Whites Leaving Democratic Party
The Republicans are increasingly the party of white America. That's short term good but long term bad for the GOP.
Ron Brownstein looks at the 2010 exit polls and concludes that President Obama’s path to re-election is to gin up turnout in states with large minority populations.
Fully 60 percent of whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives; only 37 percent supported Democrats, according to the National Election Poll exit poll conducted by Edison Research. Not even in Republicans’ 1994 congressional landslide did they win that high a percentage of the white vote.
Moreover, those results may understate the extent of the white flight from the Democratic Party, according to a National Journal analysis of previously unpublished exit-poll data provided by Edison Research.
The new data show that white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party’s priorities. On each of those questions, minority voters expressed almost exactly the opposite view from whites.
[…]
With so much of the white electorate, especially working-class whites, dubious about the president’s direction, to win a second term he will likely need to increase turnout and improve his showing among the groups that keyed his 2008 victory—minorities, young people, and white-collar white voters, especially women. In 2012, Obama may be forced to build his Electoral College map more around swing states where those voters are plentiful (such as Colorado, North Carolina, and even Arizona) and less on predominantly blue-collar and white states such as Ohio and Indiana that he captured in 2008.
[…]
Given the trends among the white electorate evident in these exit-poll findings, that formula might represent Obama’s most promising path to a second term. Because the 2010 elections dealt such a heavy blow to the Democrats’ old models of electoral success, the imperative of electoral transformation is looming ever larger for the president. “He has to make an effort to reclaim some of the lost [white] vote,” says Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a Democratic analysis and advocacy group. “But he’s got to push the new electorate harder.”
Which, ironically, will exacerbate white-Other tensions further.
Adam Serwer thinks this is a function of Republican scare tactics:
If you’re curious as to why we spent the late summer discussing the New Black Panther Party, the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, Shirley Sherrod, and birthright citizenship, I think you have your answer. Ever since the first genuine race pseudo-scandal, Barack Obama suggesting the the Cambridge Police acted “stupidly” in arresting Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his own home — Republicans sensed an opportunity in exploiting the anxieties of white voters.
So it’s no surprise that formula — blowing a minor incident out of proportion to suggest the president has, as Glenn Beck put it, “a deep-seated hatred for white people,” has been replicated over and over again ever since. Republicans characterized the Affordable Care Act as “reparations” and Finreg as “racial quotas.”
I think that gets things backwards, though. Whites and blacks simply have fundamentally different reactions to the police and to government welfare programs. Jamelle Bouie comes pretty close to getting it right:
Economic downturns almost always come with a spike in “us against them” thinking. And in the United States, “us against them” most often translates into “white against black,” or at least “white against other.” What’s more, political attitudes are strongly related to ethnocentric views; the more you view the world in ethnocentric terms, the more likely it is you oppose policies and parties that are perceived to help the other side.
This is mostly speculation, but I think it makes sense: As the economy worsened, ethnocentric views among whites strengthened, with this was most pronounced among conservatives and the less-educated, where ethnocentrism tends to hold more sway. It’s no surprise that these whites—more concentrated in the South and Midwest—turned sharply against the Democratic Party. It’s redistributive policies were perceived as being for the benefit of its minority voters and not the country at large.
While traditional white-black tensions are doubtless part of it, though, I think it’s relatively minor. Instead, working class whites seem to be much more concerned with Muslims (which they perceive as disloyal, if not potential terrorists, as well as a threat to the predominance of the Judeo-Christian culture) and Hispanic immigrants (which they perceive as threats to both their jobs and their culture, as well as a drain on the public treasury). The black-white gap is mostly a function of blacks being intrinsically loyal to the Democratic Party and especially to President Obama.
Digby (Heather Parton) and Atrios (Duncan Black) both have different takes on the details, coming as they do from the other side of the aisle, but we agree on the implications. In the near term, this puts the Democrats in the position of having to scrape together and motivate a very diverse coalition. In the longer term, as the old white folks die out, it means the Republicans are a permanent minority party on the national level unless they figure out how to broaden their appeal.
