The last election has demonstrated a remarkable turn of the political tide.
An enormous amount of data-sifting is being done to determine exactly what has shifted in the electorate.
A thoughtful and learned discussion, in contrast to this sarcastic, rabble-rousing summary, can be found here:
Brookings Institute - Election Demographics
While the number of registered Republicans sank to lows not seen since the Clinton years (33% of registered voters), the proportion of Republican voters shrank to a minority in every age group except the elderly.
Rightwing blowhards who still trumpet the phenomena of "Reagan Democrats" might want to consider that there aren't many of them left.
Not a huge cohort of people who were 50 years old in 1980 still going to the polls.
The old do prefer Republicans.
*
Suburban voters now prefer Democrats, joining urbanites who have always provided blue oases, even in the reddest deserts.
The "Ex-urbanites" who live in developed communities outside urban and suburban areas now vote Democratic.
Ignorant ranters used to publish articles claiming that the population shifts from the northeast and mid-west industrial belts to southern regions heralded the inevitable decline of the Democratic prty.
Guess what? Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina voted Democratic. Oops.
Do rightwing idiots really believe that Democrats change their political persuasion when they move?
I recall an especially stupid rant bragging on the population growth in New Hampshire at the expense of the Bay State.
The careless braggart who posted that article may want to think this through a bit further since New Hampshire is now solidly blue.
Likewise the reflexive wingnut "Political Consultant" who announced the diminished political clout of California as the state's population growth slowed in comparison to Nevada and Colorado.
Hmmmm, not a lot of valuable thought from this windbag, as Nevada and Colorado voted strongly Democratic.
Only in rural areas do Republicans still comprise a majority of voters.
*
Finally, the population at every level of educational attainment prefers Democrats.
The intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party, coupled with the unrelenting anti-scientific biases of the Republican "base", is sufficient to explain this result.
The professional classes, all those who have a post-graduate education and actually understand something about the subject areas on which politicians bloviate, have been strongly Democratic for twenty-five years.


Comments: 80
I know this is not a win-win situation, but still and after all,
This is the Season for Change for The Better.
Great article, Peter W. Thanks for sharing.
Can you believe that the dems were dinged for being "too?"
Too intelligent? Too Humble? Too open? Too hopeful?
Too good a speaker?
Too good a debater?
Too much!
Wilka
Too good a speaker?
Too good a debater?
Too much!
Exactly, Wilka.
Glad you approve!
That makes two of us so far, GREMS.
In 2004, Stephanie, Republicans had narrow majority among college graduates.
That advatage disappeared in 2008.
Every family contains at least one member "beyond the pale", Carla.
:-)
Somewhere in there, that party was seduced by the wealthy who wanted to remain so, and thus it became the party that protected big business, big money, and big lies.
Democrats used to be the bad guys, and somewhere in the 1960s they got a clue. They became attentive to the people instead of the businesses and good ol' boy patronage -- not to say they didn't do things wrong, but that they became more open to becoming what we have today.
Now, the GOP has to figure out that if you lean too far over, you fall down. That's what happened. It would be nice to see if they could find their center again and fight for limited government.
Even better would be if either party began expecting citizens to show a little personal responsibility. We don't need laws telling us to buckle our seatbelts -- we should know enough to do that just because it's the right thing to do.
I live in Rural Missouri smack in the burnished bronze buckle of the Bible Belt and I is a FLAMING DEMOCRAT. Had Obama/Biden posters in the yard and spent 14 hours as an Dem election judge AND I can't remember when I didn't have grey hair! Admittedly, my literary scope and political interest is light years ahead of the average FOX sucking local hayseed BUT us kuntry boyz ain't ALL morons.
I don't think either party was for *more* government -- Republicans weren't for States' rights, but they weren't about government control or business controlling government. And this is all looking at 20th century, during Industrialization. Republicans were about the lassez-faire(sp?) thing where government allowed the economy to boom and there was something about "dollar diplomacy." I am not saying I have it all sorted out, but I don't see the big corporations in the mix yet. Maybe I'm just not reading the right books. I was getting the sense that there weren't corporations yet.
