This is what it would look like if every woman in the country would refuse to vote for Donald Trump.

Courtesy of Daily Kos:

From Nate Silver: Exclusive @FiveThirtyEight projection on what the Electoral College would look like if women refuse to vote Trump.

Boy do I suddenly feel completely unnecessary. 

I swear that if the women actually did this, and even turned Alaska blue, that I would be their slave forever. 

Not that I haven't always been but still.

Two photos that definitively demonstrate the difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party.

Remember this Paul Ryan selfie from a few days ago?

Now take a look at this tweet from Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

The Democratic Interns on Capitol Hill 2016 #DemInternSelfie pic.twitter.com/ZzUMl4hKoc

— Sheila Jackson Lee (@JacksonLeeTX18) July 20, 2016

Which one looks more like America in the year 2016 to you?

The future is ours my friends, we just have to wait for a few more of these crusty old white Republicans to kick the bucket and it will be basic human rights, universal health care, and debt free college tuition for everybody.

(H/T to Addicting Info.)

MSNBC shows more growth among viewers who don't have one foot in the grave than does Fox News or CNN.

Courtesy of NBC Universal:  

MSNBC saw the most growth in cable news for January 2016 during “Morning Joe” and Monday-Friday dayside programming (M-F 9a-5p). MSNBC’s dayside programming (M-F 9a-5p) was up 60% in A25-54 and 46% in total viewers while Fox News was up only 27% and CNN was down by 9%. MSNBC’s M-F 8-11p was up 44% in A254-54 and 45% in total viewers over last year, topping CNN which was only up 16% and tying Fox News which was only up 44% in A25-54 over last year in M-F 8-11p. January 2016 was the best M-F 8-11p demo performance for MSNBC since February 2014 and in total viewers since October 2013. M-F 9a-5p saw the highest A25-54 since March 2014. 

“Morning Joe” was up 41% in A25-54 (127,000 vs. CNN’s 115,000) and 54% in total viewers (505,000 vs. CNN’s 396,000) over last year, beating CNN in both for the month. January 2016 was the best month for “Morning Joe” since January 2014. In M-F 6-9a, Fox News was only up 13% and CNN was down 17% in A25-54. 

“The Rachel Maddow Show” beat CNN in A25-54 (244,000 vs. CNN’s 232,000) and total viewers (1,062,000 vs. CNN’s 727,000) for the month with double digit growth over last year, 59% in A25-54 and 42% in total viewers. At 9pm, CNN and Fox News were both down in A25-54 over last month. “The Rachel Maddow Show” had the best A25-54 delivery since February 2014 and best total viewers since October 2013. 

I really can't stand Morning Joe, but I'm glad that MSNBC is attracting younger eyes.  Especially with so many devices competing with cable television.

As for Rachel Maddow I think that EVERYBODY should be watching her show regardless of their political leanings, simply because her show is the best when it comes to presenting the facts, and having those facts withstand scrutiny from fact checkers.

Oh and before anybody gets themselves in a snit over my "one foot in the grave" remark, allow me to remind you that I am on the wrong side of that 25 to 54 demographic as well.

The fact is that these new viewers are likely to stick around far longer than the 55-75 crowd that seems to prefer Fox News.

White Christians now make up less than half of all Americans, but virtually ALL of the Republican party.

Courtesy of the National Journal:  

Long the dom­in­ant group in Amer­ic­an re­li­gious life, White Chris­ti­ans have fallen be­low a ma­jor­ity of the U.S. pop­u­la­tion—and they are mov­ing to the right polit­ic­ally as they re­cede. 

The res­ult is that, like race and age, re­li­gious af­fil­i­ation marks a sharpen­ing point of dis­tinc­tion between Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats, pre­vi­ously un­pub­lished res­ults from the Pew Re­search Cen­ter’s massive Re­li­gious Land­scape sur­vey show. 

As the na­tion re­lent­lessly di­ver­si­fies, both in its ra­cial com­pos­i­tion and re­li­gious pref­er­ences, White Chris­ti­ans now rep­res­ent just 46 per­cent of Amer­ic­an adults, ac­cord­ing to Pew data provided in re­sponse to a re­quest from Next Amer­ica. That’s down from a 55 per­cent ma­jor­ity as re­cently as 2007, and much high­er fig­ures through most of U.S. his­tory. 

