat of demographic change, coupled with an inability or unwillingness to adapt to it, has steadily made the Republicans' job harder and harder.
6.01.2009
GOP Has Always Been Dominated by White Voters
@ 3:21 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments
LBJ was right when he said that he delivered the South to Republicans for a generation when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This generation is now gone.
This just in: NOAA reports that the sky is actually blue.
The Great American Melting Pot is continually added to and stirred. Witness our President: His skin may be dark, put his genetics is pure 50/50. I consider myself a "Heinz 57" guy, although I'm light-skinned.
More and more, the issue of race is beginning to disappear - thank God! That is why "affirmative action", anymore, needs to begin to address itself to wealth disparity, not to race, IMHO. And it is on that front that the Democratic Party needs to keep its primacy.
In California, for example, the "class war" is in full swing, with the state's wealthy fobbing off all the economic suffering on the underpriviledged. That's a fairness issue tailor-made for the Democrats, if they only had the brains to recognize it.
In fairness, "always" might be a bit too strong. Blacks were certainly Republican during Reconstruction and for at least 60 years thereafter.
It may be ancient history now but it is still a fact.
I suspect are (at least) two reasons for the data presented:
1) The Democratic party is more of a draw to the new non-white immigrants and new, non-white, non-immigrant (read: those turning 18) voters.
2) The Democratic party has become more of a draw to the white, moderate Republicans thus decreasing the white percentage of the GOP.
It should be noted that #2 above directly coorelates to Nate's "Death Spiral" analogy put forth months ago in that as more and more of these moderates leave (white or otherwise) the remaining group becomes more and more unified in their staunch conservatism.
This renders them impotent to change and prevents them from being flexible. So much so that their mantra becomes "my way or the highway" with no room for compromise.
In certain ways, I wonder if the GOP isn't paying a price for a strategy adopted years ago -- namely, the Southern Strategy.
A couple of points about Nate's comment above. Try staying away from Wikipedia if you want to engage in any serious journalism. For that matter, try not to link to an article that has these statements posted prominently at the top of the page. It's already hard to take you seriously on anything because of your disgusting and nauseating bias, but this just puts icing on the cake.
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2009)
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)
This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (April 2008)
I really have to agree that the famous "Southern Strategy" - which could really be broken up into a staged progression of racists into the Republican party, from Strom Thurmond's defection to the launch of Jesse Helms - is the issue.
Observer, the point of linking to Wikipedia is to provide a common definition and easily accessible explanation of the term.
I expect to see those flags on almost any politically sensitive topic. Given that the Republican party is trying to bury that piece of history, I'm unsurprised that it's flagged for neutrality.
One of the other threads developed a conversation about realignments, and i think that this post shows some of the reasons behind the pattern of realignments.
At the start of the 20th Century the basic alignment was based on the economic compromise around McKinley and TR. (Basically economic conservatism, with a little activism thrown in, when necessary.) This lasted through to the New Deal, when the importance of the activism to hold of disaster had been forgotten. The New deal coalition faltered though when socially it lost contact with white voters in the South, who then lost confidence in the econoimic message and began to listen to the low tax, less Washington message the GOP had coalesced. The cracks in that began to show around 1992 (I like 1992 to 1952 in the last realignment, a chance to show that the party could win, and govern reasonably well.) I've said previously that a crucial part in the Democratic rebuilding has been a 'Western strategy' if you will. It is built on a moderation of Democratic values and I think also a distancing between the Hispanic community in the west and the GOP.
To the extent that the GOP has been playing to Hispanics, I wonder if they haven't been looking at Hispanics in one place, Florida. (And even then not always very succesfully). I don't think they have necesarily lost the Hispanic vote for good, but I think they need to be very sensible about the route forward. Just being the party of Old Dixie is not going to work for the GOP, and they will have to find a variation of the conservative message to succeed with a different coalition.
@Casual Observor: Wikipedia is not authoritative for anything, whether or not it has one of those warnings on it. But it's a decent starting place for lots of types of information.
