Communists Seize Control of Louisiana-06

by publius

The bitter Marxists in Louisiana, House District 6, voted in a Democrat yesterday in a district that went solidly for Bush (59%). I haven't been following it closely, but it had the potential to create further headaches for Obama. Jenkins, the Republican, appeared to be closing strong by tying Cazayoux with Obama and his leading vice-presidential candidate, Jeremiah Wright. Thus, if Jenkins had come back and won on Wright's shoulders, it would have understandably led to a bunch of unhelpful headlines for Obama.

But Cazayoux held on. Frankly, I'm not sure it illustrates anything one way or the other regarding Obama, even if Jenkins had won. This is a conservative, Deep South district, and it's simply not the type of district that Obama -- or any national Democrat -- can win.

It is, however, big news in terms of the congressional races. The Republicans are going to be playing a lot of defense come this fall. One would think that a defeat here would lead to some introspection on the GOP's part. If we've lost LA-06... But I doubt it.

Again, this district is very conservative, so it's important not to extrapolate too much. But from a long-term perspective, the Iraq War is killing the Republican Party. It largely cost them healthy majorities in 2006. It's leading young voters to abandon the party in droves (setting up long-term electoral defeats). And it's likely to cost them the White House and reduce their congressional numbers in 2008. At some point, you would think they would disassociate themselves out of self-interest. But most refuse to do so, likely because of a combination of national party leverage and primary politics (i.e., the median Republican voter is still gung-ho). Whatever the cause, war support is driving the party off a cliff. Opinion goes up and down in the short-term, but the long-term pattern is clear.

And that's why oppositional politics is important, even when it fails. Yes, Pelosi and Reid didn't shut down funding, but they have -- over the long-term -- created a favorable political environment with sharp distinctions. Winning at the ballot box will end the war -- nothing else will.

UPDATE: Chris Cillizza provides more context. In particular, he explains that Jenkins was a very poor candidate. That's true -- we shouldn't read too much into his individual race. But that said, fielding bad candidates is itself a function of the political environment. When the mood is anti-GOP (which it is), then higher-quality candidates hesitate to jump in.

Comments

[Incertus]

Cazayoux will also have the advantage in that under Pelosi, he's not likely to face votes on stupid issues like flag burning amendments or abortion, etc., the sort of things that the Republican leadership liked to throw at Democrats in red districts when they were in charge. Good for him.

I had the pleasure of voting against Woody Jenkins in the first statewide election I ever took part in, when he lost in a nailbiter to Mary Landrieu, and I believe that was the loss that really started his downward slide.

[Ben Alpers]

In explaining GOP intransigence on Iraq, don't forget the still deep, and even bipartisan, support for the war among the nation's policy elites. The unwillingness of the Democratic Congressional leadership to even consider defunding speaks volumes about the depth of commitment to the Iraq War and other similar, future projections of military power. While the American people have sensibly rejected the entire venture and want our troops home, too many of our leaders think it's merely been mishandled in the details.

The most salient division on Iraq is between the people and the policymakers of both parties, not between the Republican and Democratic Parties as such.

[CharleyCarp]

1. I'd be careful about extrapolating very far on anything. The Republicans certainly looked doomed for all time in 1974. Will Iran save them again?

2. I'd also separate reluctance to take the very extreme measure of defunding from "support" for the war. Policymakers can reasonably conclude that they can't force a reasonable withdrawal on the Executive (and there are military issues wrt speed) any faster than they can hope to capture the branch. This was the main point of the Surge, which is why one has to say that it was a complete success: without the Surge, we'd be on the way out under Baker-Hamilton. As it is, though, it bought enough time to make waiting for the election the default position.

[superdestroyer]

It has been more than Iraq that has destroyed the Republican Party. The Bush Administraiton seems to go out of its way to look incompetent.

The two real question is what will politics be like in the U.S. in the coming one party state. Given that less than 50% of kindergarten students are white, the Republicans have no chance for long term survival.

Also, how will people act in a one party state with one dominate political party and the only meaningful elections being the Democratic Primary. If the Democrats keep supporting gerrymandered congressional districts and support easy voters fraud, there will probably be few competative elections in the U.S. So what will politics be like in a one party state where little to nothing is change during an election cycle?