Yet even as White Chris­ti­ans shrink in their over­all num­bers, they still ac­count for nearly sev­en-in-10 Amer­ic­ans who identi­fy with, or lean to­ward, the Re­pub­lic­an Party, the Pew study found. White Chris­ti­ans, in fact, rep­res­ent as large a share of the Re­pub­lic­an co­ali­tion today as they did of Amer­ic­an so­ci­ety over­all in 1984, when Ron­ald Re­agan won reelec­tion. A clear ma­jor­ity of all White Chris­ti­ans across the United States now identi­fy as Re­pub­lic­an, Pew found.

The data demonstrated that the result of the changing demographics is that the Republican party is becoming more entrenched in conservative religious values while the Democratic party is split among the white less religious liberals, and the more traditional, and more religious, blacks and Hispanic voters.

This means that the GOP can get the voters animated with simple talking points claiming there is an attack on their religion, or that the brown people are coming to take their freedoms away, while the gays are indoctrinating heir children.

On the other hand the Democrats have to walk a finer line, preaching more tolerant attitudes, while also being careful not to insult those raised in more traditional Christian homes.

Even though the trend is working in favor of the Democrats, there are still numerous elections ahead where the cohesion of the Republican party presents a real challenge to Democratic candidates.

And in smaller local elections, where getting out the conservative vote means simply paying a visit to the local churches, the challenge for liberals is to find a candidate that the various fractions within the Democratic party can rally behind.

Sadly this is the problem with leading those who make decisions based on critical thinking, as opposed to those who makes theirs based on faith.

More bad news for Fox News as increasing number of middle aged white folks just start dying off.

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

Middle-aged white Americans are dying at increasing rates and half a million people are dead who should not be, according to a new report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

The study, co-authored by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, analyzed death rates for men and women aged 45 to 54 in the United States, a range often categorized as "middle-age." The duo, both economics professors at Princeton, then compared the data to those death rates found within other domestic racial categories and those seen in similarly wealthy nations. 

Black, Hispanic and older Americans (65 and up) have continued to see longer lives, as have those in Sweden, Australia, Germany and other rich nations, but middle-aged white Americans have not. The results represented a "marked increase" in mortality between 1999 and 2013, and the trends seem to "reverse decades of progress in mortality and was unique to the United States."

Well isn't that inter......hey wait a minute I'M a middle aged white American!

So what the hell are they dying from?

The study links the increase in mortality to a slew of problematic issues seen throughout American society, including an increase in drug and alcohol abuse and an increase in suicide rates. White men had the highest suicide rate of any demographic in 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The authors also draw a stark link between a rise in opioid availability, including the growing problem of cheap heroin. They theorize that an uptick in "the epidemic of pain, suicide and drug overdoses" may be tied to 2008's financial crisis, and say many baby-boomers are among the first to live a harsher life than their parents.

Phew! Okay well I should be fine more or less, because I am not much of a drinker, and I am much too poor to support a heroin addiction. 

Besides right before typing this I finished the second of the three workouts I have planned for today and am currently sucking down a blueberry and coconut milk protein shake.  So I am doing what I can to keep the grim reaper at bay.

As for suicide, yeah that's not my thing.

I have always considered my life to be a gift, and I have no plans on shuffling off this moral coil until they drag me kicking and screaming into the void.

On the bright side, and yes I know there is not much of a bright side, this is doing nothing to help the GOP demographic. 

Liberal is the new black in 2015.

Courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:  

There are signs that liberals are making a comeback — and not just because a socialist is running for president, gay marriage is spreading like wildfire and pot legalization is gaining acceptance. 

A new analysis of Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll data finds a marked increase in the share of registered voters identifying themselves as liberals, and an even bigger drop in the share saying they are conservatives. 

In three national polls conducted so far in 2015, the analysis found that 26% of registered voters identified themselves as liberals — up from 23% in 2014. At the same time, the share of voters identifying as conservatives dropped to 33% from 37% in 2014. 

