Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Temporary Majority - The problem Democrats canít solve.
Weekly Standard ^ | February 18, 2013 | Jay Cost

Posted on 02/10/2013 5:51:39 PM PST by neverdem

A tradition after each national election, presidential or midterm, is for the pundit class to pontificate on whether and how the results point to a realignment. This exercise dates back at least to the publication of The Emerging Republican Majority by Kevin Phillips in 1969, and it continues to this day. Now, of course, the hot topic is the so-called emerging Democratic majority, dominated by young people, nonwhites, and upscale social liberals. Pundits across the political spectrum are offering free advice to the Republican party on how to change its ways lest it face extinction at the hands of this “coalition of the ascendant.”

In 2012’s Lost Majority, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics ably deflates the logic behind realignment theories, arguing that they are a poor way to understand the ebb and flow of electoral politics. More often than not, the game is to highlight evidence that happens to support our theory while overlooking inconvenient data that cut against it.

The conventional view of American political history divides it into periods of partisan dominance: The GOP dominated electoral politics from about 1865 to 1932, the Democrats from 1932 to 1968, and the Republicans again from 1968 to about 2006. This, however, is simplistic. In fact, the periods of genuine dominance have been much briefer: Republicans dominated from about 1894 to 1910, then again from 1918 to 1928; Democrats dominated from 1930 to about 1946, then again from 1960 to 1968.

And even during these briefer periods, caveats abound. The Republicans of the early 20th century were divided along ideological lines, as conservatives battled progressives. The drubbing the GOP took in the 1922 midterm was one of the worst blowouts in history, and hardly consistent with a theory of party dominance. As for the New Deal coalition, it began to fracture as early as 1938, giving way to a “conservative coalition” of Republicans and Southern Democrats who held the balance of power for most of the next generation. And during the Republican majority that was supposed to “emerge” after 1968, it was the Democrats, not the GOP, holding the House of Representatives for the next quarter-century.

And sure enough, the Republican party of 2013 holds more House seats, governorships, and state legislatures combined than it has controlled in a very long time. That is hardly a recipe for irrelevance.

The biggest problem with realignment theories is that they often fail to extend their analysis much beyond demographic characteristics, and so implicitly assume that people vote, robot-like, according to the color of their skin, age, geography, or religion. They thus fail to anticipate change. A demographic-based theory of electoral alignment formulated in 1961 (after John F. Kennedy won more than 70 percent of the Catholic vote) would have had no capacity to anticipate the sea-change among Catholics that began as early as 1968 and continues to this day.

When we look beyond demographic characteristics, we discover that majority coalitions inevitably depend on how well the party they empower governs. If that party does a good job, it will hold the coalition together, at least for a while. If it governs poorly, the other party is in prime position to poach a critical mass of voters. And since the 1830s, no issue has mattered more to the question of “Who governs?” than the performance of the economy.

Each of the past periods of party dominance, such as it was, began because the other party had failed to govern, and ended when the new majority party could govern effectively no more. The economy was central in each instance. The Panic of 1893 ushered in the GOP, and the Panic of 1907—combined with rampant corruption and inability to enact sensible tariff laws—ushered it out starting in 1910. The social and economic tumult after World War I brought the Republicans back to power, and the Great Depression swept them out once again. The Great Depression ushered the Democrats into a majority, and the postwar labor strikes ended their grip on power.

The central question for any majority party is can it govern well, especially on the economy? From this perspective, it is clear that neither party has the edge moving forward. Over the last 12 years, economic growth has been stagnant, and neither party has proven itself capable of turning things around.

For the 55 years following World War II, the American economy grew like gangbusters. Real GDP growth averaged 3.6 percent per year, and it was this fantastic expansion that created the modern middle class. However, since the recession of 2001, the economy has been in stall speed, more or less. Growth has averaged just 1.6 percent since then, and real incomes have stagnated as paychecks have not kept pace with the rising cost of health care, education, and energy.

This state of affairs shows no signs of change. Indeed, the most recent GDP number is inconsistent with where the economy should be at this point in the business cycle. We should be hitting 3 percent growth or higher, not saddled with a modest contraction. And let us not forget the second-order effects that such weak growth has on our politics. Without growth, there is no way for the United States to meet its social welfare obligations, which has in turn sparked the extremely divisive and unpredictable battle over the budget deficit.