[Hartmut]

I'll try to overlook the usual cliches in superdestroyer's post and try to treat is as a serious question.
1. Parties are not static. When they are out of power for the forseeable future, they will go to introspection and reform.
2. If a party does not survive being out of power there will be new party taking its place sooner or later (where do you think the GOP came from?).
3. Inevitable corruption in the ruling party will effectively (over time) help the rise of the new or reformed party.
---
Less neutral:
1. the idea of the (current) Democratic party as a fascist/communist stand-in ruling the US with an iron fist and clobbering the patriots is a wee bit on the silly side.
2. On the other hand I have no problems to see the GOP in the same role and GOP party strategists have neither, see the movement for a "permanent GOP majority". Just remember the boasting that one would use that to reeducate the people, so voting D would not be seen as acceptable behaviour ever again.
3. I always hear (from the right) that the Dems are a bunch of effeminate weaklings that can't even maintain proper party discipline (i.e. lockstepping with harsh punishments for even perceived wavering). And now they want us to believe that a Dem totalitarian regime is just around the corner and that endorsing a radicalizing GOP is the only way to avoid that?
---
My prediction:
Should the Dem nominee become president (and I predict that it will go up to the SCOTUS again because the GOP will not accept any such result) (s)he and his/her party will loose popularity rapidly because of what they will have to do to clear up the mess left for them by their predecessor(s). They will be blamed 24/7/365.25 as the persons that caused the disaster, not as those that try to keep the ship from capsizing. Past experience leads me to the assumption that this smear will work perfectly and the Dems will be out of power in Congress in 2010 and out of the WH in 2012 (or earlier, if the to be expected impeachment proceedings succeed).
And, pessimist and cynic that I am, I doubt that a Dem majority + WH will really put all effort into cleaning up the mess. Dem congressbeings are as addicted to pork and even more averse to risk as/than their GOP counterparts.

[CharleyCarp]

I don't agree with the prediction, Hartmut. The GOP is going to need more retooling this time than it did in 1976 or 1992. I'm not talking about a generational thing though -- even if the 2012 presidential isn't a squeaker, I'd expect the 2016 to be close, for the reason you give: a party out of power can be more adept at adjusting to changes in reality.

I doubt the Supreme Court will make the mistake of getting into a presidential election, absent a compelling (and legitimate) federal claim, again in my lifetime. They thought they'd be greeted as liberators. Even supporters of the President, except the most partisan-blind, recognize the weakness in the EP claims in BvG.

[superdestroyer]

hartmut, If you look at places like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc, you will see that incompetent goverence, corruption, and failures do little to lessen the support of minorities for the Democratic Party. As the U.S. becomes demographically more like LA or Baltimore, the Democratic Party will have a lock on power.

Also, past historical comparisons are of limited values. When the federal government consumes 25% of the national ecnomy and procudures 10,000's of regulations each year, no group can afford to be out of power for even a short time.

As the Republican Party collapses, more groups will have to move into the Democratic Party primary to have any influence on government.

And last, can you really see blacks or Hispanics ever voting for Republicans or ever supporting conservatives politicians.

Why would the U.S. need two political parties that both support open borders, big spending, and an intrusive government. One is all that the voters need.

Image what will happen in 2116 when the Democratic Primary for president will be the real election and that the next president will be in transition from March 2116 to Janaury 2117.

[John]

And last, can you really see blacks or Hispanics ever voting for Republicans or ever supporting conservatives politicians.

Hispanics, certainly.

And municipal politics is different from national politics. The fact that Republicans don't do well in municipal elections in majority black cities, in a context where the national Republican party is deeply unfriendly to African Americans, says little about how a reformed Republican party will do in a majority minority United States.

But if you look at California, New Mexico, and Hawaii, the three majority minority states, you see that Republicans are doing perfectly well - California and Hawaii both have Republican governors; Bush won New Mexico in 2004. If you look at cities that are majority minority but in which most of the minorities are not African American, you see Republicans sometimes do reasonably well - New York has elected a Republican mayor in every election since 1993. Los Angeles also had a Republican mayor for much of the 90s (Riordan).

Hell, even Philadelphia almost elected Sam Katz as mayor in 1999, in a very racially polarized election, and that's a city without particularly large Hispanic or Asian populations.

[superdestroyer]

John,

It is hard to consider the republican Party viable in Hawaii when they have only four out of 25 state Senate Seats. Also, the Republicans in the California State House are only relevant because the rules were written to make them relevant as a minority party. As soon as a few more are redistricted out of office, the Replublicans in California will be irrelevant

To call Bloomberg a Republican is misleading. He was a Democrat who ran in the Republican Primary because he could not win the Democratic Primary.