The analysis by GOP pollster Bill McInturff, who looked at survey data from 2010 to 2015, found that the biggest ideological shifts came among women, young people, Latinos and well-educated voters, as well as people in the West and in cities.

 I've been telling y'all our time is now!

No more hiding our liberalness from our friends and families. We have got to stand tall and tell the world that this is our time and we are going to take back our country from those conservatives who have been attempting for decades to push it back to the 50's.

The 1750's that is.

Probably the most enjoyable post about death that you will read today.

Lindsey knows what's up.

Courtesy of Politico:  

It turns out that one of the Grand Old Party’s biggest—and least discussed—challenges going into 2016 is lying in plain sight, written right into the party’s own nickname. The Republican Party voter is old—and getting older, and as the adage goes, there are two certainties in life: Death and taxes. Right now, both are enemies of the GOP and they might want to worry more about the former than the latter. 

There’s been much written about how millennials are becoming a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, but there’s been much less attention paid to one of the biggest get-out-the-vote challenges for the Republican Party heading into the next presidential election: Hundreds of thousands of their traditional core supporters won’t be able to turn out to vote at all. 

The party’s core is dying off by the day. 

Since it appears that no political data geek keeps track of voters who die between elections, I took it upon myself to do some basic math. And that quick back-of-the-napkin math shows that the trend could have a real effect in certain states, and make a battleground states like Florida and Ohio even harder for the Republican Party to capture. 

By combining presidential election exit polls with mortality rates per age group from the U.S. Census Bureau, I calculated that, of the 61 million who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, about 2.75 million will be dead by the 2016 election. President Barack Obama’s voters, of course, will have died too—about 2.3 million of the 66 million who voted for the president won’t make it to 2016 either. That leaves a big gap in between, a difference of roughly 453,000 in favor of the Democrats. 

Here is the methodology, using one age group as an example: According to exit polls, 5,488,091 voters aged 60 to 64 years old supported Romney in 2012. The mortality rate for that age group is 1,047.3 deaths per 100,000, which means that 57,475 of those voters died by the end of 2013. Multiply that number by four, and you get 229,900 Romney voters aged 60-to-64 who will be deceased by Election Day 2016. Doing the same calculation across the range of demographic slices pulled from exit polls and census numbers allows one to calculate the total voter deaths. It’s a rough calculation, to be sure, and there are perhaps ways to move the numbers a few thousand this way or that, but by and large, this methodology at least establishes the rough scale of the problem for the Republicans—a problem measured in the mid-hundreds of thousands of lost voters by November 2016. 

I realize that it's a little macabre. But then again it is also quite uplifting news for those of us who, unlike Marco Rubio, do not want the same tired old ideas and prejudices of the "good old days" reinforced by legislation pushed through the Congress by old men constantly reelected by even older men.

The future is bright, and not so sadly many of the Republican base will not live long enough to see it.

Nor get the chance to yell at it and tell it to get the hell off their lawn. 

There are now 19 states where white Christians are no longer the majority.

Courtesy of Think Progress:

A new study reports that white Christians, long understood to be the primary shapers of American politics and culture, are rapidly losing their majority status across the country — even in traditionally conservative states. 

Earlier this week, Jonathan Merritt of the Religion News Service dug into data from the American Values Atlas, a website unveiled late last year by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) that aggregates polling information on the political opinions, values, and religious affiliations of Americans. The wealth of data is a lot to sift through, but Merritt pointed to a striking revelation: white Christians, once the majority in virtually every major population area in America, are now a minority in 19 states. 

 ..... 

Taken together, the PRRI data and Merritt’s analysis highlight several areas where white Christians are now the minority. Some states on this new list are fairly predictable, such as Hawaii, the only majority-minority state in America, and California, home to two of the top five most-diverse counties in the nation. 

“Hawaii and California have the smallest white Christian populations of any state—20 percent and 25 percent, respectively,” Joanna Piacenza, an editor and communications associate at PRRI, noted in a blog post. 

But the list of states also revealed some surprises, and included several conservative, historically-white, church-going “red states” such as Texas, Georgia, and Louisiana.

Well you know this news is going to freakout the Fox News watchers and racists in the country. (Assuming of course those are two different categories.) 