Additionally, as I alluded to earlier, we’re likely to see even more polarization in the short term. The gold mine for Democrats, frankly, is to figure out how to get as many Hispanics as possible on the voter roles. So, fights over counting illegal aliens in the Census and, especially, over border enforcement, Spanish language services, amnesty for illegal immigrants already here, and related issues will only heat up.
My guess is that Republicans will win these battles in the short run because they’re on the side where the people are. Even moderate to liberal whites would prefer to see America remain an English speaking country. And it’s hard to make a case for privileging those who violated our laws over those who sacrificed by waiting in line and following the rules. (The practical case, yes. The moral and visceral case, not so much.)
But the short term win may well come at the cost of making Hispanics “permanent” parts of the Democratic coalition. And, within my expected lifetime, that will mean a Republican Party that’s not competitive at the national level.
I reject this analysis. Our previous understanding, that this is a high-frequency oscillation of the political pendulum, makes more sense. People are voting against both parties. This explanation is more consistent with Obama’s approval numbers. While they like him they are dissatisfied with outcomes.
Other than that, I’d guess that the trend is still toward more independents and fewer Republicans or Democrats.
@jp:
Oh, there are a lot of things going on. The economy, of course. And, yes, dissatisfaction with both parties.
But, given that our system virtually forces a Two Party system (see Duverger’s Law), the fact of the matter is that people have to choose. The so-called Tea Party hates both parties. But its members overwhelmingly vote Republican.
I do think we have some deep cultural divides right now that, while not approaching the animosity of the pre-Civil War era, have some stark similarities. In some way, it’s deeper than even the late 1960s civil rights/Vietnam fight. The dominant culture — white, Christian, and English speaking — is ascendant but sees its demise coming.
Two days ago, here where I live, five local recently elected or reelected Democrat officials switched to the Republican Party. These were lifelong Democrats. The whole county is stunned. When asked their reason for switching they all said that they were totally discussed and fed up with both the local and national Democratic party at every level. It’s easy to see why.
This switch along with the local Republican sweep last November has turned the county Red. Who would have thunk it just a year ago?
James, I think the two parties will have a lock on offering candidates for quite a while, but I think they will be less able to field a dependable voting block.
We can have a two party system with a minority in the two parties.
I don’t believe in a “permanent minority party” because people will always grow tired with the unproductive.
I do think both parties are currently in a flux-there are voters who are peeved and voters who are disenchanted. I think both parties are going through some growing pains and are going to have to rework their platforms.
“But the short term win may well come at the cost of making Hispanics “permanent” parts of the Democratic coalition. ”
Stuff like this won’t help the Republicans in the long run: Rift in Arizona as Latino Class Is Found Illegal
In reference to my post above about local officials switching parties, the story is in the local paper this morning. Their statement read in part:
“We the undersigned office holders in Angelina County, Texas are changing our party affiliation from Democrat to Republican,” read the document signed by the five officials, according to the release. “The Democrat Party no longer reflects our values and our conservative principles — it moved, we have not. We are more aligned with the Republican Party principles and platforms and wish to be identified with them.
“Our decision is not based on a disagreement with the local Democrat Party or its members. We feel abandoned and disenfranchised by the liberal State and National party. Our friends and most of our constituents have already changed their party affiliation to the Republican Party — we join them.”
http://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_052195dc-1aa7-11e0-b5c1-001cc4c002e0.html
Interesting story, Rock, but I think you missed the crucial part:
“Five Angelina County elected officials switched parties Friday, two months after Republicans won every contested race on the county’s November general election ballot.”
That kind of leads me to believe the switch has less to do with their “values and conservative principles” than it has to do with cold, hard political survival.
I do think the Republican party would be a natural fit for a lot of conservative minorities, but they are doing everything they can to push them away. (You know, like when CPAC invites GOProud…
I think what we’re seeing –and what we’ll see more in the coming years if things continue down this path– is a Republican party representing a narrower and narrower “base,” and the Democrats representing everyone else: black, white, liberal or conservative.
The Democratic Party could not care less that middle class whites who work in the private sector do not vote for them. The Democratic Party knows that in the long run, the demographic changes in the United States will ensure that the Democratic Party will be the one, dominate party.