The fact that it may have a "nonneutrality" warning is no particular stigma, however. You or any some other nincompoop or single person can go in and put such a warning on any article.
Some topics are more prone to being disputed than others. That doesn't make them wrong.
@Tiberius Gracchus
The party that was called the Republican Party in reconstruction is not where the current republican party comes from.
They painted themselves into a corner of the country.
Amazing that RR's voters were 98% White. That give insight into ethnic differences in political passions--the 'RR was a saint' crowd is overwhelmingly White. Minority groups are much less emotionally tied to that version of recent history. Arguably, this ethnic/ political division was re-opened by Bush 2's exploitation of 9/11. The appeals to unquestioning patriotism presumed an interpretation of recent history that is actually much more controversial--demographically speaking--than one might have expected.
Some topics are more prone to being disputed than others. That doesn't make them wrong.
No, but it makes for a particularly bad brand of journalism, reporting, and analysis of the topic at hand to link to such a weakly constructed source.
Nate should know better, and you Silverites should be ashamed for defending him. A conservative blogger linking to a wikipedia page that had "neutrality" warnings or weak citations would be lambasted by you guys.
I called you all knuckle-dragging troglodytes on the other page, but now I see you're hypocritical knuckle-dragging troglodytes.
God, I love coming on here and validating my superiority to you peasants....and you make it so easy too.
A couple of points about Casual Observer's comment above. If you want to engage in any serious commenting, you should add some substance to your comments, rather than merely grandstanding.
It's already hard to take you seriously on anything because of your disgusting and nauseating trolling, but this just puts icing on the cake.
The Southern Strategy is akin to a football team that trades its draft picks for established veterans. The strategy will work in the short term, provide victories (and maybe a championship), but it will hurt the team in the long term. That's exactly what is happening to the GOP.
The party won (and, in many cases, won big) with the Southern Strategy. But now, it is paying the price, having alienated the growing non-white demographic.
And it's going to continue to pay the price for the foreseeable future.
That the Republican party has and continues to rely on a strong white base reveals that the GOP has been pursuing abandoning the minority vote for the white for a long time now. As you pointed out with the Southern Strategy reference, the Republican Party was willing to abandon the African American vote in order to secure the white vote. Therefore, if the more traditional elements of the GOP win influence during the party's restructuring for 2012 and 2016, it may not be surprising to see the GOP put Operation: Gringo to use instead of expending the political capital necessary to make themselves more appealing to minorities. However, with the more diverse electorate and an increased voter turnout amongst the minorities, how long will such a strategy work?
Also, Casual Observer, if you have a source that defines the Southern Strategy in a better, more unbiased way, please share it.
@Shap, philip,
So, this is Silver's blog, but the burden is on me to add "substance" or unbiased and more-trusted sources?
Look, this is Nate's gig. He used a bad source, and I pointed it out. The burden isn't on me. Back off!
Your criticisms are exhibit A of my point on the previous post about mindless retards who litter the pages with useless drivel and unwavering support for Silver, even when he is clearly in the wrong as he is in posting to a questionable wikipedia source.
wv: mated - Something your mothers obviously did with some kind of cave-dwelling subhuman lifeform to conceive such ignorant dolts.
Let me just add to the voices jumping on Casual Observer for his criticism of Nate. First off there really isn't much wrong with using Wiki as an introduction to a term or topic that perhaps some might be unfamiliar with? I don't think too many people would argue with the idea that the GOP slowly adopted a 'Southern Strategy' in the post 1968 period. he exact nature of that and how it came to develop, and the fact that some people felt the article was too pro Democrat and failed to acknowledge the Dems racist past was the reason for the flagging of the article. Nate's article did not gather any information from Wiki, which is what people (rightly) criticise academically, which is a fair enough criticism given that either why not site from the original source, or wiki has not enough sources to be used as an academic reference.
Using it as a reference point though is fine.
So CO, stop being such an arrogant jerk and debate the issues.
@Casual: other than criticizing the citation to WP you haven't established that anything is wrong with Nate's analysis -- or the WP article, for that matter. You may or may not be a trog yourself (perhaps you will recognize yourself in the picture), but you're definitely a nitpicker and a troll.