Personally I am really thrilled to see Alaska listed among the states where the white Christian demographic is in the minority.

However I know full well that the money and the power remains in the hands of the white Christians. But perhaps those days will someday come to an end as well.

The problem with calling out Fox News hosts on their lies it that it makes them that much more attractive to their audiences.

See? I win.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

The media keeps piling on Bill O’Reilly, and so do viewers. Amid mounting criticism of his past “war zone” recollections, the Fox News firebrand delivered his highest ratings of the year, Nielsen Media data shows. Last Monday night’s edition of “The O’Reilly Factor,” in which the television-show host addressed some of the criticism lodged against him last week by Mother Jones magazine, averaged 3.3 million viewers, up 14 percent from 2.9 million the previous Monday. 

This is not the first time a controversy has helped boost O’Reilly’s audience. In 2004, his audience rose 30 percent amid allegations that he sexually harassed a colleague, CBS News reported at the time. 

Viewership of news programming is notoriously unpredictable and typically fluctuates with specific news events. But for much of this week, O’Reilly himself was the news -- the target of one attack after another from media outlets and former colleagues who accused him of embellishing or flat-out lying about his role in past news events. 

Judging by Fox News’ prime-time ratings since the Mother Jones story broke, it appears either more people are tuning in to “hate-watch” the host or his core audience is responding to the controversy with a collective shrug. O’Reilly averaged 2.9 million viewers Tuesday and 3.1 million Wednesday, the most recent days for which data is available. Wednesday, he attracted 705,000 viewers in the demographic range between 25 and 54 years old that is highly prized by advertisers, a 24 percent increase from the same day the previous week, as Variety reported.

I guess when your audience is made up of ideologues who only want their fears, prejudices, and conspiracy theories backed up, being caught telling multiple lies is not that big of a deal.

However, and I still think this is an important point, destroying the credibility of Fox News and its hosts ultimately helps in spreading actual news without fear that an alternate version will vie for acceptance by the viewing public.

Remember much of the Fox News demographic is inching closer to death every single day, and the younger views, much as the above article indicates, really seem to watch Fox more out of morbid curiosity rather than with any expectation of seeing any actual news.

How to revive a Fox News viewer.

You know some comics are so accurate that they cannot even be see as humorous.

Well one thing for sure, Fox knows its demographic.

To them Benghazi is porn for repressed, liberal hating, conservatives.

New study reveals that fear of becoming racial minority is causing more white people to turn conservative. Gonna file this under, "Gee, no kidding."

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Two researchers from the Department of Psychology and Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University demonstrated that the more white Americans know about the changing demographics of the United States, the more likely they are to endorse conservative policy positions. 

Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson conducted three studies in which white Americans were presented with information about the racial demographic shifts that have led the U.S. Census Bureau to project that “racial minority groups will make up a majority of the U.S. national population in 2042, effectively creating a so-called ‘majority-minority’ nation.” 

In the first study, self-identifying political independents were randomly asked to learn about the majority-minority racial shift in California or about how the number of Hispanics in the United States is now roughly equal to the number of African-Americans. They were then asked questions about their political party leanings and ideology. 

The result was that, “[d]espite being self-identified political independents, respondents who were asked about the [majority-minority] racial shift reported being somewhat more conservative than did respondents” who were asked the less salient question about Hispanics being roughly equally to African-Americans. 

In the second study, Craig and Richeson had participants read either about the majority-minority racial shift or a non-racial national shift in geographic mobility in order to determine whether tendency to endorse conservative positions is limited to race-related policies, like those presented in the first study. Again, they then asked participants about their political party leanings and ideology, and the results was that “making the U.S. racial shift salient led to greater endorsement of conservative policies, compared with making a nonracial societal shift salient.”

I am not sure that this is something that could be considered terribly surprising. 

A desire to preserve and defend one's people has been a driving force all through history. And conservatism is all about protecting the Caucasian people's grip on power in this country, and oppressing those who are of another ethnicity.

In fact that innate desire is why armies in olden times raped the women of their defeated enemies in an attempt to pollute their bloodline and essentially screw them out of existence.

That is also why religions often forbid the use of birth control, and promote large families. It is all an attempt to gain or retain power.