It does not matter that the Democratic Party is a big tent party. All portions of the Democratic Party are united in their desire for more government funds and the desire to stick others with the bills. When polls shows that over 60% of Americans believe that the cure for the national debt is taxing the rich, the Democrats know that they are winning.
In the long run, the U.S. will be a one-party-state where the Democrats will dominate and corruption will be rampant. Just look at Chicago, Detroit, or DC for good examples of what the future looks like.
@just me – “the permanent minority party” will be the party that represents the productive class.
What I can’t figure out is how the Democrats hope to keep their many constituencies bought off when they run out of other people’s money. It’s not like the enviros will let them exploit natural resources or the illegals are going to start paying taxes or the uber rich are going to suddenly refuse to take their deductions and privileges (we’re looking at you Warren Buffet just send a check to the office of public debt).
I think the Angelina County story simply points out that Hispanic politics are not uniform across the country. Republican hispanics can win hispanic majority districts in Texas on anti-immigration amnesty platforms, but couldn’t get on the ballot in California. And then there are the Republican Cuban-Americans in Florida.
Come on JKB, you can recognize that there are people with authentic liberal values, who don’t need to be bought at all. Heck, they’ll pay.
@Herb
I’ll agree with your statement above about the switch being a matter of political survival to a certain extent. However, it appears to me that the Democrats are the ones who are representing a narrower and narrower “base.” How else would anyone explain that in November we also elected a Republican black man as our new State Representative for this state district– a historical first. Until now, that would have never happened if he did not have broad support from all the ethnic groups in this part of the state.
At the same time we are told “Speaker John Boehner Can’t Think Of A Single Program He Would Cut.”
So if some of you think this is identity politics, rather than a rejection of both parties, what is the new identity?
These people want to be Republicans because Republicans … what?
Rock,
The turnout for blacks and Hispanics was down versus 2008. The Democratic Base is bigger. The Republicans would be irrelevant today if blacks and Hispanics turnout at the same rate was whites. The only thing keeping the Republicans in business is the fact that older whites have the best turnout of any voting group.
However, the Democrats know that the demographics groups that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats are growing such as blacks, Hispanics, and new immigrants. Also the Democrats know that they can depend upon academics, public sector employees, gays, jews, and lawyers.
Anyone who believes that the 2010 election results demonstrate anything other when blacks and Hispanics stay home Republicans can win more elections if the unemployment rate if in double digits.
My guess that the congressional Republicans will work very hard to make themselves look incompetent and to give as much government pork to their friends as possible. Then the swing voter whites will quickly vote the idiot Repubicans out of office again.
@superdestroyer:
That’s true. Incompetence is not party specific. Two years from now we may all be Libertarians. Who Knows? I wonder what Libertarian pork looks and tastes like?
Rock,
The difference is that a larger percentage of the Democratic Party voter do not care about incompetence. Detroit, Baltimore, DC, California should be enough evidence to show that Democrats do not care about competence as long as they get their goodies. Look at how the blacks in DC voted Fenty out of office because he was too nice to whites. Image a country where over 50% of the voters are like the voters in DC. The idea that any conservative, libertarian, or green party can survive is laughable.
I wish everyone would leave both parties. I’ve been Republican and Democrat before settling for the “Independent” label…it seems like there is a lot going on with labels these days. Does anyone out there really feel either of these parties represent there beliefs in either practice or philosophy?
Rock,
I’m intimately familiar with the area having grown up there and the question I have to ask is why on earth they waited till now to switch party affiliation?
I was impressed with James White but I wonder if he realizes what he’s gotten himself into.
With the state facing a budget shortfall of at least 24 billion and White being a member of the GOP what exactly can he possibly do? And I wonder how the folks of Angelina, San Jacinto, Trinity and Tyler counties will react when they realize the state is eliminating all state funding for public schools to try to ameliorate the budget crisis.
I’m fairly certain that McReynolds, who is a good man, saw the writing on the wall years ago.
superdestroyer,
We here in DC voted Fenty out because of his $35,000 frat party that he tried to trick the city into paying and is $900,000 payment ot his inexperienced friend Sinclair Skinner to do $200,000 of work. Fenty is more gang thug than centered politician. DC democrates did hold him accountable (Upper middle class white guy saying that here – plus I’m an ANC commissioner so I’ve delt with him personally).
