Because millions of black voters were prevented from voting before the Southern Strategy- if they had voted, it’s very likely that the numbers would be substantially different.
Even aside from this, the numbers before the 60s and after the 60s are strikingly different.
Relatively few did. I assume you know what I mean, but I’d be happy to educate you if you need assistance.
OT: I doubt it. I mean, just look at Jindal. The republican party basically held on during this election due to gerrymandering - in terms of pure popular vote, they lost the house of representatives badly.
This entire thread is a lasting example that at least some Republicans haven’t come close to figuring out why they lost.
They lost because their ideas and candidates were inferior in both 2004 and 2008. Unless they come up with some more popular ideas and some better candidates (and perhaps more importantly refute their most unpopular ideas and most incendiary candidates/pundits) they will continue to lose.
Not blocking an immigration bill that is likely to pass with nearly 70 votes in the Senate would be a start. Refuting the more outlandish commentary about it would be even better (think along the lines of Christie’s lambasting of the “Ground Zero mosque” idiots).
It’s not about figuring out anything, they know exactly why they lost. That’s why you see the presidential side of the party trying to get the troglodytes in line. It just won’t happen, because the Republicans we see saying and doing stupid shit are doing it because it’s what their base wants an expects. Any house Republican from a gerrymandered district that tries to change anything that would help the party on the national level is going to get primaried. It’s not that the party can’t figure out what’s wrong, it’s that change for a lot of them means ending their careers.
If it passes with 70 votes, it will probably be a good bill that the House should support. The border compromise looks pretty good, although I’d need to see the entry/exit system and E-verify also in place before green cards.
But the way it was, it had 60 or so, and that only if they rushed it through before the public could way in. Give it another month of debate and they’d be lucky go get 52.
You might have something there. The last few times the conservative Republicans actually were in power, they self-destructed under the weight of their own platform. Maybe the rank and file have just decided they’re better off as a permanent opposition party. They have nice safe jobs, they can make promises they’ll never have to keep, and they have a Democratic president that they can blame everything on.
This is some bullshit self-rationalization on your part. I’m glad that you decided to look at the closest year prior to 1960 (1956) while ignoring the rest, but just because you did, doesn’t mean it works, nor does it mean it makes sense. Let’s take the 2012 election, shall we?
Republicans lost the total women vote by 11 points, the “youth” vote by 24 points and the Hispanic vote by 44 points; all of which liberals are quick to point out are huge disparities. But the fact that Republicans have been losing the “Black vote” by around 30+ points consistently since 1936, where they actually lost it by 43 points? Naw, that’s nothing.
Makes sense.
(Seriously. Do you not realize just how huge a 30%+ disparity is, much less a 40% disparity?)
LOL- yes, a 30 point disparity is big. But not nearly as big as an 80 point disparity. And the 30 point disparity isn’t particularly convincing when it came from a time when millions of black people were held back from voting by racist democrats- I’ll ask again, what do you think the disparity would have been if every black adult who wanted to vote back then was able to?
Yes, of course. Typing before coffee is dangerous.
Well, one could look at the farm bill as an example. It passed with 66 votes in the Senate only to get blown up in the House. So instead of a measured reduction in food stamps and an elimination of agricultural socialism we get the status quo.
I have no doubt that if an immigration bill passes the House at all it will be with primarily Democratic votes. What will really matter to me is what the eventual GOP nominee (and, of course, my local candidates) has to say about the matter. Think Ted Cruz vs. Chris Christie.
The only reason I got snarky was that you’d failed to comprehend the only point raised in my post – as indicated by the fact that you posted the same numbers I’d quoted as if they were a refutation. :smack: We seem to disagree about the word “overwhelming.”
Your mention of 1936 above overlooks that almost as high a portion of blacks as whites voted GOP in the 1936 election.
An effective opposition party, given the nature of conservatism, is actually better than a ruling party made up of GWB and Tom Delay. So yeah, there’s something to that. I’m a lot more thrilled to have a few Tea Party Senators than the Republican Senate of 2003-2006.
The first part is right, the second part is not. As I pointed out, most of the racists stayed. What actually happened is that when segregation was no longer a partisan issue, voters and politicians had to decide their party affiliation based on other issues.
Racist Democrats were still quite welcome in the party into the 80s, and the Democrats’ recent push towards gay equality never stopped liberals from loving the anti-gay bigot Robert Byrd.
As I said, the true crime is being a Republican. A Democratic bigot is a progressive champion with some unfortunately retrograde views which can be overlooked as long as he votes against privatizing Social Security.