If the Democratic party cannot bring about improvement in the economic numbers, it will not retain control of political power. It is as simple as that. No enduring majority coalition has been able to hang on to power for very long amid such widespread disappointment over the economy. And the warning signs are already there for the Democrats, if they care to look: The historically small numbers of Democrats in the House of Representatives, governorships, and state legislatures, plus the fact President Obama won fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, are all signals that public patience with the party has its limits.

What’s more, the Democratic coalition is bound to have trouble doing what is necessary to grow the economy. The party of the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s was a party of farmers and industrial laborers who depended on private-sector economic growth, so the Democrats of that era focused their efforts accordingly. But today’s Democratic party has many powerful constituents within it who are isolated from the ebbs and flows of the private economy. Upscale social liberals in the Northeast and Pacific Coast are so well off that they are basically recession-proof. And, what’s more, the position of the farmer-industrial working class has been usurped by unionized government workers and far-left gray-collar labor unions like the SEIU, which are more interested in expanding government than the economy.

All of this raises the key question: Can the Democrats keep these groups happy and grow the economy? The evidence to date suggests the answer is no. Witness the Democratic opposition to opening up domestic energy production, which would have been a no-brainer 50 years ago. Witness the party’s stimulus bill of 2009, which focused more on political patronage than economic growth. Witness the party’s continued efforts to push for a cap and trade system, which would kneecap economic growth. And above all, witness Obamacare, a vast regulatory system that saddles businesses with even more burdens. The Democrats have proposed all of these things since 2009, when they were voted into office to jump-start the economy.

Looking back over the last decade, it is hard to conclude that American politics looks as it did in the first decade of the 1900s or the 1930s, when one party had a decisive advantage. Instead, it looks much more like the period from 1876 to 1894, or 1966 to 1982. These were times of great social and economic tumult. The public responded back then much as it has recently, changing the partisan composition of government time and again in the hope of finding some combination of leaders who can manage the affairs of state.

As long as so many in the country are so deeply dissatisfied with the state of the union, neither party’s position is secure. And it is an open question whether the Democrats of 2013 even have the capacity to address our most pressing problem, continued economic weakness.

Jay Cost is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: brilliant; demographics; economics; economy; immigration; immigrationreform; itstheeconomystupid; jaycost; realignment; seantrende; unions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 02/10/2013 5:51:44 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Amnesty will guarantee the democrats win most national and state level elections for the next three generations.
2 posted on 02/10/2013 6:01:30 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We shall see. If they take a poll in the Fall of 2016 and a majority of the voters are still blaming Bush for the sour economy, then the Pubbies are sunk once again. And I won’t rule that possibility out. The Dem faithful have an endless capacity to swallow bovine fecal matter thrown at them from their Dem leaders.


3 posted on 02/10/2013 6:06:07 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oh, I’ve no doubt the Pubs will rise again. But the difference this time is that when the Dems go out, they’re going to take the country and its economy with them. The sad fact is that we’ve reached the tipping point where the idiots will keep electing the Santas that promise free stuff. At least until the point is driven home to them that in the end, there IS no free stuff, only stuff that exacts a price somewhere else in the economy. Before that happens, there will be economic upheaval and social disruption on a scale no one has seen in his lifetime, perhaps ever. It cannot be predicted just what will happen, or what type of shell the Pubs will be taking over, or just what can be done to set it back on course. Depends, I suppose, on whether after all the conflict and disruption, the entitlement society still feels entitled and continues to act on that. If so, there will be no stability until one group, either the entitled or the productive, are effectively neutralized.


4 posted on 02/10/2013 6:09:52 PM PST by Emile (Leftists are so 'open-minded', their brains have fallen out. -- (HT to GOPJ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

They don’t seem to be having much of a problem holding on to power in North Korea.

I submit that the NK economy is somewhat worse that the US economy.

The author apparently has never heard of vote fraud either.


5 posted on 02/10/2013 6:11:45 PM PST by null and void (Gun confiscation enables tyranny. Don't enable tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This fellow makes a pretty good historical case, but we have one condition today that is different and relevant. The Latino population in the USA is far larger and growing rapidly and there is no proof or record that they will ever vote republican in large numbers. I think this trumps the author’s position and clearly predicts the near (5-10 years) future.


6 posted on 02/10/2013 6:12:39 PM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

We are definitely swimming against the tide.

Every year 2.5 million (mostly old, white, 60%+ R voting) people die replaced by (mostly minority 70%+ D voting) people.

Two generations of progressive controlled education and the influx of illegals may be too much to overcome.


7 posted on 02/10/2013 6:16:42 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

As if I am interested in taking advice from people on the left who “want to help me win elections.”


