had a guy tell me that the Tea Party is America's...

[bluehenbillk]

The GOP, still reeling from their 2012 defeat, has to figure out how to become more viable for the 2016 Presidential Election. They've become a party that slants towards an ever decreasing population of older white wealthy males.

Watch any GOP event & it's like a Klan rally in a way - everybody is white. Hey I'm white too, but even I realize that you have to appeal to masses in order to win. Hopefully the Christie's or Jindal's of the world can help transform a party that still looks torn between the Tea Party & the Christian Conservative power struggles.

[JohnStOnge]

Go figure...3/4 are White people.

Which is consistent with the proportion in the general population.

[JohnStOnge]

They've become a party that slants towards an ever decreasing population of older white wealthy males.

They do have a demographic problem in that proportions of non Whites in the population are increasing. However, it's not just older, wealthy white males. When it comes to income levels. the majority of most income levels including the "middle class" however that is reasonably defined typically votes Republican and voted for Romney in the last election. But the OVERWHELMING majority of people at the lowest income levels typically votes Democrat and did so in the last election.

When it comes to Whites, young Whites typically vote majority Republican. Female Whites typically vote majority Republican. Rich Whites typically vote majority Republican. White males, of course, typically vote majority Republican. Middle class Whites typically vote majority Republican. And all those groups voted Republican in the last election.

If you say there is a racial divide such that Whites tend to vote Republican while non Whites tend to vote Democrat then you're speaking the truth. But the idea that it's just "older white wealthy males" is a fallacy. Basically, Democrats win, when they do win, because they get overwhelming support among minority groups, the poor, etc. Republicans consistently win among Whites; but not by as overwhelming a majority. And that's why Democrats can win.

Again: Romney won among Whites. Romney won among Whites 18-30. Romney won among White males. Romney won among White females. Also, though they didn't provide racial breakdowns, Romney won among every income level except for the lowest one reported.

Really, man, it's not just "older white wealthy males." It's the same old calculus. In national elections, the Democrat wins by overwhelming margins among the poor, racial minorities, etc. And that's enough to overcome the Republicans winning by more modest margins among the rest of the population.

[houndawg]

They've become a party that slants towards an ever decreasing population of older white wealthy males.

They do have a demographic problem in that proportions of non Whites in the population are increasing. However, it's not just older, wealthy white males. When it comes to income levels. the majority of most income levels including the "middle class" however that is reasonably defined typically votes Republican and voted for Romney in the last election. But the OVERWHELMING majority of people at the lowest income levels typically votes Democrat and did so in the last election.

When it comes to Whites, young Whites typically vote majority Republican. Female Whites typically vote majority Republican. Rich Whites typically vote majority Republican. White males, of course, typically vote majority Republican. Middle class Whites typically vote majority Republican. And all those groups voted Republican in the last election.

If you say there is a racial divide such that Whites tend to vote Republican while non Whites tend to vote Democrat then you're speaking the truth. But the idea that it's just "older white wealthy males" is a fallacy. Basically, Democrats win, when they do win, because they get overwhelming support among minority groups, the poor, etc. Republicans consistently win among Whites; but not by as overwhelming a majority. And that's why Democrats can win.

Again: Romney won among Whites. Romney won among Whites 18-30. Romney won among White males. Romney won among White females. Also, though they didn't provide racial breakdowns, Romney won among every income level except for the lowest one reported.

Really, man, it's not just "older white wealthy males." It's the same old calculus. In national elections, the Democrat wins by overwhelming margins among the poor, racial minorities, etc. And that's enough to overcome the Republicans winning by more modest margins among the rest of the population.

That's because of the constant hate and racism that spews from the Republican party, John.

[ASUMountaineer]

They do have a demographic problem in that proportions of non Whites in the population are increasing. However, it's not just older, wealthy white males. When it comes to income levels. the majority of most income levels including the "middle class" however that is reasonably defined typically votes Republican and voted for Romney in the last election. But the OVERWHELMING majority of people at the lowest income levels typically votes Democrat and did so in the last election.

When it comes to Whites, young Whites typically vote majority Republican. Female Whites typically vote majority Republican. Rich Whites typically vote majority Republican. White males, of course, typically vote majority Republican. Middle class Whites typically vote majority Republican. And all those groups voted Republican in the last election.