I honestly hate political history and modern history, so this is like taking bitter medicine.
But, it appears that there was a time where GOP was more about smaller government than it was about pro-business, and then the two sort of merged. Are you up on modern history? I'm not. I'm still trying to figure it out.
Seemed like the shift happened after the world wars, but I haven't moved up past WWI. Right now, in the first two or three decades, the GOP is all about itself -- lots of trying to stay in power, control women's voting, and that sort of thing.
Where's a real historian? Nippy??
I'm glad you enjoyed it, Andrea.
There are no demographics that can be taken for granted, see Sam above!
It is a correlation, Sam, not a rule!
:-)
I appreciate very much your contribution to the political conversation on Gather.
Here in rural Missouri it comes down to two issues: abortion and guns. My very good friend voted republican because she is a good Catholic and couldn't vote for a pro-choice candidate. I can respect how she feels, but Bush I and Bush II did very little to change anything fundamental about abortion. Why would someone think that if the Bushes with 12 years in office between them didn't repeal roe v. wade that McCain would?
A smart choice, Mariana.
Agreed, Vicky.
I can respect that, Madame Donna.
I'm having breakfast with my town's staunchest Repulican woman this morning. Should be a hoot. Actually I like her when she isn't talking like a moron.
I'm still in a fog from last week. The election, my birthday, some stuff in the family.
One of my cousins dropped out of the Catholic church (that I can understand) but became and evangelical christian. The first time he opened his mouth about being a Republican was at a family event. Everyone stopped talking, pulled up a chair and stared at him. My aunt cried, I ripped him a new a**....... and he shut up. Every time his ex-wife opened her mouth about their church or their politics, we jumped down her throat.
In my family it is unacceptable to be a Republican. Leaving the Catholic church is frowned upon, but understood. My being a radical feminist is appreciated. Being a lesbian, pagan, heathen, Wiccan whatever is fine.
But being a Republican is evil and unacceptable.
Sorry for writing a mini article Peter. Carry on.
And Indiana! For the first time in 40 years!
We're still trying to understand it all.
Blessings, Peter.
Wilka (also from Vickie's grey "show me" state.)
There are many fine people with perverse political opinions.
I hope you can hold it together, Wilka.
Seems to me that the Republican party is in trouble because it embraced ideology (Evangelicals) and the economy collapsed. Politics used to be more about building coalitions of interest groups. The Republicans tended to favor business and the Democrats tended to appeal to labor, racial and ethnic minorities (except in the south), and the bottom half of the economic spectrum.
IMHO the decline in Republican registration is temporary. When the economy turns around or resists government efforts to fix it the Republicans will be back.
Obama was an extraordinary candidate, the best any of us are likely to see in our lifetimes. He turned the tide, with help from the economic crisis.
However, once Obama is out of office, there will be movement back to the right. I'm hoping it's a small shift, though.
I believe the Republican party is in trouble because it embraces ideology contrary to facts.
The"myth", the explanatory story (the markets can monitor themselves, government is the problem, all our problems would be better without government), that Republicns use to create a framework fo politcal action has been exploded.
Can there be a political party without ideology?
That's called the "sweet spot", Beaker.
Thanks for reminding us, John M.
The Democratic sweep of Indian was very satisfying.
Especially since the voter suppression tactics that Republicans used successfully in Ohio in 2004 were all "tried out" in Indiana.
I think for the most part, educated people DO go Democrat. It was not always the case, of course, but as you state the Republican Party has lost its way, mired in the anti-intellectualism and pro-religion of the right-wing radical fundies. It is very sad. To have put up a VP like Sarah Palin and be proud of it. It seems that they are still not getting the message as many herald this woman as their Presidential candidate in 2012. I guess that's another sign of the uneducated....they never learn their lessons well.
Yes, I can understand your amusement, Sheryl.
New Hampshire once had an African -American population that was less than 2% of all citizens.
With that done, I'm hoping that Sandy Knauer will read the article.
:-)
Yes this is one of the ways the Communist won.