I'm not trying to defend or attack fivethirtyeight.com or Nate Silver or you. I just want to have as much background information on the topic as possible, and I figured you might have a better source that I could look at so as to gain a more insightful look into the issue.
Thanks!
For anyone who doesn't know it already, Casual Observer is the latest ID of the long-time commenter here who tried to modify the wikipedia.org entry about this site some months ago. I particularly like the words used to describe his attempted addition in one of the reversion notifications: unsourced non-neutral weasel-worded.
I predicted your response, "Find better materials yourself", so I did! Here's a variety of opinions. Sorry I don't know how to HTML them (I guess I'm somewhat computer illiterate), so you'll have to type it in manually, or just google "southern strategy". This is from a variety of sources offering different contemporary views of the Southern Strategy. Hope this helps and puts the wikipedia problem to rest by providing some other sources that will meet other's quality standards. (Although personally I had nothing wrong with the wikipedia article.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/bobby_jindal_and_the_southern.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html
@loner,
I just found fivethirtyeight a couple of months ago and have only been posting on here for a few weeks.
I don't know if that qualifies as "long-time commenter" or not, but I do know that I did not and never have tried to modify a wiki page. If you can't already tell, I think it's a joke.
@philip,
All I said was that the burden is on Silver if he plans on linking to a legit source on the "Southern Strategy." It doesn't matter what your predicted response was, the burden was not and is not on me as a "casual observer" of this site and not the "author."
markymark,
You've already proven yourself to be an ignorant fool on multiple occasions. At least your mental acumen is somewhat sharper than that of Juris, who is on par with a developmentally disabled chimp.
Casual Observer said... God, I love coming on here and validating my superiority to you peasants....and you make it so easy too.Ooooooh. Now I understand.
Sorry about your penis.
DNFTT - Do Not Feed The Trolls
If this had been an actual troll emergency, you would have been directed by your local troll response coordinator. We now return to your normal 538 programming.
LFC,
What the hell?! Where did that come from? Now we're talking about penises. You lowlifes on here find a way of lowering the bar...even when I think you can't take it any lower...
My wv is "rejerk." How apropos.
The question I'd like to ask Joe the Dipshit is:
What's worse: someone who fits the 538 definition of a troll (anyone with a conservative-leaning angle on life) or a 538 "regular" (anybody of the Silverite throng who offers mindless drivel day after day after day)?
I'd much rather be in the former category and fit "your definition" of a troll than be a part of the latter and be permanently smeared as an ignorant twit.
Is there one intelligent liberal on here?! All of you have been proven mentally incapable and insufficient...even Silver has been shown to be an ignorant hack.
Still not adressing the issue at hand then.
Just to try and reinject some politics into all of this and to stear away from personal abuse let me repost these comments I made earlier
At the start of the 20th Century the basic alignment was based on the economic compromise around McKinley and TR. (Basically economic conservatism, with a little activism thrown in, when necessary.) This lasted through to the New Deal, when the importance of the activism to hold of disaster had been forgotten. The New deal coalition faltered though when socially it lost contact with white voters in the South, who then lost confidence in the econoimic message and began to listen to the low tax, less Washington message the GOP had coalesced. The cracks in that began to show around 1992 (I like 1992 to 1952 in the last realignment, a chance to show that the party could win, and govern reasonably well.) I've said previously that a crucial part in the Democratic rebuilding has been a 'Western strategy' if you will. It is built on a moderation of Democratic values and I think also a distancing between the Hispanic community in the west and the GOP.
To the extent that the GOP has been playing to Hispanics, I wonder if they haven't been looking at Hispanics in one place, Florida. (And even then not always very succesfully). I don't think they have necesarily lost the Hispanic vote for good, but I think they need to be very sensible about the route forward. Just being the party of Old Dixie is not going to work for the GOP, and they will have to find a variation of the conservative message to succeed with a different coalition.