Do you really think that a Democratic group with a 50% out of wedlock birthrate will ever vote for the more conservative party. Over 90% of elected Hispanics are Democrats. Take out the Cubans and elected Hispanics are almost 100% Democratic. There is no strategy, no issue, and no plan that will ever get a majority of Hispanics to vote for the more conservative party.

[Ha]

If you look at the Democratic party now, you can see a split forming between the conservative and progressive members. IF the Republican party doesn't reform by 2016, I'm pretty sure the Dems will split and we will still have a 2-party system.

[allmaya]

John, Texas has been a majority minority state for a few years now.

Harris County will probably follow Dallas County in this year's local elections in a wholesale switch from "R" to "D".

BTW, this makes electing judges by party affiliation especially stupid.

[Hartmut]

The GOP is handicapped in wooing the Hispanic vote because in order to keep the white trash vote that they need, they have to demonize them. Also because of their need for the evangelical vote they can't fully appeal to the (rather conservative) catholicism of the Hispanics. What do you bet that they will not drop these two groups once there is more to get by pandering to the faster growing brownies (that would also please business)?*
I agree with Ha, that an imploding GOP would only result in a split Democartic party. The conservative Dems would effectively (though not officially) fuse with the remnants of the ex-GOP and the cycle would restart.

*I realize of course that would be as horrible a scenario as a lasting Dem majority to (parts of) the current GOP voting cattle.

[felix culpa]

will ever vote for the more conservative party

Oh come on, super; which party has torpedoed the Department of Justice and displayed widespread corruption among its political appointees?
Which party has declared itself as intentionally radical?
Which party has consistently spat in the face of any laws that constitutionally restrained them?
Which party has indulged in blatant efforts to block the electoral process (most conspicuously of late in Alabama)?
You really oughta pick another pony for your merry-go-round thinking.

[redwood]

reading this post, I started to think that the Republicans have made so money over the last 7 years, have turned the clock back on democracy so far, that they can afford to lose a few election cycles.

[superdestroyer]

The idea that the Democratic Party would split is laughable. A progressive party would be as white as the current Republican Party. No group wanting to remain relevant in politics can afford to walk away from the black and Hispanic blocks. In the end, the real fights will occur in the Democratic Primary.

One could speculate in what will happen to the Democratic Party after the former Republican voters start voting in the Democratic Primary.

Also, how will having only one relevant political party affect redistricting efforts. Will the Democrats put as much effort into maintain districts that are safe for radical black politicians when there is no Republican Party to worry about?

[trilobite]

The idea that the Democratic Party would split is laughable.

Not necessarily split as such. The Republicans will re-tool somewhat, and the more authoritarian, nativist, and otherwise disaffected Dems will join it. The effect is the same as if the party split. This is basically what happened after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Same sort of change happened in the other direction during the Great Depression.

[felix culpa]

Nice work, super. Yer a real mind-boggler.

You are so out there.

It’s not at all clear, at least to me, what sort of extraterrestrial entity you might be.
I humbly suggest, if your home planet (assuming you live on one) is somewhere in the intra-galactic neighborhood, you visit this planet long enough to get a clearer idea, not so lost in speculative fantasy, of what the constituents of existence are here where the bloggers and most of the commenters on Obsidian Wings live.

We clearly have our differences, but I hereby nominate you to be our new King of Different.

[superdestroyer]

Trilobite, You seem to making the argument that the Republicans can remain relevant by getting a higher percentage of the white vote. At least that is a greater possiblity than the Republicans ever being able to appeal to the black or Hispanic vote.

However, the authoritarin and nativist vote would probably be offset by the republicans losing the last of the libertarian vote. And thus, no higher percentage of the white vote.

Comparisons to previous generations do not make any sense since the non-white vote was so insignificant. In the future, the Democratic party will all of the non-white voting blocks along with whatever groups of whites who feel they can achieve their goals with such a set up.

[Gary Farber]

"The two real question is what will politics be like in the U.S. in the coming one party state."

You've made this claim a number of times before, but I don't recall you ever explaining why, in fact, if one party (the Republicans, you suggest) were to start consistently failing or falling apart, the other party wouldn't simply do what always happens in such cases: split into two or more factions that become separate parties.

Similarly, in 1860, one could predict that the Democrats were so fractionated and such failures that the U.S. clearly was doomed to become a one-party state of the Republican Party: so how come, according to your theory, that didn't happen?