The bigger your army, the longer you exist.

So these days the army of white people, who have held power in this country since its inception, are finding themselves becoming outnumbered.

That has caused panic, and in turn I think it helps to explain a lot of the vitriol directed at our President, and a lot of the increased gun sales as well.

The frightening part is that as these people become more and more upset about the future of their race, one needs to be concerned as to what lengths they might be willing to go to preserve their place at the top of the food chain.

More than two thirds of women hope that the Supreme Court rules against Hobby Lobby today.

Courtesy of HuffPo:  

More than two-thirds of U.S. women voters oppose allowing corporations to refuse to cover contraception in their health plans because of religious objections, according to a new poll released Monday by Hart Research Associates. 

The poll, commissioned by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Women's Law Center, surveyed women between the ages of 18 and 55 ahead of the Supreme Court case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The Christian-owned craft supply chain will argue before the court on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act violates its religious freedom rights by requiring it and other for-profit employers to cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives in their health plans. 

But 68 percent of the female voters who would be affected by the Supreme Court's decision disagree with Hobby Lobby, according to the new poll, and more half say they disagree "strongly." Eighty-four percent of women agreed with the statement that the decision to use birth control "should be a woman’s personal decision, and her boss should not be able to interfere with it." 

"Overwhelmingly, the women who are most likely to be affected by the Hobby Lobby decision say that corporations should not be entitled to exempt themselves from the requirement to cover prescription birth control, even on religious grounds," said Geoff Garin, President of Hart Research Associates. "As a matter of principle, these women don’t believe corporations should be able to use religion to pick and choose which laws they will obey."

Once again many of these so-called "religious businesses" have no problem covering men's Viagra prescriptions, nor do they seem to take issue with the fact that their tax dollars allowed Medicare to spend over 172 million on penis pumps in six years.

How can those two expenses NOT be considered for recreational sexual purposes?

But for some reason when it comes to providing medication to help women control their discomfort during menses, or take charge of family planning, or provide a safe method for ensuring that a fertilized egg cannot attach itself to the uterine wall, they suddenly get all righteous and indignant.

You know those of us on the progressive side are always talking about getting out the youth vote, and engaging the minority voters, but to my mind the demographic with the largest stake in this next election cycle might be the women. After all surely they are tired of this crap.

I think they are the key to really starting to bring about a change in this country that will see policies implemented that make sure they are paid adequately, treated equally, and respected as fully functional human beings and not simply breeding stock.

Rachel Maddow Show tops ratings among key demographic last week. The reason? Bridge-ghazi, bridge-ghazi, bridge-ghazi!

Courtesy of Newser:  

MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” has delivered a rare victory over Fox News in the ratings: Maddow’s program won its timeslot in the key A25-54 demographic for the week of January 6. 

“The Rachel Maddow Show” averaged 325,000 A25-54 viewers for the week, topping Fox News’ “The Kelly File,” which drew 305,000, and “Piers Morgan Tonight,” which had 159,000. It was MSNBC’s best 9pmET performance since the week of the Boston Marathon bombing (4/15/13). 

MSNBC’s coverage of the Chris Christie bridge scandal propelled MSNBC to#1 in the primetime demo on both Thursday and Friday of last week. Maddow won the 9pmET timeslot among younger viewers both nights.

I think Maddow did incredibly important work on this scandal last week, as did many of her fellow MSNBC hosts (Chris Hayes especially.) and she clearly deserved to come out on top in the ratings.

Especially since the usual  ratings heavyweight, Fox News, either acted as if there were no scandal, or disingenuously tried to obfuscate by bringing up fake Obama "scandals."

Rachel is, as you all know, my go to news source when I am trying to make sense out of breaking stories, and I ma rarely disappointed by her incredibly well researched reporting.

My hope is that this trend continues and that in the months to come we will find Fox struggling to retake this time slot while also losing ground in many others.

Richard Dawkins states the obvious.

The The Times printed an article about the changing demographic in England and Wales.

In it they made the following observation:Almost a tenth of babies and toddlers in England and Wales are Muslim, a breakdown of census figures shows. 