Ideology transcends race. That's all you need to know. In a post-racial world, where the GOP isn't scaring whites to vote for them and Democrats aren't scaring hispanics and blacks to vote for them based on tangential wedge issues and race-based pandering becomes a thing of the past, we can get down to the issues at hand solely on a conservatism vs. progressive platform, not the current structure where every other issue is obfuscated by accusations of racism, race-baiting, bigotry, discrimination, affirmative action, bias, etc.
@Loner: Do you mean to say that Casual Observer is the guy from Memphis who works for Informa Economics, and was banned from Wikipedia?
We always hear about the Southern Strategy of the GOP (link to a potentially non-neutral wiki source notwithstanding), but I'm surprised there is not more discussion on the Blatino Strategy by Dems...of course, it flies under the radar because of its political correctness, but it's no less sinister. I alluded to it in my previous post, but it boils down to nothing more than the Democratic Party, through mostly covert means (though, by no means, always, and in some cases they're very overt about it) and the use of "coded language" (which they often accuse Reps of in their SS), pandering to minorities with scare tactics about those "mean, nasty" white people trying to hold them down in the poverty class or other inflammatory rhetoric.
Do you mean to say that Casual Observer is the guy from Memphis who works for Informa Economics, and was banned from Wikipedia?
Say what? I don't live anywhere near Memphis. I don't know who you're trying to confuse me with, but you've got the wrong person.
Argument:The current plight of the Republican Party is their Southern Strategy despite it winning several presidential elections, the Strategy has been cast adrift by demographic changes. To build a new winning coalition with Southern roots out of the ashes of The Great Society was no failure.
Indeed, many conservative Southern Democrats e.g. Governor Connoly of Texas were drifting into the Republican Party anyhow. But, like the FDR coalition, coalitions by their nature are temporary and transitory. In many respects, the political talent is not creating them but in keeping them in existence. What has fatally undermined the Republican political re-alignment has been economic failure. If the G.W. Bush era had not floundered in a morass of debt the Republicans might have won three consecutive elections?
CO wrote:
"Is there one intelligent liberal on here?! All of you have been proven mentally incapable and insufficient...even Silver has been shown to be an ignorant hack."
At the end of the day, this is a blog - not a peer-reviewed journal. The comments are, yes, comments - not doctoral dissertations.
I would suggest that you be mindful of the ass-door interface as you make your egress.
Two interesting points from the Gallup survey that caught my attention:
- 40% of Republicans are whites who are not "strongly religious".
- 48% of independents are whites who are not "strongly religious". This is a greater percentage than is found among the Democrats.
"About half of Republicans are non-Hispanic whites who are strongly religious, defined as those who attend church about once a week or more frequently. Forty percent of Republicans are whites who attend less frequently."
This indicates that a substantial number of (the remaining) Republicans are not as susceptible to the Religious Right's appeals as the Party contends. These appeals should gain even less traction among independents, who the Republicans hope to draw back through some future disaffection with Obama.
Also, it looks as if all of the "blacks" in the GOP are "strongly religious" (all 2% of them).
With only 25% of independents being white conservatives, the idea that massive numbers can be peeled off by the GOP standing up for "core principles" seems far-fetched.
In short, they already have everyone that they are likely to get with their current ideological flavour.
There is no "low-hanging fruit" for the Republicans.
And (as many have suspected) even if a disaffection with Obama takes hold, it will be difficult for the Republicans to win these disaffected voters over to their cause.
Juris—
I am. Was he banned by them?
You guys have spent months touting Silver's awesomeness. Don't downplay it onw that he's getting play alongside the real big boys. His name is in lights. Let's see how long it stays there. My guess is another 12 months, tops. —Casual Observer (5 days ago)
nicholasjalcock—
It wasn't debt. It was incompetence.