And what will keep people locked into one party, exactly?

"As the U.S. becomes demographically more like LA or Baltimore, the Democratic Party will have a lock on power."

And thus the U.S. becomes more like New York City, unable to elect an executive not from the Democratic Party.

"The idea that the Democratic Party would split is laughable."

Sure. It's never happened, and can never happen again.

Why?

"Trilobite, You seem to making the argument that the Republicans can remain relevant by getting a higher percentage of the white vote. At least that is a greater possiblity than the Republicans ever being able to appeal to the black or Hispanic vote."

So your argument is that people belonging to certain groups will homogenously and monolithically vote for a certain party forever, and their descendants will also so continue on forever?

What evidence do you present to demonstrate that there will be such a consistent "black" or "Hispanic" vote in 2116? Why do you believe that people will primarily identify themselves as such, and vote on the basis of such an identity?

And how do you figure the Extropian vote fitting in?

"In the future, the Democratic party will all of the non-white voting blocks along with whatever groups of whites who feel they can achieve their goals with such a set up."

So we're forever going to be stuck believing 18th century pseudo-scientists about non-existent "races"? Why?

[superdestroyer]

Gary,

Maybe you should look at the 95% of the black vote going for Obama. If Hillary Clinton cannot appeal to black voters, what hope does a Republican candidate every have.

Most people seem to believe that the Republican party just needs to become some sort of Democratic-lite party to survive. However, does the U.S. really need two big spending, pork barreling parties. If Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc are any indication, NO.

Most blacks have probably never voted for a Republicans and a person's or ethnicity is a better indicator of voting patterns for all but European whites. Thus, whites are the only real swing voters. And as they become a smaller portion of the population, there just will not be enough swing voters to allow the Republicans to win election.

Currently there are over 100 Democratic Congressmen running unoppose. After redistricting in 2010, that number will grow substantially. Between now and 2030, there will be an election where more than half of the U.S. Congress will be Democrats running unopposed for real election. How can the Repubicans fund raise, recruit new candidates, and convinced enough voters that they are relevant in such a situation. The answer is that they cannot.

Even in 2008, the Republicans cannot find enough quality candidates. The situation can only get worse. Any twenty something interested in politics would have to be a fool to get involved in Republican politics. There is just no future in it. The polling data of 20 something voting patterns clearly demonstrate it.

[cleek]

Even in 2008, the Republicans cannot find enough quality candidates. The situation can only get worse. Any twenty something interested in politics would have to be a fool to get involved in Republican politics. There is just no future in it. The polling data of 20 something voting patterns clearly demonstrate it.

yeah yeah yeah.

note that the idea of a "Permanent Republican Majority" seemed almost plausible, in 2002/3. the Dems were in terrible shape, and there seemed to be no way for them to climb back against a war president with approval ratings in the 70s.

things change.

the war didn't go as planned; the president turned out to be Alfred E Neumann; add a host of scandals and a weakening economy, and we have an utterly deflated GOP.

enough with the 'one party' stuff.

[Jim Parish]

yeah yeah yeah

Dammit, cleek, now I've got "She Loves You" stuck in my head.

[Hartmut]

Superdestroyer said: However, does the U.S. really need two big spending, pork barreling parties. If Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc are any indication, NO.
The US already have two such parties. They are called the Democratic and the Republican party. That the latter claims not to fit that description does not change that reality.
The question (and the difference) is what all the dough is spent on, not that it is spent.

[superdestroyer]

cleek

The writers that proposed the permanent Republican Majority were elite white Democrats who refuse to look at the racial and ethnic aspects of voting. No matter what the Republicans are faced with either getting a higher percentage of the white vote (something at a perfectly run Bush Administration might have accomplished) or get more minority votes (something that just is not going to happen).

If you look at the 2000 and 2004 maps, no matter how bad the Democratic Party looked there were many places where they still won by 40 points or more like Manhattan. However, there are few places where the Republicans win by that much. No matter what Karl Rove thought he could do, he was never going to get the Republicans to be competative in Manhattan (or Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, St Louis, Boston, etc).

The Democratic Party has a natural base of blacks, Hispanics, union members, government employees, and elite whites that never left it. The only group that supports the Republicans like blacks and Hispanics are the Mormons. It is impossible to have a national party based upon Mormons, middle class private sector whites, and Cubans.

Hartmut,

You affirmed one of my arguments. If both parties cannot distinguish themselves on fiscal issues but just on who receives the pork, a single party and a higher tax rates can do the same job.