If you say there is a racial divide such that Whites tend to vote Republican while non Whites tend to vote Democrat then you're speaking the truth. But the idea that it's just "older white wealthy males" is a fallacy. Basically, Democrats win, when they do win, because they get overwhelming support among minority groups, the poor, etc. Republicans consistently win among Whites; but not by as overwhelming a majority. And that's why Democrats can win.

Again: Romney won among Whites. Romney won among Whites 18-30. Romney won among White males. Romney won among White females. Also, though they didn't provide racial breakdowns, Romney won among every income level except for the lowest one reported.

Really, man, it's not just "older white wealthy males." It's the same old calculus. In national elections, the Democrat wins by overwhelming margins among the poor, racial minorities, etc. And that's enough to overcome the Republicans winning by more modest margins among the rest of the population.

That's because of the constant hate and racism that spews from the Republican party, John.

[JohnStOnge]

That's because of the constant hate and racism that spews from the Republican party, John.

I don't think so. I think one factor is that minority groups look to the government to make sure they're taken care of to an even greater extent than Whites do. I saw an anecdotal example recently where two young Black women were being interviewed in Hawaii. They were asked who they voted for in the last election and said "Obama.' When asked why, one answered, "If we voted for Romney they'd take away our food stamps."

There is nothing the Republican Party says that is racist or hateful. There is a culture among minorities of just believing it is racist and maybe a tendency to interpret cutting government programs as racist. But I don't think you can point to anything in the Republican platform that is self evidently racist or hateful. Even something like eliminating affirmative action is not racist nor is it hateful (though I don't think the Republican platform calls for that). Neither is asking that people go through the established processes in order to enter the country and become citizens.

Beyond race the Democratic Party, I think, is viewed as Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor. And I think that is a factor in the fact that the lowest income levels consistently vote by overwhelming margins for Democrats.

But I'll tell you something...whether you choose to accept it or not. When you look at exit polling it's clear that the majority of the people who are pulling the wagon vote for Republicans in national elections. Not all of them and not by nearly as overwhelming a majority as that by which the majority of those along for the ride vote for Democrats. But a majority.

[Wedgebuster]

Tea baggers and evangelists, the extra chromosome, the invasive tumor, and the bastard step-child of what was once the Republican Party.

Looks like the only hope for the party is massive doses of chemo and radiation, potentially fatal doses.

[mrklean]

That's because of the constant hate and racism that spews from the Republican party, John.

I don't think so. I think one factor is that minority groups look to the government to make sure they're taken care of to an even greater extent than Whites do. I saw an anecdotal example recently where two young Black women were being interviewed in Hawaii. They were asked who they voted for in the last election and said "Obama.' When asked why, one answered, "If we voted for Romney they'd take away our food stamps."

There is nothing the Republican Party says that is racist or hateful. There is a culture among minorities of just believing it is racist and maybe a tendency to interpret cutting government programs as racist. But I don't think you can point to anything in the Republican platform that is self evidently racist or hateful. Even something like eliminating affirmative action is not racist nor is it hateful (though I don't think the Republican platform calls for that). Neither is asking that people go through the established processes in order to enter the country and become citizens.

Beyond race the Democratic Party, I think, is viewed as Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor. And I think that is a factor in the fact that the lowest income levels consistently vote by overwhelming margins for Democrats.

But I'll tell you something...whether you choose to accept it or not. When you look at exit polling it's clear that the majority of the people who are pulling the wagon vote for Republicans in national elections. Not all of them and not by nearly as overwhelming a majority as that by which the majority of those along for the ride vote for Democrats. But a majority.

Here's the answer to your question.
When did the big shift (Southern White Males) from the Dem. to the GOP and Why??

[Wedgebuster]

I don't think so. I think one factor is that minority groups look to the government to make sure they're taken care of to an even greater extent than Whites do. I saw an anecdotal example recently where two young Black women were being interviewed in Hawaii. They were asked who they voted for in the last election and said "Obama.' When asked why, one answered, "If we voted for Romney they'd take away our food stamps."

There is nothing the Republican Party says that is racist or hateful. There is a culture among minorities of just believing it is racist and maybe a tendency to interpret cutting government programs as racist. But I don't think you can point to anything in the Republican platform that is self evidently racist or hateful. Even something like eliminating affirmative action is not racist nor is it hateful (though I don't think the Republican platform calls for that). Neither is asking that people go through the established processes in order to enter the country and become citizens.