The percentage of Muslims among the under-fives is almost twice as high as in the general population. In an indication of the extent to which birthrate is changing the UK’s religious demographic, fewer than one in 200 people over 85 is Muslim.

This resulted in the following Letter to the Editor from Dawkins.

Dawkins is of course completely correct in making this point.  However since we know giving birth to new adherents is one of the primary ways that religions compete on this planet for dominance, it is not a change that will be adopted any time soon.

Personally I hope to live long enough to see the day when it is illegal to indoctrinate children into any religious belief until they are at least in their teens and they have developed the critical thinking skills to evaluate what they are being told is the "truth" behind whichever religion is making its sale pitch.

How long do you think I need to live to see that? Twenty years? Fifty years? Yeah, probably a lot longer than that.

Oh well, one can dream can't they?

(H/T to The Friendly Atheist.)

Megyn Kelly reportedly taking over Sean Hannity's spot on Fox News. Glenn Beck smiles knowingly.

Courtesy of Fox News:  

Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes announced last month that Kelly would move to a prime time position when she returned from maternity leave. 

Now the Drudge Report says she'll take over the 9pm ET slot in the prime time lineup, but Fox News isn't spilling the beans. 

A Fox News spokesperson said no official announcement would be made at this time. 

“We will neither confirm nor deny any programming schedule changes," the spokesperson said. "As previously stated, the network has signed long-term deals with Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, Shepard Smith, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren.” 

 I find it interesting that Fox would simply report that the Drudge Report is reporting something that you would think they had the inside track on reporting. (Did that give anybody else a headache?)

You know if they "neither confirm nor deny" a story that essentially proves that it's true. (Yeah like Drudge DOESN'T have a Bat phone linking him directly to Roger Ailes office!)

And this news comes on the heels of news that Hannity's talk radio program has been dropped by the second largest broadcaster in the country.  Sucks to be Sean.

However what this means for Hannity is anybody's guess. I understand he still has an iron clad contract with Fox so they probably can't simply dump his as like they once did to Palin, until he crawls back on his hands and knees (like she did) and renegotiates for a fraction of his previous income. (Like she did.)

Of course their is always room on the Fox and Friends couch between Steve Doocy and the poster child for bike safety helmets, Brian Kilmeade.

Currently the #NewSeanHannityJob is trending on Twitter.

Here are some of my favorites:

 #NewSeanHannityJob Authoring the book How Obama and His Liberals Got Me Booted Off Fox News. (I'd buy it.)


#NewSeanHannityJob sets up a deck chair in Congress and shouts "Benghazi!" anytime someone tries to legislate.

#NewSeanHannityJob Sarah Palin's tampon (Oooh, that's harsh! Funny, but harsh.)

Dunce hat tester #NewSeanHannityJob

#NewSeanHannityJob Brushing out Rand Paul's toupee (And we have a winner!)


Personally I would  suggest that he and Glenn Beck team up and start broadcasting from an undisclosed bunker somewhere in the deep South until this whole progressive wave finishes washing over the country.

Or until Jesus returns. Whichever comes first.

New census data shows that the demographic shifts may soon make the Republicans obsolete as a national party.

Courtesy of the New Republic:  

Today, the Census released the November 2012 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration Supplement, which is based on interviews with hundreds of thousands of residents. The CPS asks Americans whether they participated in the last election. The CPS is imperfect like any survey, but it is considered the gold standard for analyzing turnout. It demonstrates that, in the debate about the GOP’s future in an increasingly diverse America, both sides are right, to a certain extent. On the one hand, Obama’s historic candidacy led to historic black turnout. On the other hand, the Obama coalition is the product of irreversible demographic changes. If Republicans hope to win presidential elections, they will need to broaden their appeal—not just count on lower minority turnout in the post-Obama era. 

Unsurprisingly, the CPS found that the 2012 electorate was more diverse than any in history. Whites represented just 73.7 percent of the electorate, down from 76.3 in 2008 and 79.2 percent in 2004. In comparison, the exit polls found that whites represented 72 percent of the electorate in 2012, compared to 74 percent in 2008 and 77 percent in 2004. For the first time, the CPS found that black turnout rates exceed white turnout rates, with 66.2 percent of voting age blacks turning out, compared to 64.1 percent of whites. Many expected that black turnout would decline in 2012, but the CPS actually found that black turnout was even higher in 2012 than it was in 2008, increasing from 64.7 to 66.2 percent. 