8 posted on 02/10/2013 6:21:47 PM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
What always happens in a bimodal saddle situation (which is forced by the cold, hard facts of the single member district) is new coalition partners are found within the ranks of the other pole of the equation who are tired of not getting any of their guys into the top slots in the party elections.

Remember it takes 50%+1 vote to win! People don't care to be losers, nor do they care to be a little cog in a big machine that never lets any of them get to pull the levers of power.

It's virtually impossible to get so many voters to support your cause that the other side totally disappears.

9 posted on 02/10/2013 6:23:01 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

That and control of the media, which is a huge advantage in every election, especially the Presidential ones.


10 posted on 02/10/2013 6:23:35 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think this is historically fairly accurate, but to put it into Pol Pot terms, history is quite possibly being rewritten before our eyes. If indeed the Dems have successfully mixed up their sordid soup of underinformed, perpetually dependent “gimme” voters, while ginning up hatred against the evil rich white folks who put the country into whatever state is the gripe of the week, then this could go on for a long time. Who knows, it could still be GWB’s fault 20 years from now. I can’t predict, and I know that almost nobody else can, either.

Yeah, it’s the economy, but more specifically, the *perception* of the economy. The economy of redistributing astronomical riches so unjustly snaked away from those deserving it the most...the poor...the underserved, the recent immigrant class...then the abstract appeal of freedom and the ideals of independence will dry up, wilt, and become cute little remnants of a once-great country in the shadow of the coolness of Beyonce.


11 posted on 02/10/2013 6:25:06 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (This stuff we're going through now, this is nothing compared to the middle ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
-- This fellow makes a pretty good historical case, but we have one condition today that is different and relevant. --

I was thinking that the primary difference, today, is that "the economy" is different for the takers, who vote for the government givers (the DEMs).

"The economy," for that voter, is not whether or not a job is coming, or a rising tide floats all boats. That voter is self centered, and is sensitive to promises form more handouts, better care, etc. As long as the DEMs can blame the GOP for failing to handout, the takers will rule.

This was predicted long ago, and is a historically repeating pattern. It is the reason democracies always always always fail.

12 posted on 02/10/2013 6:28:46 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Reagan won two elections in an era where the dems had the media and there was no other media.


13 posted on 02/10/2013 6:31:19 PM PST by Perdogg (Mark Levin - It's called the Bill of Rights not Bill of Needs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Weekly Standard’ is an EXTEME RINO/GOP-e “Publication”!


14 posted on 02/10/2013 6:32:39 PM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Gilbo_3; NFHale; Impy; AuntB; stephenjohnbanker; ...
RE :”All of this raises the key question: Can the Democrats keep these groups happy and grow the economy? The evidence to date suggests the answer is no. Witness the Democratic opposition to opening up domestic energy production, which would have been a no-brainer 50 years ago. Witness the party’s stimulus bill of 2009, which focused more on political patronage than economic growth. Witness the party’s continued efforts to push for a cap and trade system, which would kneecap economic growth. And above all, witness Obamacare, a vast regulatory system that saddles businesses with even more burdens. The Democrats have proposed all of these things since 2009, when they were voted into office to jump-start the economy.”

Obama needed a GOP controlled House to get re-elected.
Democrats can continue to push the freebees because they can always blame the bad economy and the deficits on the GOP House.
In 2010 they couldn't get away with that.
Or in 1994.

‘Obama cares for me and is trying to fix things. That's all that counts’

15 posted on 02/10/2013 6:54:28 PM PST by sickoflibs (Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

However, consider that if Europe continues its slide into the abyss, we may have an influx of immigrants from Greece, Italy, Spain, and Ireland. The balance of power may shift again if we can get our messaging right.


16 posted on 02/10/2013 7:00:37 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The fellows making all those predictions didn't have much knowledge of democracies ~ at that time. They didn't know if they failed ~ in fact, in their consideration of democratic process they imagined a permanent majority would pop into existence and begin looting the republic.

Actually, the single member district and it's 50%+1 long term winning standard pretty much eliminates that problem. Alas for the Founders, they didn't have much knowledge of democracy so they blew it. In fact they thought men of property and education would always elect good men to office so they didn't really think that far ahead to the time when there'd be no slaves, and everybody could read and write.

17 posted on 02/10/2013 7:03:17 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

I hope you’re right.


18 posted on 02/10/2013 7:07:54 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: umgud; nascarnation
The Latino population in the USA is far larger and growing rapidly...

Not according to the author of this piece, Jonathan V. Last, which is linkrd below. Last also said on C-Span's BookTV last week that the fertility of Latinas in the USA is also dropping fast.