I wonder how important race is as a factor. I have always thought that culture is important in voting patterns. (Look at the long domination of the Christian Democrats in Italy or the National Party and now the ANC in South Africa for evidence of that). But I don't think race is necesarily at the heart of that. For sure 90%+ of African Americans tend to vote for the Democratic Party, but historically the AA community hasn't gotten too much out of the Democrats, at least until the 1960s. But I think its simply more complicated than saying they vote as one block. I think they feel more connected to the Democratic Party than they do to the GOP, and its tough to imagine how a conservative GOP could change that. I think African Americans feel connected to the liberal reforms of the 60s, and most associate those with Democrats, through the Kennedy's and LBJ and so on. The odd thing in the south is that the African Americans seem to have drifted to the Democratic Party before the white Southern population moved to the GOP. Thats quite a profound statement about democracy, that the oppressed might force the oppressors to move.
Anyways my point is essentially that people 'feel' conservative or progressive rather than 'think' conservative or progressive. I think that political identification starts in the heart/soul however you want to put it, and is then rationalised in the brain. In a sense one of the political strengths of Obama is he appeals to both the soul and the brain. He is likeable and knowable, accessible and has a popular touch (mentioning Sotomayor's role in ending the baseball strike I thought put that across well), but he is also strikingly thoughtful, in a way very few conservatives are at the moment. Of course I daresay that Casual Observer wouldn't think of Obama as likeable, and therefore the bridge wouldn't be as easy for him to make.
Its interesting that CO, as a conservative, brings up such things as 'race baiting, bigotry, discrimination.' Sure the Democrats like to play identity politics sometimes. [I don't think it hurt Obama at all that he was colored, or Hillary that she was a woman] but the GOP are spectacularly consistent at raising to the bait. They pull out Sotomayor's clumsy comment about 'a wise latina judge' rather than finding real philosophical differences that they might have with her. They use Jeremiah Wright as a surrogate presidential candidate when they can't nail much scary on Obama. They continue to drudge up smears about Obama's birth, in a way that they wouldn't have if Obama was white. And I think its that playing the man rather than the ball style of politics that has eventually damaged the Republican Party. My point on Limbaugh's lack of concern is important here. People look at Limbaugh and see a buffoon playing a game, not debating how best to help America at the moment, a time when America needs serious political debate. If Limbaugh wants Obama to fail to put in place his program, what would Limbaugh prefer happen instead? Thats whats missing, thats why the GOP has become known as the party of no. And why noone can really figure out how they recover in the next 2 1/2 years to be able to challenge Obama's reelection bid.
I drop a few ad hom attacks and critiques of this post, and I'm given a strong rebuke and told to quit trolling and debate the issue at hand...so then I bring up a couple of valid points about how both Dems and Reps engage in race politics, what with Reps and their Southern Strategy and Dems with their Blatino Strategy....and instead of debating that point, you guys accuse me of being some other fool.
Is there any way to get a reasonable and rational debate out of you guys? No wonder I went ad hom at the beginning. It's pointless. You appear willing to do anything to not talk about the issues. Whatever.
I defer to my post about this site being infected by knuckle-dragging troglodytes. I just need to go back to my post of just observing and not actively engaging...I get my jollies off just as much knowing I'm intellectually superior to you mindless regulars, yet I don't have the frustration of engaging you in pointless fights.
My apologies to markymark for tackling the issue and not avoiding it any longer.
Nate Silver commonly links to wikipedia articles. It's not to back up his arguements and opinions, but to help uninformed readers figure out what he means by "Southern Strategy." The dispute on that article is about whether the "Southern Strategy" included adopting a bit of racism in the Republican Party, and if that should be written in the article. The wikipedia article gives a perfectly good GENERAL idea of what the Southern Strategy was, enough for someone to figure out what it is. A wikipedia article meets Nate's purposes, and your criticisms are groundless, resting on the assumption that he used evidence and support from wikipedia.
Second, in many states in which the question was asked in exit polls, for those whom race was an important factor in their vote, most voted for Mccain. Gallup has always shown at least 17% of americans disapprove of marriage between whites and blacks. Racism certainly does exist in the US, and you cannot argue that what the democrats are doing with minorities is fearmongering. The democrats led the civil rights movement, and in return, blacks trust the democrats.
You are criticizing us for not talking about the issues? Everyone has told you, "Look, you're wrong, here's why you're wrong, now stop grandstanding and make intelligent comments." In return, you criticize every liberal for being trolls and blabbering on about nonsense, point out how stupid we are and how mentally superior you are.