Beyond race the Democratic Party, I think, is viewed as Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor. And I think that is a factor in the fact that the lowest income levels consistently vote by overwhelming margins for Democrats.

But I'll tell you something...whether you choose to accept it or not. When you look at exit polling it's clear that the majority of the people who are pulling the wagon vote for Republicans in national elections. Not all of them and not by nearly as overwhelming a majority as that by which the majority of those along for the ride vote for Democrats. But a majority.

Here's the answer to your question.
When did the big shift (Southern White Males) from the Dem. to the GOP and Why??

LBJ did it.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's the answer to your question.
When did the big shift (Southern White Males) from the Dem. to the GOP and Why??

i didn't ask a question but I'll answer yours. Many Southern Democratic politicians shifted to the GOP during desegregation in the 1960s. They did it largely because they were opposed to desegregation.

But by the 2012 Presidential Election that was 52 years ago. I see no evidence that Republicans are pushing for a return to segregation. There is nothing "racist" about their positions.

[eagleskins]

Tea party has nothing to do with wealthy, older, white males. The vast majority of the incredibly wealthy, older, white males are democrats. The tea party consists of the uneducated, white males.

[Baldy]

Tea party has nothing to do with wealthy, older, white males. The vast majority of the incredibly wealthy, older, white males are democrats. The tea party consists of the uneducated, white males.

If that were the case, you would be the Grand Poobah.

[Ibanez]

Tea party has nothing to do with wealthy, older, white males. The vast majority of the incredibly wealthy, older, white males are democrats. The tea party consists of the uneducated, white males.

I'd say the Tea Party consists of people that don't like a black democrat in office. If they cared so much about govt spending and taxes they would've shown up earlier than 2009. They would've called BS when Bush started two wars and didn't raise revenue for it. How convenient for them. The tea party is anti- bi partisanship. They are anti compromise. They are anti- progress.

[89Hen]

Tea party has nothing to do with wealthy, older, white males. The vast majority of the incredibly wealthy, older, white males are democrats. The tea party consists of the uneducated, white males.

I'd say the Tea Party consists of people that don't like a black democrat in office. If they cared so much about govt spending and taxes they would've shown up earlier than 2009. They would've called BS when Bush started two wars and didn't raise revenue for it. How convenient for them. The tea party is anti- bi partisanship. They are anti compromise. They are anti- progress.

Why did you include "black"?

[kalm]

I'd say the Tea Party consists of people that don't like a black democrat in office. If they cared so much about govt spending and taxes they would've shown up earlier than 2009. They would've called BS when Bush started two wars and didn't raise revenue for it. How convenient for them. The tea party is anti- bi partisanship. They are anti compromise. They are anti- progress.

Why did you include "black"?

Well the same types went nutzo over Clinton too but it doesn't seem nearly to the levels and organization as today. One might say Barak is the chocolate icing on the cake?

[JohnStOnge]

Watch any GOP event & it's like a Klan rally in a way - everybody is white. Hey I'm white too, but even I realize that you have to appeal to masses in order to win.

Right now, Whites ARE "the masses." Whites still comprise 78% of the population.

If you look at populations of voters for each side, the Democrat voter population is more "out of whack" than the Republican voter side is. As I've said many times before, Democrats depend on getting overwhelming support among minority groups to win. Like 90% among Blacks and 70% among Hispanics. As I've also said before, no Democrat candidate for President has won the majority of the White vote since at least as far back as Nixon vs. Humphrey.

That, to me, is more "disfunctional" than the Republican thing is. It means the Party must go out of its way to maintain not only support among minority groups. It must maintain OVERWHELMING support. That's going to distort what it does. It means it's going to maintain disproportionate deference to the desires of those minority groups. It's going to be very reluctant to do anything to offend them AT ALL regardless of whether or not offending them would be in the best interest of the population overall.

[eagleskins]

Tea party has nothing to do with wealthy, older, white males. The vast majority of the incredibly wealthy, older, white males are democrats. The tea party consists of the uneducated, white males.

If that were the case, you would be the Grand Poobah.

Love ya, gorgeous.

[houndawg]

Watch any GOP event & it's like a Klan rally in a way - everybody is white. Hey I'm white too, but even I realize that you have to appeal to masses in order to win.