Fertility and immigration: Global demographics, not domestic policy, will control who comes and who goes.

The result is that from 2005 to 2010, the U.S. received a net of zero immigrants from Mexico...

Michael Barone also wrote within the last year that net migration from Mexico was zero. It's our booming economy, not. The number coming is the same as the number going home. IIRC, Mexico's annual GDP is about 5 %.

19 posted on 02/10/2013 7:14:53 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I’ve seen those stats also. Not sure of the validity, but certainly possible.

One example here in the midwest was that many non-union construction jobs (largely single family home construction and repair) were held by Mexicans, and most of that work is gone.


20 posted on 02/10/2013 7:17:58 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Maine Mariner
As if I am interested in taking advice from people on the left who “want to help me win elections.”

Are you sure that you're on the right thread?

21 posted on 02/10/2013 7:22:12 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Reagan won two elections in an era where the dems had the media and there was no other media.

Reagan's elections took place during the infancy of cable television (my parents didn't yet have cable in 1980; I think it was available in their neighborhood in 1983). CNN was equally young; the paradigm of 24/7/365 news-as-entertainment had yet to really get rolling.

There were also some journalists (print and broadcast) who were still relatively objective and not outright leftist shills. Likewise, there was also limited political discourse "online" via the BBS networks. From what I recall, it was even more staunchly conservative than this little corner of the internet.

Back when the news was delivered in small doses by independently-owned newspapers and by local broadcast radio and television, it was tougher for the left to work their propaganda evil. Things were beginning to change in 1980, but Reagan certainly benefitted from the lingering influence of the old system.

22 posted on 02/10/2013 7:22:55 PM PST by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

All that as to be one is to change the Republicans image to the new fresher younger cooler “thing” with young responsible attractive smart conservative family people while demonizing the young naieve irresponsible party or what they really are. It will take some time and effort to do but eventually the liberal atheist “thing” will die own as we see the fruit of their bad decisions and the fallout thereof. People just don’t get “it” until they go through trying times and hardships...


23 posted on 02/10/2013 7:24:31 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
All of this raises the key question: Can the Democrats keep these groups happy and grow the economy?

IMHO YES - we have gone over the cliff just by sheer numbers on the dole and the lack of requirements for the the "taker class" to pay federal income taxes.











GRANT ILLEGAL ALIENS the right to vote and we are never turning back. If the instant granting of voting rights doesn't swamp the boat, the chain migration that follows surely will. UNLESS THE GOP FINDS IT'S GOD GIVEN SPINE AND DOES IT'S OBSTRUCTION JOB, IT IS OVER.
24 posted on 02/10/2013 7:26:42 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I agree the economy has had a big affect on in-migration, but that is temporary (I hope).


25 posted on 02/10/2013 7:28:24 PM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

All that as to be done is to change the Republicans image to the new fresher younger cooler “thing” with young responsible attractive smart conservative family people while demonizing the young naieve irresponsible party for what they really are. It will take some time and effort to do but eventually the liberal atheist “thing” will die down as we see the fruit of their bad decisions and the fallout thereof. People just don’t get “it” until they go through trying times and hardships...


26 posted on 02/10/2013 7:29:17 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

All that as to be done is to change the Republicans image to the new fresher younger cooler “thing” with young responsible attractive smart conservative family people while demonizing the young naieve irresponsible party for what they really are. It will take some time and effort to do but eventually the liberal atheist “thing” will die down as we see the fruit of their bad decisions and the fallout thereof. People just don’t get “it” until they go through trying times and hardships...


27 posted on 02/10/2013 7:32:35 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Unless Republican can recruit conservative minded voters, and run candidates who will inspire them to vote, we are going to end up with a permanent Democrat majority. The kind of voter demographic swings that have happened in the past aren’t in the cards for the future. The millions of Republicans who sat out the last election, or the people who think a third party is the cure, might have sealed the political future of this country with the last election.


28 posted on 02/10/2013 7:33:10 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
‘Obama cares for me and is trying to fix things. That's all that counts’

He's made it worse!

29 posted on 02/10/2013 7:35:40 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: null and void
They don’t seem to be having much of a problem holding on to power in North Korea.

Or Detroit, etc.

30 posted on 02/10/2013 7:36:29 PM PST by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The article says the democrats can’t keep groups happy in a bad economy.

They just have to keep them angry. Blacks are doing terribly under democrat rule, yet they vote almost 100% dem. It’s racial politics.