YOU are the one who needs to talk about the issues, not us.
Now, come up with a rebuttal to why it's fine for Nate to link to wikipedia.
Oh Jeez.
trollList[9] = 'Casual Observer';
DNFTT
Y'all are arguing about Wikipedia. That's like the most generic argument in the history of ever.
(WV= tards. I am not making that up.)
For a good academic treatment of the Southern Strategy, I would recommend The Rise of Southern Republicans by Merle and Earl Black.
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Southern-Republicans-Earl-Black/dp/0674012488
An interesting article on the GOOPer's 'Southern Strategy' from a July 15, 2005 Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html).
Headline of the article was "RNC Chief to Say [to NAACP Convention] It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes"
First two paragraphs:
It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."
I think this more or less backs up the basic premise of the Wiki entry, maybe not all the specifics, but the premise of that article.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
The Southern Strategy is more than just racism, it's also the resistance against the federal government. Of course, those two aspects are intertwined and have their roots in the Civil War. First, it was about slavery and race. After the South lost the Civil War, it was about rebellion against the northern "oppressors". These two elements have laid the foundation for much of the current GOP ideology.
For example, the conservative judicial theory is founded on racism and resistance against the central government. Just think of Brown vs. Board of Education, and you've got the origin of the "Judges legislating from the bench"-slogan.
In the ears of a southern conservative, taxation will always sound like "We'll take your money and give it to the minorities". Higher taxation means stronger federal government means emboldening minorities - that's where the conservative resistance against affirmative action (and empathy!) comes from.
I find it amazing that the southern mentality has survived until today. It's a testament to the strength of the two-party-system that allowed these sentiments to play a dominant role in both the Democratic Party (until 1964) and the Republican Party (since then).
However, it seems that the time has come for the Southern Strategy to die. The West isn't following, and the Midwest is having 2nd thoughts. The demogrpahics are working against the Southern Strategy and there is no realignment like 1968 in sight. Republicans need to choose if they want to die with their strategy or adapt.
markymark wrote:
"And I think its that playing the man rather than the ball style of politics that has eventually damaged the Republican Party."
In the big picture I agree with you there. One particular party, however, has gathered massive political capital by denying political power to racial minorities; a 'redistribution of power' along the lines of the 'redistribution of wealth' narrative that they object to.
Reagan wanted to repeal the Voting Rights Act, for example.
On a purely political level, these actions weren't strictly 'racist'. The Republican leadership didn't really care what colour these peoples' skins were; they only knew that there was an opportunity for great political gain if that group could be prevented from voting. They would probably have done the same thing if they could get the same advantage by denying some white ethnic minority the vote.
So, for Republicans to (in effect) say to the AA voter, "nothing personal, we just needed a scapegoat and you were convenient" is hardly going to undo the Southern Strategy's "payback effect".
The distinction that Republicans seem to be trying to make - that they are not racists; they only use racism to get votes - is lost upon racial minorities, because the consequence is that the racial minorities lose power.
Now, the Democrats also 'use racism to get votes', but they enfranchise the racial minorities while doing this.
Personally, I attribute a great deal of the Republicans' "tone-deafness" on racial matters to an outdated (1950's) notion that the numbers of racial minorities are too small to be meaningful. This also explains their predilection with unions, though union members are a woefully small percentage of the population compared to the '50s. It's always amazed me now many conservatives seem to look at the '60s as something that happened last week.
Casual Observer: By your own argument, you provided no links to unbiased sources (You, clearly being a rather biased and of dubious reliability). Is there any reason people should actually respond rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks as you were doing earlier?
As your own comments show, once you tag someone as an idiot, you generally don't take anything they say seriously.
Alex S. wrote:
"The Southern Strategy is more than just racism, it's also the resistance against the federal government."
Insightful point. However, you later write:
"In the ears of a southern conservative, taxation will always sound like "We'll take your money and give it to the minorities". Higher taxation means stronger federal government means emboldening minorities..."