People outside DC have been told Fenty was some kind of young, progressive reformer but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Oddly, Vince Gray is turning out to be more like I though Fenty was going to be…you police department is starting to seem more Guiliani her and less Marion Berry.
…pardon all my errors (I had to type it like 3 times because of browser issues)
“What I can’t figure out is how the Democrats hope to keep their many constituencies bought off when they run out of other people’s money. ”
This has already been planned for. Deliberately losing an occasional election to the Republicans will guarantee that the wealthy have plenty of money.
Steve
Helloworld,
If you thought that Marion Barry was out of politics I guess you missed Marion Barry strutting around the stage during the Gray victory party or the promise to stop firing incompetent teachers or the firing or Rhee or the firing of the Fire chief.
I guess you also missed the voting results that shows that whites voted for Fenty but blacks voted overwhelming for Gray because he promised to return the city to the days of no show jobs, political patronage, and graft.
At least these days, whites need to forget about applying for jobs in the DC government. The mayorial election was all about race and the need for blacks , who bother to register as Democrats, to maintain power. If all of the left leaning whites who registered as independents (for no good reason) Fenty would easily been re-elected. What all of those
Superduper:
Detroit, Baltimore, DC, California should be enough evidence to show that Democrats do not care about competence as long as they get their goodies.
And Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Idaho and Nebraska surely make the point that left to their own devices white folks will empty a state out entirely, leaving it a hollow, echoing mockery of a state. You know where all those people went? California.
MR,
I believe Wyoming has the best state budget situaiton and North Dakota is somewhat of a boom town these days.
And MR, the number of whites in California has been doing down for 20 years. The population growth in California (which is so low that California is not gaining any U.S. House Seats for the first time in over 100 years) is basically illegal aliens and asians immigrants. The last thing that someone from North Dakota would do these days would be to move to California.
If forty percent of whites vote Democrat and all ethnic “minorities” vote Democrat as implied here, then it is a lead pipe cinch that the Democrat Party will be just like the Communist party was in the Soviet Union… pretty much unopposed.
This is obviously not the case…
Most “Americans” vote and think with their brains and not with their skin,* much to the chagrin of those who would benefit from being racially devisive.
* Blacks in 2008 being the one recent exception, and that’s unlikely to repeat in 2012.
It’s the economy. Whites are leaving the Democratic party simply because they have no stomach for suicidal deficit spending levels and anti business programs that Dems are famous for. It’s jobs, debt, and wealthy public employees that are driving people to the other party.
Is there a significant difference between forty percent of whites voting Democratic and forty percent of hispanics voting Republican? (percentages from the linked article)
This poll is fundamentally flawed. As an exit poll, it registers the opinions of a non-random sample of the public. We all know about the “enthusiasm gap” – the strong turnout of Republicans and the depressed turnout of Dems. That is why you get results that seem to indicate a big shift toward the GOP.
In 2012, it is a fair bet that turnout will be up, which largely means that a lot more Dems are going to be voting, including a lot of those Dem-supporting whites who didn’t show up at the voting booth in 2010, and thus did not show up in the poll.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, nnd I guess I shouldn’t expect anything sane from conservatives stalwarts at this point.
But really, what part of “Speaker John Boehner Can’t Think Of A Single Program He Would Cut” didn’t you understand?
Superdestroyer –
I’m lost for words…Michelle Rhee quit, did not get fired. …And Fenty was a crook. This city is roughly 55% black, 15% hispanic and 30% white so in any year the % of non-white voters to white could always be used to list and “overwhelming number”. Yes, the wards that are almost exclusively black did vote for Gray but not for the reasons you think. Again Fenty is a crook…he would have won if he wasn’t. I always re-register as a dem for 2 weeks to vote in the DC primary but I intentionally did not this time because Fenty is a crook. Unfortunately, Marion Barry is in a very uneducated poor ward so he is on city council. Only 2 council members were not a Grays victory party. I know the media wants everyone to think this election was some racial thing but Fenty lost because he is a crook…..he was warned before he was elected. Do some research: http://www.dumpskinner.com/
Your “them is not us” lingo does wonders for attracting sane people to the Republican party.