31 posted on 02/10/2013 7:49:38 PM PST by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks neverdem. G’night all!


32 posted on 02/10/2013 8:22:25 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: skeeter

That Cuban jerk needs to back off!


33 posted on 02/10/2013 8:55:06 PM PST by STD ( Intellectuals, they seem like a wrecking crew, dismantling civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The last 60 years has been simply a case of Republicans, when in Government, working to pay for Democrats expansion of Government.

That model is broken.

I want the non-Democrat party to instead work on truly crashing the Government and its dependents, before they turn the USA into Bolivia.


34 posted on 02/10/2013 9:16:58 PM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Either this guy is a dreamer or he is on some sort of hallucinogenic substance.

Normal electoral politics which had contributed, generally, to the historic "in and out" trends no longer exists.

The strangle hold of this pernicious tyranny that now permanently holds this Nation in it's grip will preclude any "in and out" not engineered by our marxist rulers and supported by the Soviet-likeclass of government bureaucrats.

Just as has happened historically elsewhere on the planet, "in and out" has now become "in and stay in".

35 posted on 02/10/2013 9:46:52 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

“We are definitely swimming against the tide.
Every year 2.5 million (mostly old, white, 60%+ R voting) people die replaced by (mostly minority 70%+ D voting) people.
Two generations of progressive controlled education and the influx of illegals may be too much to overcome.”

The Repbublicans aren’t even a “national party” any more. They’re in the process of “shrinking” into a regional party, with certain areas of the country lost to them forever.

The Northeast, the Great Lakes states, the west coast, the middle-Atlantic region — all of these are either slipping from the Pubbies’ grasp, or already gone for good.

Although the Republicans will remain at the helm of many red-state governments, it doesn’t look good for them to seize the reins of power in D.C. any time soon. If ever….


36 posted on 02/10/2013 10:08:02 PM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

You can reach further back into history for the demise of this “democracy” (actually, a democratic republic) to the direct election of senators.

I noticed that a congressman pointed out this week that many voters aren’t “invested” in America.

I don’t think property ownership and/or a voter test are in and of themselves outrageous ideas. There is no other aspect of society where “everyone is equal” EXCEPT for voting.


37 posted on 02/10/2013 10:20:47 PM PST by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide
The Northeast, the Great Lakes states, the west coast, the middle-Atlantic region — all of these are either slipping from the Pubbies’ grasp, or already gone for good.

You mean all the places in the country that are losing population, representation in the House of Representatives, and in the Electoral College?

Then by all means, lock the GOP out of those areas for the next couple of decades.

Stagnation itself will have the remaining people there looking for an alternative. The only thing that alternative has to do is ask the question, "Are you better off today than you were when the Democrats took over here?"

38 posted on 02/10/2013 11:54:57 PM PST by superloser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Re: “Reagan won two elections in an era where the dems had the media...”

Yes, but only half right.

Reagan also had 83% white voters, 11% Black voters, 2% Hispanic voters, and very low minority voter turn out.

Today, those numbers are 63% white voters, 17% Hispanic, 13% Black, with minority turn out that is high and growing.

Conservatives are usually stunned when they learn that Reagan would have LOST his 1980 election if the racial and ethnic make up of the USA had been the same as 2012.

39 posted on 02/11/2013 1:31:07 AM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
Re: “fresher younger cooler voters”

Few people realize that Romney won a majority of young white voters under age 30, both men and women.

The problem for Conservatives is young minority voters.

For instance, young Black women voted 99% for Obama!

Even worse, in terms of population, young minority voters almost split 50-50 with young white voters.

White Conservative elderly voters are dying off.

They are being replaced by Hard Line Socialist minority voters.

40 posted on 02/11/2013 2:01:48 AM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

“That and control of the media, which is a huge advantage in every election, especially the Presidential ones.”

Control of the media is why Hispanics, blacks, and gullible whites vote Dem anyway; control of the media is EVERYTHING. When you can convince people that this economic depression is actually a recovery, then you can never lose.


41 posted on 02/11/2013 3:54:15 AM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
PARA-MILITARY OBAMA DEMOCRATS ARE ON THE MARCH ---- A SAD RELIC OF THE CIVIL WAR Once they get a little power---the Dems go nuts.

STROLL DOWN MEMORY LANE Post-Civil War Northern carpetbaggers were prominent in Southern politics until 1875, but nearly all left under pressure from white paramilitary organizations----then-described as "the military arm of the Democratic Party"-----working openly to violently overthrow Republican rule, using intimidation and assassination to turn Republicans out of office and suppress free former-slaves from voting.