Right now, Whites ARE "the masses." Whites still comprise 78% of the population.

If you look at populations of voters for each side, the Democrat voter population is more "out of whack" than the Republican voter side is. As I've said many times before, Democrats depend on getting overwhelming support among minority groups to win. Like 90% among Blacks and 70% among Hispanics. As I've also said before, no Democrat candidate for President has won the majority of the White vote since at least as far back as Nixon vs. Humphrey.

That, to me, is more "disfunctional" than the Republican thing is. It means the Party must go out of its way to maintain not only support among minority groups. It must maintain OVERWHELMING support. That's going to distort what it does. It means it's going to maintain disproportionate deference to the desires of those minority groups. It's going to be very reluctant to do anything to offend them AT ALL regardless of whether or not offending them would be in the best interest of the population overall.

guns vs. butter.

[Baldy]

If that were the case, you would be the Grand Poobah.

Love ya, gorgeous.

Ahhh, well thank you...princess.

[Beardown]

Tea baggers and evangelists, the extra chromosome, the invasive tumor, and the bastard step-child of what was once the Republican Party.

Looks like the only hope for the party is massive doses of chemo and radiation, potentially fatal doses.

I agree. Once a great party.

[BDKJMU]

Um...no. That's the Left redefinition of any vote against Obama as racist, regardless of who receives the vote. Many of these conservatives have voted for Alan Keyes in the past and were considering Herman Cain this time around. Only a Democrat can turn that into "racism."

Cat finally gets it righ. The Tea Party only came around because a black liberal was elected. Where were they when Bush was ruining the country? How can you go to war twice and not raise taxes? That's fiscially irresponsible.

The seeds of the Tea Party were planted in the fall of 08' when TARP and the bailouts were passed. Bush was still in office. The 1st yr of trillion plus deficts was 2009'. Obama took Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and pumped it up on steroids, and that's when the Tea Party really took off.

[Ibanez]

I'd say the Tea Party consists of people that don't like a black democrat in office. If they cared so much about govt spending and taxes they would've shown up earlier than 2009. They would've called BS when Bush started two wars and didn't raise revenue for it. How convenient for them. The tea party is anti- bi partisanship. They are anti compromise. They are anti- progress.

Why did you include "black"?

Why do you think?

[Ibanez]

Cat finally gets it righ. The Tea Party only came around because a black liberal was elected. Where were they when Bush was ruining the country? How can you go to war twice and not raise taxes? That's fiscially irresponsible.

The seeds of the Tea Party were planted in the fall of 08' when TARP and the bailouts were passed. Bush was still in office. The 1st yr of trillion plus deficts was 2009'. Obama took Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and pumped it up on steroids, and that's when the Tea Party really took off.

The first protests began less than a month after Obama was sworn in. If all the spending was really an issue, why not start in 2004, 2006, etc..?

And don't say Ron Pauls Tea Party of 07 counts.

[JohnStOnge]

Tea baggers and evangelists, the extra chromosome, the invasive tumor, and the bastard step-child of what was once the Republican Party.

Looks like the only hope for the party is massive doses of chemo and radiation, potentially fatal doses.

I agree. Once a great party.

For PETE'S sake! They lost the last Presidential election 51 - 47% without having a good candidate. And...again...not having the type of people y'all are demeaning turn out in numbers even as large as what they were in 2008...when turnout was already low among them...was a factor in that.

The Republicans would have NO SHOT to win national elections without the support of the "Tea Party" and "Religious Right" types. none. If they' alienate them they're done.

[BDKJMU]

The seeds of the Tea Party were planted in the fall of 08' when TARP and the bailouts were passed. Bush was still in office. The 1st yr of trillion plus deficts was 2009'. Obama took Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and pumped it up on steroids, and that's when the Tea Party really took off.

The first protests began less than a month after Obama was sworn in. If all the spending was really an issue, why not start in 2004, 2006, etc..?

And don't say Ron Pauls Tea Party of 07 counts.

Were there trillion dollar deficits in 04', 06'?
Was TARP and the bailouts passed in 04', 06'?

TARP & the bailouts- the spending explosion, didn't start till the fall of 08'. Within a few months, by early 09', you saw the 1st protests. Movements like this don't start at the snap of a finger.