That kind of sounds like racism, doesn't it? "Emboldened minorities"? Are they the enemy?
And I fully realise that you are representing the views of others, and not particularly your own. No foul on you, Alex.
The South itself is changing. For example, it is much more urbanised than it was even 20 years ago.
Hypothetically, if the Democratic Party were to abandon affirmative action, civil rights, and all language concerning racial equality tomorrow, could they then carry the South in 2012? I doubt it.
The South demands too steep of a price for its electorate's loyalty. The bargain that the GOP has struck with the South is turning out to be another one of the Republican 'suicide pacts' with the base, much like the pact with evangelicals.
Both deliver less and less each cycle, and cost more and more.
Casual Observer, if you would like to conduct a debate about the relative intelligence or education of yourself versus some of the more net-informed members of the commenting crowd (including myself, as I was the first to reply to you) I'm perfectly happy to engage you in the online equivalent of a dick-waving contest. I will probably come out the winner by a standard deviation or more, but the exchange of personal attacks will get us nowhere, and won't say a thing about our claims. I'll be blunt: This is a *blog*, we are on the *internet*, and I would love to hear constructive criticism about Nate's analysis rather than aimless griping about Wikipedia and fellow commenters.
And onto the topic, I will add that "states' rights," for many rural white voters as well as black voters, remains code for supporting old Confederate ideals. It's going to take a lot of work for the GOP to disentangle themselves from the good old country boys telling dead nigger jokes to each other in their SUV as they barrel drunkenly down the mountain roads. And don't tell me that doesn't happen anymore, because I've witnessed it personally quite recently.
Nate,
(Sorry for talking about the article, while we all should be debating Casual Observer)
You write that Carter "went down to a landslide defeat." I'd like to dispute that.
Reagan got 50.7% of the vote; Carter got 41.0%. Y'oughta get 55% if you want to be credited with a landslide.
True, the map looks redder than a monkey's butt (yep, those were the days when CA voted red!), but that's partially because John Anderson took a substantial portion of Jimmy's votes. In a one-on-one, I don't believe there's any way Reagan would've taken MA, for e.g.
With 44 states in '80 and 49 in '84, Reagan must have the record for most states taken in consecutive elections. Even FDR didn't manage 93% of the states in any two straight.
But...in today's NYT, Prof. Krugman's not too appreciative of Reagan's legacy. Dude might have a point.
Matt,
Speaking of John Anderson - why do people never bring him up? Because Reagan was over 50% I guess? Did you know that when Anderson entered the race Carter was actually up in the polls? I wonder what would have happened if he had never entered.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with linking to Wikipedia. Statistically-speaking, the vast, vast majority of articles are almost completely correct. There's no reason to not use it. Wikipedia is extremely useful because you can just type in something and get what you want instead of wasting time on a search engine and hoping you find what you want.
Regarding Casual Observer, there's nothing to argue about. The issue is merely that Casual Observer believes that by linking to the Wiki article, Nate is citing that article.
He is not citing that article.
End of story.
@What Todd Tugdale said about the sway of the radical religious right... They aren't as numerous as they like to say they are, but they are organized and can shut down a switchboard with threats and vitriol. They don't feel bad about usurping democratic will, they're on a mission from God. (sounds kinda like Jake Elwood when I say it like that.)
The trouble with pandering to an organized group is you quickly find yourself at their mercy, even (especially?) when you don't agree with them.
I doubt the GOP is ready to give up on them. I take that back. I doubt they're capable. We've seen the way congressmen buckle under the pressure of organized attacks. Once they reverse positions, they're back in good graces. Congressional hostages is what I call them.
@Brian & Brian
SORRY! I said I'd create a new account name, and I am. I'm using this one now. Sorry about that, I didn't see you on here.
[/confusion]
@Brian & Brian
OK, now I'm 10kZebra... done!
The real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state. Look at the Democratic primary for governor in Virginia. The real election for governor will occur next week and maybe a couple of percent of the voters will decide who will be the next governor six months before the inauguration.