And precisely the way the Republicans governed since 2000.
Vote counts stopped by justices appointed by he candidate's father, fraudulent threats, every failure classified as a national secret, setting up illegal qualifications for government positions, all national positions filled by unqualified party hacks, incompetence at every level of administration,...
Yep, sounds like the failed Bush administration.
No, that is true, Diana.
Nor is there anything wrong wioth being old, being uneducaed, or living in rural areas.
Many people who could be described this way are loving, generous, open-minded folks with high moral standards.
Some of them might be Republicans. :-)
Your eponymous "hero" was a reactionary fanatic who plotted to destroy Parliament in favor of a punitive theocratic regime.
"Real facts", of course, being the perception of "terrorist fist-jabs" and other ludicrous inanity from talk radio.
Sandy, I supect that the "test" was administered through one of the flashing banner ads sometimes featured on websites.
That has been the operative ideology for the religious and free-market fundamentalists who have ruined the country.
Not that it matters a hill of beans. Being able to snow an IQ test (which isn't hard) doesn't mean you can think critically or evaluate data in a meaningful way. Believe me, I run into those "expert" yahoos frequently who think their minimal ability to take tests means they actually know something. Two smartest engineers I've ever worked with never graduated college (one never graduated high school).
And that's the other thing. You can be a genius in one subject and a damn fool in another unless you keep and open mind and can evaluate data effectively.
I may have to expound on this and write a post later.
I think they gave him his IQ score backwards and 132 was what he missed out of 200.
His comments implied as much, Stephanie, but he did acknowledge it, too.
It is very high in comparison to the mean scores of the McCain-Palin crowd on Gather.
In modern parlance, he was a terrorist.
The two youngest haven't been tested, but I'm not worried. Stephanie came in all upset because she did an online test and only got 148. She's so young and naive. We explained that the online tests were largely nonsense and she felt better.
Lee tested in the stratosphere when he was in second grade. It's kind of disheartening for me. My motor skills suck so I never got nearly as high.
And, the reference to Guy Fawkes is now gone, Aniko.
Precisely, Aniko.
No one who refers to the President-elect as "the Communist" will ever convince another soul that he has an IQ greater than 75.
Brad, I missed the "awesome!"
Now, I have to ask you, who does that really sound like, Bush or Obama? Duh.
Or, sadly, McCain or Obama? Did McCain come out firmly about removing Guantanamo (I really don't know - I never heard him mention it)? Did he fight the "Patriot Act" (I don't know this either)? Did he resign himself to the use of torture? Yes. Did he use inflammatory language and incite hatred and fear? Yes. Did he talk about Iraq in a context that seems out of sync with reality? Yes.
Why can't people think? I did write that article, Peter, by the way.
Now, I have to ask you, who does that really sound like, Bush or Obama? Duh."
Exactly, Stephanie.
John McCain was a hero for standing up to the unconstitutional policies of the Bush regime and for demanding the closure of Gitmo.
Then, he became a candidate and had to deal with the taunts of crypto-fascists (with impotence problems) like Giuliani - and mcCaim flip-flopped.
It was horrible to see McCain reverse course and announce that he had been mistaken to oppose the monstrosity on Cuban soil.
"You are always so generous, Peter."
Thank You, Sandy. I try not to be mean.
Oh yes, Guy Fawkes, twisted piece of venomous hatred and delusional abot his "calling" to revive a theocratic reign of terror. A real "chick magnet".
Precisely so, Stephanie.
Several fine thinkers have already weighed in, but I'd like your take on it, too.
I checked out the fine article, Stephanie.
I left two long, boring responses so you will never ask for my comments again.
:-)
I applaud your comments and welcome any more you ever care to share.
You might regret that, Stephanie.
:-)
As a New Yorker, I revere the memory and the example of Franklin Roosevelt. (Occasionally, I worship in the Episcopal Church where Franklin married Eleanor.)
I have not weighed in on the serious questions that Dannielle raised about the history of political parties because the responses would be so long (and boring).
Clearly, the GOP of today bears little resemblance to the Republican party of old.