[cleek]

The only group that supports the Republicans like blacks and Hispanics are the Mormons.

and the evangelicals, and the gun lovers, and the Chamber of Commerce types, and the jingoists, and the xenophobes, and the quasi-libertarians, etc..

party affiliation isn't just about race and ethnicity.

[gwangung]

The writers that proposed the permanent Republican Majority were elite white Democrats who refuse to look at the racial and ethnic aspects of voting. No matter what the Republicans are faced with either getting a higher percentage of the white vote (something at a perfectly run Bush Administration might have accomplished) or get more minority votes (something that just is not going to happen).

Well, that's because the Republican powers that be wrote off non-whites a long time ago.

Really, that's pretty much the case. In the Asian American community, they were there for the taking in the 1980s and 1990s---there was substantial support for the Republican party, particularly among the entrepreneur class and Southeast Asian Americans. The anti-Communist ideology was popular among the refugees, the Hong Kong and Taiwan folks and Korean---the vast bulk of Asian immigration. The capitalistic bent was of great appeal to the second and third generation Asian Americans who were emerging from elite universities to start careers and businesses.

That the Republican party didn't turn the Asian American community into a Republican strength is their own fault.

[superdestroyer]

When a group is a lock for one party, that means that it votes for that party more than 2 to 1.

the evangelicals, and the gun lovers, and the Chamber of Commerce types, and the jingoists, and the xenophobes, and the quasi-libertarians, etc.

Given that blacks are the most church going group in the U.S., there is nothing natural about evangelicals voting Republicans. gun rights groups learned to focus on individuals politicians and now have a larger number of gun loving Democrats. The chamber of commerce votes Democratic in the cities and states where the Democrats rule. Blacks and Hispanics always vote Democratic. Quasi-libertarisn are leaning Democratic based upon drugs and sex instead of money.

the problem with Asians that that the live in states controlled by Democrats. thus, the vote Democratic in order to have a say. All the members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American caucus are Democrats. Where were the Republicans suppose to start, in Hawaii?

[Hartmut]

And nice to hear that Frist and Delay are now actually Democrats[/snark]

[gwangung]

the problem with Asians that that the live in states controlled by Democrats.

No, the problem is that Republicans DIDN'T TRY.

What the Republicans are supposed to start is to get off their butts, go meet people and organize. Like a real political party does with constituents like Italian Americans and Irish Americans.

There were elected Asian American officials in the 1980s and 90s. That's a starting point. Unless you don't use them.

[superdestroyer]

How are the Republicans suppose to organized Asian American groups in Hawaii and California when the Republican parties in those two states are basically irrelevant today. How are Republicans suppose to appeal to open border supporters in the Asian American community without losing white middle class voters.

The Republicans have trapped themselves in position where they are the minority party but anything they attempt to appeal to any one segments loses them more votes in another segments. Look at how pandering the Hispanics lost the Republicans votes.

[cleek]

Given that blacks are the most church going group in the U.S., there is nothing natural about evangelicals voting Republicans.

ummm. there are plenty of reasons why non-whites might want to vote non-Republican, regardless of the their religion.

and, i don't know how "natural" it is, but plenty of evangelicals have some pretty strong feelings about why the Democratic party is bad for America - that whole secularist, homo-lovin, Bible-banning, relativistic, Darwinism thing...

gun rights groups learned to focus on individuals politicians and now have a larger number of gun loving Democrats.

larger != many, of course

The chamber of commerce votes Democratic in the cities and states where the Democrats rule.

sure. in places where Democrats rule, everybody votes Democratic, by definition of "rule".

Quasi-libertarisn are leaning Democratic based upon drugs and sex instead of money.

maybe temporarily, if at all. but it won't last. the lure of "small government" conservatism (once it rises up from the ashes of the current GOP mess) will be too strong for them to resist.

but really, the idea of single party domination makes no sense at all, if only for the simple fact that there will always be someone who wants a shot at a congressional seat and a second party provides that opportunity.

[superdestroyer]

cleek,

First, there no group like blacks on the Republican Side except maybe Mormons. Blacks vote Democratic no matter which party is in charge, no matter how much it limits their ability to affect the government, and no matter who is running as a Democrat. There are ten demographic groups that vote for Democrats similar to blacks before you get to any groups that do the same for Republicans.

Given that over 100 Democratic Congressmen are running for reelection unopposed, there is no reason to believe that there are that many people wanting a shot at a Congressional Seat or a governorship or a State Senate seat. They can always run in the Democratic Primary.