Image what is going to happen in 2016 when the successor for President Obama will be decided in the Democratic primaries some time between the Iowa caucuses and the Super Tuesday primary. If the same person wins Iowa and New Hampsire, everyone will know who will be the next president a full year before the inaugural.
Above, I wrote:
With 44 states in '80 and 49 in '84, Reagan must have the record for most states taken in consecutive elections. Even FDR didn't manage 93% of the states in any two straight.
I realize I wasn't counting DC. If you count DC (and why not? It has as many EVs and greater population than some states), Reagan got 93/102, or 91.2%. In '32-'36, FDR got 88/96, or 91.7%. So, on a percentage basis, FDR wins this one.
superdestroyer,
thats how politics in the south worked for years and years and years. The Democratic Primary was for all intense and purposes the actuial election, without a GOP to speak of in the South. In a lot of state Democratic Parties, you had an essentially liberal wing and an essentially conservative wing. The conservative wing tended to win. The difference now is that the conservative wing of the Democratic Party has become the GOP in the South.
And writing off the GOP nationally is the most dangerous game the Democrats can play right about now. (You could make a claim that the US was a one party state in the 30s and 40s, with FDR in the White House and the Dems maintaining a strong advantage in Congress, and across State Houses).
I'd love to see that chart going back to before ther last Party Split during the Civil Rights Era in the sixties.
I believe you can look at specific statements by Lee Atwater to help you decide if Wiki's Southern Strategy description is not neutral.
My feeling is that if you state that your process has you going from shouting ni**er to shouting welfare/crime and state that it is basically a dog whistle, you've loudly proclaimed that the strategy was to use racism for electoral gain.
People on the left don't need to defend this proposition when the architect of Republican electoral strategy just says it out loud.
The demographics is 1 part of the equation. Voter turn out by demographic by state the essential statistical data.
People don't feed the trolls.
Casual Observer is showing systems of a person unable to cope with a loss (his side loss, and America is shifting from his direction). So he is is simply trying to get attention by acting obnoxious. His antics are the equivalent of a teenage girl becoming a slut to get attention form her daddy (unable to tell the difference between negative and positive attention).
Let me repeat myself don't feed the trolls.
markymark wrote:
"And writing off the GOP nationally is the most dangerous game the Democrats can play right about now."
Would you mind clarifying this?
Are you saying that complacency is the danger, or do you see a viable path back for the GOP in 2012?
The GOP chair said it best the other day, and I liberally paraphrase "we have to stay with our current message, but explain it in a fashion that expands our reach."
In other words, they have to spin harder! It's the same with racism: they have to remain the party of white america, but explain to minorities how that is good for them, and in fact is inclusivity !.
So e.g., flooding the media with barely concealed libel that Obama is a Islamic, black racist was just protecting American equality. Get it ?
Honestly, I think that the GOP has simply not figured out that only about 25% of the populace is THAT stupid.
Todd Dugdale,
I mean a bit of both really. The GOP is down at the moment, as down as any political party in America has been in modern times. BUT the GOP is in a position to recover. They have no pressure on them right now, and the party has shown an ability to bounce back. (Remember they were looking pretty down in 1993, though in fairness I think they are up against a more competent politician as President this time around.)
But the Democratic Party also has to be careful of thinking in the same terms the GOP was in 2001 and 2005- permanent majority. Thats not a tag to bestow upon yourself, in fact its not a legitimate term at all. I think that Obama is smart enough to realise that but I worry that maybe some in the blogosphere are resting on there laurels a bit too much.
markymark wrote:
"BUT the GOP is in a position to recover. They have no pressure on them right now, and the party has shown an ability to bounce back."
So all they need is for Obama to engage in oral sex with an intern, then, because that's how they "recovered" before. Calling that "bouncing back" and pointing to it proof of the Party's robust and resilient nature is a bit of a stretch.
Hey, all our political parties, until recently, have been dependent on white voters! The idea that there would be one that wasn't is a new demographic reality - and even the Democrats wouldn't be able to sustain their social liberalism without whites! See Prop 8.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
Post a Comment