One other thing Superracist:
…about the clean white Fire Chief that was fired. In the last year he has been invovled in knowing about a firehouse prostitution ring and not doing anything about it…and a bizzard firehouse scandle at the firehouse 2 blocks away from where I live where they were throwing wild parties and getting drunk all the time, and was brought to his attention after some bizzar sex party: http://newcolumbiaheights.blogspot.com/2010/09/columbia-heights-firefighters-cook.html but he was very slow to do anything about it.
What I find interesting is how conservatives smoothly transition from latte sipping elitist limousine liberals to all liberals are poor non working welfare queens who live off the blood of the rich…
Can all you whining red-staters stop with the Dems-just-spend-others-money crap? The blue states, by and large, put more money in than they get out of the Federal government.
From the Tax Foundation:
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
DC is of course an anomaly here because the federal government controls a very large portion of non-residential property. But aside from that odd ball, notice anything? The reddest states reach the most into everyone else’s pocket while the blue states shell out year after year for their free-loading cousins. Sarah Palin, half term governor of a top five mooch state, then has the gall to say we blue-staters are not part of the real America.
So deal with it. The facts are that red-staters are, in general, moochers. And the blue state voters are not only using our own money for services, but we are providing a good portion of yours. Any chance we would get some thanks for it?
Helloword,
Rhee did quit. After Gray was elected and let it be known that he had no use for an Asian woman who had fired incompetent teachers. Of course, Rhee was immediately replaced by a fat black women who assured everyone that no teacher will lose their jobs. Gray also fired the Fire chief and it is only a matter of time before the police chief is gone for not being black enough. My guess is the days of white firemen are over in Chocolate City.
Of course, since Gray has been elected blacks have gone on a wilding twice at L’enfant Plaza and Gray has been silent about both.
The Washington Post is at least honest of why Fenty lost. Fenty was too nice to the whites in Dupont Circle, Cleveland Park, and west of Rock Creek Park. Gray won because he went into the black churches and black neighborhoods and pushed to vote the whites out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091804286.html
Every mayor has personnel problem. Gray is the type who will put felons back on the payroll and keep unneeded teachers on the payroll just because they are sisters in Delta Sigma Theta.
PD Shaw,
40% of Hispanics have never voted for Republicans. That number is based upon faulty polling data. At best, Republicans get about 1/3 of the Hispanics and at worst gets about 20%. It is a waste of time and resources for Republicans or any conservatives to pursue Hispanics unless those Hispanics are Cubans.
The Hispanic vote has made California unwinnable for the Republicans and now the Republicans are irrelevant in California politics.
Markedman,
To use the Brookings Institute numbers, a better way to look at it is federal expenditures per person in each state for Federal Assistance Distributed. See http://www.brookings.edu/metro/census_states.aspx
The top five states are
DC
Vermont
Alaska
New York
Massachusetts
Blue states pay a lot of taxes but consume more per person in government programs.
Markedman;
Illustrating once again the difference between facts and truth,
Thanks for the intentional obfuscation .
Illinois did not pay my federal tax, I did.
And yet Obama’s approval rating has been rock steady at around 45-50% for over a year.
The fact that only 10% of white crackers down south support Obama doesn’t mean normal white Americans are “fleeing” the Democratic Party.
It just means the Republican party is the preferred party for racists.
Big surprise.
Super,
I agree that the brookings report is perhaps a better way of looking at it, but that’s because it’s a very blue state, we’re-all-in-this-together way of looking at it. From a red state point of view, I.e. Certain-groups-are-taking-out-more-than-their-fair-share-and-we-all-know-who-they-are kind of view, the redstaters are a bunch of moochers.
MM,
If you are worrying about freeloaders, the progressives would be supporting a flat tax. Texas and the south would pay more and NYC, LA, SF, Boston would pay less. However, since progressives support a progressive income tax that taxes the highest earners the most and the highest earners are in NYC, Boston, LA, SF, then the blue states pay more. New Jersey, UConn, and NY are at the top of the lists because they have most of the high earners who pay at the top rate.