The Republican sheriff of Yazoo, Mississippi, received a brief flurry of national attention when insurgent white Democrats took over the county government and forced him to flee. (WIKI)

================================================

FREEPER ACTION MEMO In 1875, Hiram Revels, a Mississippi Republican--and the first African-American US Senator--wrote to then-Pres Ulysses S. Grant denouncing Northern invaders into the post-Civil War south for manipulating the Black vote for personal benefit, and for keeping alive wartime hatreds. (WIKI)

We need to get someone with integrity----like Cong Allen West (not reelected)----- to write letters to his colleagues, and to the media.

Cong West needs to do the following:

(1) decry the agitation and intimidation tactics being used by para-military Democrats,

(2) expose hatemongering being used for personal gain,

(3) emphasize the illegalities WRT threatening free people and businesses, and,

(4) precpitate investigations into Democrat tactics; using govt authority and govt resources fraudulently.

42 posted on 02/11/2013 3:58:43 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“If the Democratic party cannot bring about improvement in the economic numbers, it will not retain control of political power. It is as simple as that.”

No, all that means is that they will not retain control of political power through the strength of the economy. They will have to find some other way.

What is simple is this: if you can’t persuade people to vote FOR you then you at least have to get people not to vote AGAINST you.


43 posted on 02/11/2013 4:13:12 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Amnesty will guarantee the democrats win most national and state level elections for the next three generations.


Elections? Three generations?

Who thinks there are going to be elections in our country as soon as 2016? I don’t.

Amnesty guarantees all elections (if you want to call it that) in the future will be won by the Democrat party. The Democrats pander to the ignorant and the takers and now they will far outnumber truly responsible and producing yellow and whites in our country. Note: by “producing” I don’t mean welfare babies.

I knew that in the near future America would become a socialist (or totalitarian) state but I never thought that it would happen in my lifetime. I’m 66. Now, it’s a definite reality!

The barbarians are not at the gate any longer. The liberals have opened the gate and they are swarming in and have been since “operation wetback” was ended in the 50’s.


44 posted on 02/11/2013 4:30:03 AM PST by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If the Democratic party cannot bring about improvement in the economic numbers, it will not retain control of political power. It is as simple as that. No enduring majority coalition has been able to hang on to power for very long amid such widespread disappointment over the economy.

Institutionalized, computer-run vote fraud has now changed this dynamic.

If the statement was still true, 2012 would have seen a wholesale rejection of Barack Obama.

Until vote fraud, open primaries, and voter ID are dealt with, the Democrats will, with the help of a blocking media running interference for them,continue to remain in power over a dumbed down populace.

45 posted on 02/11/2013 4:35:50 AM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

“They don’t seem to be having much of a problem holding on to power in North Korea.”

Maybe that’s why Progressives want to take guns and destroy Christianity; they want to establish a stranglehold on power in a soviet-style government.

IMHO


46 posted on 02/11/2013 4:51:44 AM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Amnesty will be trumped by the disgusted business community that will end the calamity.

The law suit brought by DOJ against S&P is evidence of fear. S&P has the capacity to destroy Obama by another down grade. The law suit is a paltry defensive action to thwart the threat.


47 posted on 02/11/2013 4:52:55 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

‘property’ always meant SLAVES in American parlance. i can find plenty wrong with that.


48 posted on 02/11/2013 5:27:49 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
in general federal income taxes must be considered to be just another failed government program.

Our experience over the last century they've been in effect is that America has gone from a free nation to a not so free nation.

We must abolish the federal income tax system if only to eliminate fomenting class warfare over it.

49 posted on 02/11/2013 5:38:13 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/ ~ although this is an Annenberg thing, and therefore produced by extreme far leftwing fanatics, the numbers are darned close to all the other sources on the question of when black voters became democrats and what percentage off them vote for democrats. it runs up to 2004 ~ which leaves us two subsequent obama ‘lections to consider. First ‘bama ‘lection gave him 98% of the black vote ~ according to this source. The Second ‘bama ‘lection fell off by several million votes. Actually, it fell of quite a bit ~ possibly as much as back to Nixon days which is why it’s not much discussed. What you will see is this business of EXIT POLLING, which is not terribly well grounded statistically speaking, being trotted out where its result support somebody’s narrow analysis. We should move boldly into ratcheting up the black Republican vote through the expedient of getting 30% of current black voters reregistered as Republicans.


50 posted on 02/11/2013 5:55:55 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson