Changing Virginia Demographics: An Ill Omen for the GOP

As noted in many posts on this blog, the Republican Party, both at the national level and in Virginia, has increasingly focused its efforts on older white voters and white supremacists and far right Christian elements.  The unfortunate thing for the GOP is that these groups as a share of the over all population are declining.  Meanwhile, the GOP policies that excite the GOP base repel the population groups that are increasing as a share of the overall population.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at how this demographic change could spell disaster for the Virginia GOP this November - a potential made all the greater by the extremism of the GOP statewide ticket.  Here are article highlights:

If things keep going the way they have in Virginia for the past 36 years, Ken Cuccinelli will win the governor's race. As The New York Times pointed out Thursday, the party that occupies the White House consistently loses the governor's mansion in Virginia. In 2013, however, the state's changing demographics are giving Democratic contender Terry McAuliffe an advantage. He knows this, and he's running on it.

Right now, McAuliffe is leading Cuccinelli 48 percent to 42 percent, according to a Quinnipac poll released Wednesday. The poll also showed that more Democratic voters intend to vote in this midterm election than usual — likely Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 39 percent to 32 percent. The Washington Post notes that's the same split that caused the state to swing for Obama in 2012. 

The Times reports that there's been a decrease in white voters in Virginia since 2009 — from 78 percent to 75 percent. Suburban, minority voters make up more of the electorate than ever before. And the makeup of white voters is also changing — more of them are young, recent college grads, who are more likely to vote for a Democrat because of the party's stance social issues.

Republicans are naturally worried about these shifting demographics, and Democrats are trying to ride the wave.

In Virginia, McAuliffe has especially reached out to Latino voters. At a July campaign stop in Woodbridge, he met with Todos Supermarket owner Carlos Castro, and called him an example of the "American Dream":

We can’t grow our economy unless we ensure that Virginia is an open and welcoming state to everyone. I’d love to see thousands of more Carloses by the end of my term as governor. We need to help the Carloses of the future grow and diversify this economy.

McAuliffe has vowed to enact a state-level DREAM Act. He also also campaigned to Asian-American groups, and he hasn't been shy about calling out his opponent's often less-tolerant party. McAuliffe told Politico earlier in August:

This is probably the starkest difference you’ve had between two candidates running for governor. My opponent is on a social-ideological agenda. In my bones, you cannot grow an economy and diversify it when you have these hate-filled statements — as it relates to women’s  health centers, gay Virginians, the issues on immigration . . . I want to stop all that.

So Cuccinelli will keep pretending demographics are no big deal, and McAuliffe will continue to call for more "Carloses." And with the white vote shrinking nationwide, what happens in Virginia in 2013 could be a peek at what's to come nationally in 2016.

Read More

The Tea Party’s Path to Irrelevance

One of the things most notable about today's Republican Party is the embrace by the party base of ignorance, bigotry, and racism, the later being openly displayed by the push for voter ID laws to disenfranchise blacks and opposition to immigration reform which is openly anti-Hispanic.  Fueling this trend is the Tea Party and white supremacist Christofascists like The Family Foundation here in Virginia.  While the Tea Party/Christofascist overlap is not complete, some 85% of the Tea Party crowd describes itself as conservative Christian.  Both groups are fighting a rear guard battle against modernity and demographic changes that are irreversible.  It's a case of long term political suicide.  The only question is how long before these bigotry filled Neanderthals drag the GOP to irrelevance.  I would argue, not soon enough.  An op-ed column in the New York Times looks at the lessons the GOP ought to learn from history.  And by history, I mean real history, not Christofascist revisionist history.  Here are some column highlights:

THE Tea Party has a new crusade: preventing illegal immigrants from gaining citizenship, which they say is giving amnesty to lawbreakers. Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, recently told Politico that his members were “more upset about the amnesty bill than they were about Obamacare.”

They’re so upset, in fact, that Republican supporters of immigration reform, like Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have become marked men in their party, while House Republicans have followed the Tea Party lead by refusing to even consider the Senate’s bipartisan reform plan. 

Tea Partyers often style themselves as disciples of Thomas Jefferson, the high apostle of limited government. But by taking the ramparts against immigration, the movement is following a trajectory that looks less like the glorious arc of Jefferson’s Republican Party than the suicidal path of Jefferson’s great rivals, the long-forgotten Federalists, who also refused to accept the inexorable changes of American demography.

The Federalists began as the faction that supported the new Constitution, . . . .   Culturally, however, they were identified with the ancient stock of New England and the mid-Atlantic . . .

The Federalists held together for the first few decades, but in 1803 the Louisiana Purchase — Jefferson’s great coup — drove a wedge between the party’s ideology and its demography. The national party was suddenly faced with a nation that looked very different from what it knew: in a stroke, a vast new territory would be opened for colonization, creating new economic and political interests, slavery among them. 

“The people of the East can not reconcile their habits, views and interests with those of the South and West,” declared Thomas Pickering, a leading Massachusetts Federalist.

Fearing that Irish, English and German newcomers would vote for the Jeffersonian Republicans, they [the Federalists] argued — unsuccessfully — for excluding immigrants from voting or holding office, and pushed to extend the period of naturalization from 5 to 14 years. Leading Federalists even plotted to “establish a separate government in New England,” 

Finally, in the fall of 1814, the Federalists convened the Hartford Convention to vote on whether to stay in or out of the Union. By then even the hotheads realized how little support they had, and the movement collapsed. And the Federalists, now scorned as an anti-national party, collapsed as well. 

Today’s Republicans are not likely to disappear completely, like the Federalists did. But Republican leaders like Mr. Rubio and Mr. Graham understand that a party that seeks to defy demography, relying on white resentment toward a rising tide of nonwhite newcomers, dooms itself to permanent minority status. 

The problem is that the Tea Party is not a party, and its members are quite prepared to ride their hobbyhorse into a dead end. And many Republicans, at least in the House, seem fully prepared to join them there, and may end up dragging the rest of the party with them. 

The example of those early days shows that American political parties once knew how to adapt to a changing reality. It is a lesson many seem to have forgotten. 

I doubt that the Tea Party/Christofascists will learn from history.  Why? First because they don't know accurate history.  Second, because they are too wrapped up in the own supposed exceptionalism and ignorance to see the handwriting on the wall. When I see a vehicle locally that has a Tea Party license plate - Virginia allows all kinds of plates to generate money - I cannot help but think, why not put a bumper sticker on ones car that reads "I'm a cretin."

 

Read More

16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016

It is always dangerous to make political predictions years in advance of an election cycle.  So much can happen and the mood of Americans change in fickle ways.  Yet a column in The Daily Beast predicts that Hillary Clinton will win not only the Democrat primary but also the general election.  The kicker is that the piece is written by an avowed Republican.  Do I agree with the reasoning?  See below at the end of the post.  Here are column excerpts:

[F]rom this vantage point, all signs point to Hillary Clinton coasting to the Democrat Party nomination and winning the White House.

As a lifelong Republican, I am not pleased with my own prediction—nothing would thrill me more than if a conservative were to win back the presidency. But my political reality instincts lead me to believe the following. (And I’ve been right before: in January 2011, I co-wrote “12 Reasons Obama Wins in 2012.”)

Unless there is a radical change of circumstances within the Republican Party and its crop of presidential wannabes, or some unforeseen cataclysmic national event that dramatically alters the current economic and political landscape, or a serious deterioration in her health, Hillary has it locked up.

Here are 16 reasons why Hillary Clinton is poised to be elected the next president of the United States, in order of importance.

1. Madame President: A Great Social Movement in the Making - A great social movement to elect the first Madame President is gathering wind and will reach sustained hurricane strength on November 5, 2014—the day after the midterm elections and the “official start” of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Akin to the movement that elected the first African-American president in 2008, the “Madame President movement” will be propelled by the mainstream media, Hollywood, and social media.

2. The Media Is Ready to Crown a Queen - Hillary, the first female presidential nominee of a major party, will be anointed by the media, Hollywood, and pop culture—just as they anointed the junior senator from Illinois in 2008. The only difference between then and now is Obama was hailed as the messiah, and Hillary will be the queen ready to ascend to her royal throne.

3. Groupthink: It’s Her Time, and She Deserves It - Between now and 2016, listen as political pundits exclaim, “It’s her time,” or “She deserves it.”

4. Organization the Obama Way - Hillary’s campaign-in-waiting, the Ready for Hillary PAC, is readying itself to turn into her official campaign as soon as Madame General signs the battle order.

Some top-notch Obama campaign talent, Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart, have already been hired to build an organization similar to President Obama’s two nearly flawless, state-of-the-art campaigns. It would be nearly impossible for the Republican presidential candidate to quickly build and match what will then be a huge national campaign organization with a three-year head start. For even the Republican challenger, it would appear as if Hillary were the incumbent.

5.  Barrels of Money -  Between now and 2016 Hillary could easily raise more than a billion dollars and much of it early. In fact, just this week it was announced that Ready for Hillary had raised over a million dollars in June 2013, without its candidate of course.

This early money will give Hillary the same advantage Obama had to smear whoever emerges as her likely opponent while the GOP primary season chugs along to its conclusion.

6. The Electoral College is Slanted Toward Hillary and the Democrats -  Just how much of an advantage will the Electoral College offer Hillary in 2016?

Here are some startling facts:

In 2012 the final Electoral College results were 332 for Obama and 206 for Romney. If Romney had won the battleground states of Florida (29 votes), Ohio (18 votes), and Virginia (13 votes), Obama would still have been reelected but by a closer margin of 272 to 266.

[T]he path to 270 is much easier for any Democrat candidate given current and future demographic growth and established voting patterns.

7. Hillary Will Have Either Symbolic or No Primary Opposition - The only reason why ambitious power players like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo or Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley might challenge Hillary to a primary is to increase their own national name recognition with the goal of landing on Hillary’s VP shortlist.

8. The Hispanic Voting Bloc Is Hillary’s to Lose -  the Ready for Hillary PAC has already hired some key Obama managers and field organizers  . . . .  Ready for Hillary will be “ready to register” all of those 50,000 Hispanic teenagers who will be turning 18 every month for the next two decades.

9. The African-American and Asian Vote Is Also Hillary’s to Lose

10. Bill Clinton Will Be a Tremendous Asset to Hillary - “Vote for the First Dude” is a bumper sticker waiting to happen. 

During last summer’s Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton convinced America to vote for President Obama in what was heralded as such an eloquent speech that it made Obama seem small by comparison.

11. Hillary Will Run for Either Obama’s Third Term or Bill Clinton’s - If Obama’s presidency tanks in its final years, than Team Clinton (with the help of the complicit media) could easily repackage herself to run for Bill Clinton’s “third term.” . . . . the trick for Hillary is to still utilize Obama’s ever-likable persona just enough to fire up his loyal base to serve her own purposes. This tactic will achieve success no matter how low Obama’s approval ratings go, because there are always Republicans to blame.

12. The Republicans Have a Weak Bench With Little Star Power 
 

13. The Long GOP Primary System Plays to Hillary’s Advantage - On May 30, 2012, Romney finally won enough delegates to win the Republican nomination. And during that month, Obama pummeled and defined Romney as a rich mean man of privilege who fired people like you so he could become even richer. Romney didn’t know what hit him and hardly responded.

Now in 2016 (unless order suddenly comes from chaos), it looks like we are in for another long, heated, Republican primary season while Hillary assumes the Obama-like incumbent position, ready to pounce on whoever starts to emerge victorious.

14. Hillary Will Make the Case That She Is the Only Leader Who Can Bring Us Together -
As the potential first woman president and commander in chief, Hillary must prove that she has the capacity for strong leadership and is not afraid to compromise with Republicans in order to solve the problems confronting this nation. And with friends throughout the media singing her praises, this task should be a no-brainer—even with the Benghazi clip of “What difference does it make?” being played nonstop by Republicans.

15. Calling Hillary ‘Old’ Insults the Old Republican Base - Hillary was born in 1947, making her 66 years young. If elected president, she will turn 70 during her first year in office. But as we all know, 70 is the new 55, so this is not a problem. But the next time you hear a Republican say that Hillary is too old to run (as I do all the time) please have these facts handy:  . . . . . today’s “old people” do not think of themselves as old but rather smarter, more disciplined, better educated, and more competent than the generations that followed. Romney won older voters because he appeared more competent and accomplished than Obama.

16. The GOP Has Weak Arguments Against Hillary - Recently, someone sent me a link with a video from the Stop Hillary.com PAC. The video portrayed her 2017 “inauguration.” The voice-over was Hillary taking the presidential oath of office while the following words were flashed on the screen: Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Rose Law Firm, and Benghazi. Then as Hillary finishes the oath saying, “So help me God,” the words “So help us” flash on the screen.

Stop Hillary PAC was created for one reason only—to save America from the destructive far-left, liberal cancer created by Bill and Hillary Clinton that’s trying to corrupt America. Stand with Stop Hillary PAC today to take a stand for America’s future and STOP Hillary dead in her tracks.
 