However, given the low turnover of incumbents and the current trends of hand picked successors, there is a trend for fewer competitive elections instead of more. And usually the competative is due to changing demographics like California instead of good or bad candidates.

[Gary Farber]

"Even in 2008, the Republicans cannot find enough quality candidates. The situation can only get worse."

Because why?

I imagine you making this same argument in 1964. What's different now, then then?

"and a person's or ethnicity is a better indicator of voting patterns for all but European whites."

Better than what?

"If you look at the 2000 and 2004 maps, no matter how bad the Democratic Party looked there were many places where they still won by 40 points or more like Manhattan."

You seem to be concluding that votes for president by party automatically mirror votes for other offices by party. This isn't the case for many people.

The gist of your whole notion seems to be that people vote largely by ethnicity. This also isn't the case for many people.

"The only group that supports the Republicans like blacks and Hispanics are the Mormons. It is impossible to have a national party based upon Mormons, middle class private sector whites, and Cubans."

Analyzing the voting patterns of statistical groups can be quite useful for certain purposes. Only analzying voting patterns of certain chosen groups, however, will give you a very distorted set of erroneous conclusions, since those groups aren't the only relevant groups to analzye, and you're not factoring in how many people do and don't vote according to whichever group characteristic you're looking at.

cleek: "party affiliation isn't just about race and ethnicity."

Just so. And it's a little weird to presume otherwise, to presume that people vote solely or largely based on their notions of "race," or any other way you care to slice them.

What was the national African-American voting preference for Barack Obama for President in May of 2006, again?

[superdestroyer]

Gary,

If a see a black man walking down the street in Charlotte North Carolina, I know that there is a 19/20 chance that he voted for Senator Obama yesterday. There is no better indicator of voting tendencies than ethnicity or other demographic data. Exiting polling indicates that ethnicity/race are very strong indicators of voting preference. The tendency is so strong for blacks have probably never voted for a Republican. If I meet a Hispanic female in any state, there is 2 out of 3 chance that they are a Democrat. However, there is chance they have voted for a Republicans based upon individual appeal such as Governor Schwarzenegger. However, there are few Republicans who will have name to run on.

No matter how to spin it, the groups that are the least likely to vote for Republicans are the groups that are growing like blacks, Hispanics, and naturalized citizens.

In the long run, the number of people even willing to split their ballot and vote for any Republicans is going to be less than 50% of the population. That means that the Republican Party has no long term prospects.

[hilzoy]

superdestroyer: first, I find the idea of taking this particular Pres. contest, and the black vote in it, as representative of anything just bizarre. I find it incredibly easy to think of non-racist reasons why blacks might want to help make someone the first ever black major party nominee. It's even odder than your claim that "even in 2008", Republicans are having trouble finding good candidates -- as though there's something odd about the idea that when the political landscape looks bleak, good people hold off til next time.

But second: it's not as though blacks have always been for Democrats. They used to be solidly Republican. Then the Democrats passed civil rights legislation and the Republicans made a play for the racist vote, and things changed very, very fast.

Is there any obvious reason why this couldn't happen again, other than the GOP's unwillingness to try it?

[gwangung]

No matter how to spin it, the groups that are the least likely to vote for Republicans are the groups that are growing like blacks, Hispanics, and naturalized citizens.

And, of course, not even trying is going to change that.

I find it bizarre that you're arguing that things can never be changed, precisely when I was pointed out how things DID change in the Asian American community vis a vis the Democrats.

And frankly, you're dead wrong about naturalized citizens. As I pointed out, at least in the Asian American community, that was the segment MOST likely to vote Republican and frequently did.

All you're saying it's tooooo harrddddd to try.

[superdestroyer]

Hilzoy,

blacks started voting majority Democratic as early as the 1930's for the few that did vote since the were voting in the non-Jim Crow states. It is safe to assume that most black voters today have never voted for a Republican. Also, due to majority/minority districts and gerrymandering, most blacks live in districts where the Republicans either do not run someone (why spend a dollar running against Maxine Waters, or Jesse Jackson, Jr).

There is no issue, no pander that will get enough blacks to vote Republican without losing even more white votes in the process.

[Gary Farber]

"That means that the Republican Party has no long term prospects."

That could be the case; I'm not arguing otherwise. How this proves or indicates that therefore we are moving to a one-party system, however, remains a mystery to me.