But the problem for Republicans is that the white share of the voting eligible population is likely to decline even further over the next four years. What’s causing the decline? Today’s 15-18 year olds are only about 58 percent white. As they enter the electorate and older whites depart, the non-white share of the voting eligible population rises. This prediction is not subject to great uncertainty. These 15-18 year olds are alive, they’re counted in the Census, and, unless they die, they’re going to be eligible to vote in 2016. If the non-white share of the voting eligible population declines by another 2 points, as expected, then the 2016 electorate will about as diverse as it was in 2012, even if turnout rates return to 2004 levels. The Obama coalition is not going away, even if elevated minority turnout rates are gone for good. 

The biggest mistake that Republicans made in 2012 was assuming that 2008 was a special, one-time product of a historic candidate. That was superficially appealing and maybe even “felt” right, but the CPS said that the 2008 turnout wasn’t as unique as the huge crowds and palpable enthusiasm made it seem. The GOP should not delude itself into believing that taking Obama off of the ballot will return them to the White House, even if black turnout rates should be expected to decline in 2016. Demographic change, not turnout, is the primary force driving the declining white share of the electorate, and the GOP will need to adapt.

Nothing that the GOP is currently doing indicates that they have learned ANYTHING from their recent defeats in the last two presidential elections. So I think that the White House may be out of their reach for the foreseeable future, barring any huge scandal for the Democrats that is.

However on the local level the GOP still has a very strong machine in place, not to mention control over those damn voting machines, which means that unless the Democrats find a way to outlaw voting machines that leave no paper trail, or increase their turnout to such a degree that elections cannot be stolen, they will have to wait until the people finally get completely fed up with the Republican party or until the demographics change to such a degree that even in smaller elections the minority becomes the majority.

Personally I don't think our country can survive waiting for the latter.

Forget the Hispanics, African Americans, or LGBT community. Who will stand up for the TRULY oppressed. You know, white people!

Courtesy of the New Civil Rights Movement:  

The National Policy Institute is a white supremacy think tank whose aim is to protect and promote white, Christians of European ancestry — you know, people just like our Founding Fathers… 

They call themselves “an independent research and educational foundation,” and they’re headquartered in Whitefish, Montana (no, really, even the town they’re in has the word “white” in it.) 

“Have you ever wondered, ‘why isn’t there an organization that works for us?,’” their new video asks: 

From African-Americans to illegal immigrants—from lesbians to left-handers—every ethnic and interest group has its own lobby or cultural foundation. 

The exception is White Americans—our country’s historic majority and founding population—the people that bears [sic] the unique heritage of Europe, Christianity, cultural excellence, and the scientific awakening. 

And there are our peculiar folkways—holidays, traditions, and customs—that make us both uniquely European and uniquely American. 

Only we are who we are. 

So why isn’t there an organization that has our interests at heart? Or maybe the question should be, Why isn’t there an organization that has our children’s interest at heart—as well as those of our grandchildren and generations yet to be born. 

Don’t they deserve to live in a country akin to that of their ancestors’?

Apparently that means a country where women knew to stay in the kitchen, blacks knew better than to make eye contact with a white man, and Hispanics knew they either needed to be picking crops for pennies a bushel, doing lawn maintenance, or staying across the border in Mexico where they belonged.

So do these people deserve to raise their children in that kind of country?

In a word, no!

Funny how when a black man finally gets into the White House that suddenly so many white people suddenly believe that they have lost THEIR country, and start to act as if THEY have never had a group dedicated to protecting the right of their race?

Oh, how soon they forget.

Let's face it, though the demographics may be changing, the white folks are far from a powerless minority in this country. The people in this organization do not simply want to have A voice, they want to have THE voice.

In other words the FINAL voice. You know. like their ancestors.

And the fact that they may no longer be able to oppress the people that they have historically been able to oppress is making them feel all...you know less than all powerful.

The horror!

Wise words from a youth pastor.

Dare I say it? Amen.