Now, does any thinking Republican actually believe that dredging up ’90s-era scandals is going to stop Hillary? (Benghazi is different, but unfortunately the mainstream media and general public have lost interest, and by 2016 it will have as much negative impact on her as Travelgate.)

If these arguments are the best the “Stop Hillary movement” can muster, then it is time for some new arguments.

[F]rankly, there is no one who can stop her. Unless, as stated at the beginning, there are unforeseen cataclysmic national events that dramatically alter the current economic and political landscape or Hillary has major health issues and drops out even before she gets in.

For the record, I am not in favor of any of the above options. The best I can hope for is that the presidential election campaign in 2016 will be fair, clean, and without the blatant media bias that tipped the scales for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

The author makes good points that do make sense.  And she did not even factor in the fact that the insane Christofascist/Tea Party base may well force GOP candidates to take insane positions that will alienate moderates not to mention the decreasing number of sane Republicans that exist.

 

 

Read More

Poll: Majority of Virginians Support Same-Sex Marriage

The hysteria at The Family Foundation ("TFF") and other falsely self-described "family values" organizations in Virginia whose real agenda is to impose their extreme hate filled religious beliefs on all citizens must be building.  As noted, a new poll reveals that 55% of Virginians now support  gay marriage.  Victoria Cobb and her fellow haters must be absolutely beside themselves.  And the timing of this new information could not be worse given that a lawsuit challenging the foul Marshall-Newman Amendment (which was spearheaded by TFF and proven gay haters like Del. Bob Marshall and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli) is likely to be filed any week now.  Note: the poll was done by bi-partisan polling organizations.  The Richmond Times Dispatch has details on the new poll findings.  Here are excerpts:

A new poll shows that Virginians’ views on same-sex marriage have shifted in its favor seven years after voters easily passed an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

About 55 percent of Virginia voters now believe that marriage between people of the same sex should be allowed, while 41 percent oppose it, according to a poll released today by the Human Rights Campaign — the nation’s largest LGBT equality-rights advocacy group.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, will be in Richmond today to discuss the poll results and endorsements of the Democratic candidates for statewide office, Terry McAuliffe for governor, and state Sens. Ralph S. Northam, D-Norfolk for lieutenant governor and Mark R. Herring, D-Loudoun for attorney general.

A bipartisan team of pollsters, from the Democratic-leaning Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and Target Point Consulting, a Republican organization, conducted the survey . . . .

In Virginia, where the American Civil Liberties Union announced this week that it will file suit in federal court to challenge the state’s 2006 constitutional amendment, the latest poll is the latest signal that the ground is softening.

The new poll shows that while Northern Virginia leads support for same-sex marriage with 68 percent, it also finds majority support in central (53 percent) and Eastern Virginia (51 percent).

The main opposition to gay marriage in Virginia remains centered in the Southwester and Southern tier of the state - regions not coincidentally with high unemployment which cannot attract modern, progressive businesses and employers to move to their areas.  At the same time, population in the gay friendly areas of Virginia is increasing while it is declining in the gay hating/GOP loving parts of the state.   Bigotry does carry an economic and a political price.  Not that the Virginia GOP has figured out yet that it is committing a slow form of suicide.

Read More

Church of England to Launch Campaign Against Anti-Gay Bullying

In a move that will likely cause the anti-gay elements in the Anglican Communion to go berserk - especially in the corrupt, lunatic churches in Africa - the Church of England is launching a campaign to oppose anti-gay bullying.   I can just imagine the flying spittle and convulsions racking the church hierarchy in Uganda and Nigeria.  Interestingly, one of the justifications for the campaign cited by the Archbishop of Canterbury is the change in societal attitudes towards homosexuality.  In short, society has changed and the Church of England needs to face this reality.  It's obviously, not the type of enlightened views one can expect from the Christofascists and GOP base in America.  Here are some story excerpts from the New York Times:

The archbishop of Canterbury has announced a campaign to stamp out antigay bullying in Church of England schools, acknowledging that attitudes toward sexuality have changed. The archbishop, the Most Rev. Justin Welby, spiritual leader of the world’s Anglican Communion, stressed that the Church of England was not changing its teaching on gay relationships, but that it would be “absurd and impossible” to ignore shifting cultural attitudes. He told the opening of the General Synod of the Church of England that “the majority of the population rightly detests homophobic behavior.” 