Super,
I’m a blue stater and like our values here. Those that get the most out of the system should pay more to keep that system going. I am absolutely not for a flat tax. I believe capital gains should be taxed the same as any other income. I believe if we are going to have things like medical benefit accounts they should be available to all and not just those whose employers provide them. So, I’m not whining about the red staters mooching. I’m just pointing it out. On the other hand I do resent the red state lectures, just as I resent red staters, who generally have high divorce rates and unintentinal out-of-wedlock births, calling the Northeast (lowest in both categories) about ‘sin’ and ‘immorality’.
This analysis is somewhat flawed because it ignores turnout. In the November 2008 election turnout was about 130 million voters, in November 2010 it was around 82 million. Thus any comparisons are essentially comparing apples with pears. Had turnout been 130 million again does anyone really think the Democrats would have had such a hammering. If turnout is back around 130 million next year Obama will be re-elected comfortably and the Democrats are probably going to win back a lot of seats in the house.
“What I find interesting is how conservatives smoothly transition from latte sipping elitist limousine liberals to all liberals are poor non working welfare queens who live off the blood of the rich…”
It might be because the democratic base is laregly made up of two polarized demographic groups – poor minorities and wealthly urban whites.
MM,
The most Democratic voters in the red states are blacks, Hispanics, and very poor whites. They are the biggest divorced, never married, and out-of-wedlock birthrate. To a middle class white living in Alabama, Mississippi, or other southern states, the Democratic Party voter they see pays little if any in taxes and consumes a massive amount of tax dollars. That socialism works better in lilly white Vermont than in very diverse Texas or Alabama should tell you why whites in those diverse states vote for Republicans,
In addition, upper middle class whites in the Northeast may think that taxes pay for great services but few of them send their children to public schools or public universities and few of them depend upon the police for security. The upper class white blue state voter acts more racist than the middle class in Alabama but then accuses the white middle class in Alambama of being a racist. Why else do you think that the public schools in Boston, NYC, Chicago, SF, or LA are less than 15% white?
Superdestroyer lecturing to anyone else on racsim is rather rich…I next expect Rush Limbaugh to lecture to others on illegal drug use…oh wait…
in other news this very story is up on the American Revolutionaries web-site. Ya know, the one that the nutcase Jarad Loughner seems to enjoy being involved in…..
An interested party,
As far as politics goes, who can someone like Joe Biden whose children and grandchildren attend(ed) a pirvate school that is 99% white not a racist or have any crediblity on race. Even president Obama will not send his own children to a school that is more than a few percent black.
The question for the future is what will politics and the U.S. be like when less than 1.2 of the population is white. Looking at a place like DC, there will no place for blue collar or middle class whites. The elite whites will be safe and rich but the white middle class will have a hard time surviving. That is why whites are moving out of California.
It would be helpful if you could offer some evidence that these people do not send their children to certain schools specifically because of the ethnic makeup of said schools…by the way, your paranoia and fear about what will happen when white people are no longer the majority sure is something to behold…when you walk down the street, if a young black fella walks by and says, “BOO!,” how high in the air do you jump?
Interested Party,
I see you fall back on the excuse that all liberals give for sending their children to all white schools. It is for the children. Yet, those same liberals do not think about the children of blue collar whites when the bus those children into majority black schools.
Try going to the Department of Education website and finding any studies on white children in majority black schools. There was on study done thirty years ago and it showed that the white children were miserable. That was an unacceptable answer and thus, no study has been done since.
One would think that as the U.S. becomes majority non-white that professional educators would study whites in majority black schools as they have studied blacks in majority white schools.
I have been hearing since 2006 about how demographics doom the GOP and, yet, along comes 2010 and the republicans have probably their biggest victory in a century. How can this be so? Well, first, whites are beginning to vote like a minority block. Republicans got 63% of the white vote. What happens if in 2012 the republicans get 65% of the white vote? The truth is that the logical consequences of democrat rule is beginning to show in California and New York. What happens when the democrats have to slash the goodie gravy train in California? Are the people on the government tit going to start realizing that this will not continue forever?