A BBC News commentator described the move as follows:

Justin Welby's speech was partly exhortation, partly stark warning, to a Church floundering in a society undergoing rapid social and cultural change. 

He spelt out the Church's predicament in dealing with sexuality as the clearest example. He cited the debate over gay marriage in the House of Lords and the way his own opposition to the legislation had been "utterly overwhelmed".

The implication was that Anglicans must be ready to take risks and reimagine how the Church's teaching could be applied to a radically different world.

In some ways it was a bleak assessment - Anglicans had lost trust in each other, they sometimes faced "noticeable hostility", and lived in a society where fewer people, particularly young people, thought of themselves as Christian. 

Archbishop Welby was preparing the Church to take the sort of journey it instinctively wants to spread over decades or centuries, in a few years. To ignore the need, he insisted, would be both "impossible and absurd".

The perception take Christians are anti-gay and filled with hypocrisy and hate are leading factors in the younger generations decision to walk away from institutional religion.  Welby seems to recognize this reality and want to move to address it.  It is a stark contrast from the Roman Catholic Church which seem set to continue its anti-gay jihad.

 

Read More

The GOP’s Reform Challenge - Mission Impossible?

How do you reform and modernize a political party whose base is increasingly defined by the open - indeed, proud - embrace of ignorance and a rejection of all modern knowledge?  How does a political party lead the world's remaining super power when its base wants to govern according to Bronze Age understandings of the world and its place in the universe?  It's a huge challenge and one that frankly I do not see the Republican Party overcoming until the Christofascists elements in the party are kicked to the curb and exiled to the political wilderness where they belong.  Years ago the GOP establishment welcomed these insane elements into the party and now they are like a metastasizing cancer that needs to be eradicated.   A column in the Washington Post looks at the impossible mission whats left of the sane GOP leadership is facing.  Here are highlights:

It is often argued, including by me, that the GOP needs its own Bill Clinton or Tony Blair — a leader to reposition the party and reinvigorate its political appeal. But if these figures are examples of successful reform, British Prime Minister David Cameron is a warning of its perils.  Cameron set out to modernize the Conservative Party. He has found that not everyone is happy to be modernized. 

Cameron’s embrace of environmentalism and gay marriage has also received criticism from older, less cosmopolitan party regulars. The quarrel has been fed by a (disputed) quote from a source close to the prime minister dismissing Tory activists as “swivel-eyed loons.”

The lesson for the Republican Party is sobering: A political coalition being stretched is at risk of being shattered.

For the GOP — beating against heavy demographic and generational tides — the attempt to modernize is unavoidable. In the next few elections, the ebb might be overcome with just the right presidential candidate, in just the right political circumstance. But in the long run, Republicans are borne away from power. There won’t be enough white and gray voters to win national elections.

The fundamentalist approach to reforming the GOP — an oversimplified Reaganism, advocated in the tone of Barry Goldwater — would only hasten the decline. It is an appeal to an electorate increasingly confined to Republican primaries.

Religious conservatives, for example, are the single largest constituency within the GOP, and compose about a quarter of the entire electorate. Such voters are not baggage thrown overboard to lighten the ship; they are planks in the hull. So the Republican Party is left with a challenge: It needs to become more socially inclusive without becoming socially liberal. Some think (or hope) that this is impossible.

The GOP will need to welcome new Americans and champion their economic and social mobility. It will need to remain true to the stable, pro-life convictions of its strongest supporters, while recognizing broad shifts taking place on gay rights among younger Americans, even within the Republican base. And it will need to speak to the concerns of working-class families who are the real swing voters in national elections.

But the Republican readjustment will also require a leader of a certain type. There is one combination that makes this transformation work at a national level: a reform-minded Republican who has the sympathy of religious conservatives. 

[I]t is a creative response to the Republican reform dilemma to make religious conviction a source of outreach. And it might accomplish something Cameron has not: making the party’s base a participant in the party’s modernization.

Personally, I think the column's author is dreaming - is hallucinating a better word? - if he thinks the Christofascist GOP base  will cooperate with any form of modernization.  In 2012 the GOP's national platform was written by leaders of registered hate groups.  Those folks are literally insane in my view and logic and reason will get nowhere with them.  You don't put the mental ward patients in charge and then foolishly hope for a good out come.

Read More