After winning Arkansas' state legislature, the GOP's dominance of the South is complete
Nine years ago, former Sen. Zell Miller, a very conservative Democrat from Georgia, wrote a book condemning his own party. The Democratic Party, Miller concluded, is a "national party no more."
In 2012, it looks like Miller got the label right, but the party wrong. In fact, after last week's results, it seems increasingly clear that the Republican Party enjoyed "unchecked domination" in the South -- but only in the South.
Despite the local victories, Republicans in the South are aware that many of the post-election analyses have found the party's image problems to be in the approach and the appeals that have led to its near total victory here. Southern Republican politicians continue to cruise smoothly to victory on the votes of white, socially conservative evangelicals. While some leaders have succeeded with a more centrist platform, like Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee, a large part of the Southern electorate still rewards politicians who promise to crack down hard on criminals and illegal immigrants, assume a defiant tone when speaking about the federal government and dismiss the idea of gay rights out of hand.
Nationally, this approach has been putting up diminishing returns.
The GOP's "Solid South" is unlikely to change in the short term, but even in this region, growing racial and ethnic diversity poses a long-term electoral threat that the party is reluctant to acknowledge or prepare for.
Indeed, for many Southern Republican leaders, there's simply no need to change. Andy Taggart, the a former executive director of the Mississippi Republican Party, told the Times, "I don't think for a second Republicans ought to change what we believe and what we stand for. I do think we could do a more effective job of communicating that."
This gets back to the Charles Krauthammer thesis we discussed last week -- the GOP just isn't "communicating" its right-wing message effectively enough. It's working in the Deep South, and once Republican candidates learn how to articulate this vision to a national audience, the party, the argument goes, will be just fine.
I suspect many Democrats hope their rivals seriously believe this, and respond to their defeats with nothing more than cosmetic, rhetorical changes.
Leave a Comment:
Probably what they meant to say is not that they're NOT communicating their message well enough, but that they're communicating it too well. Next time, expect the hard edges to be rounded off, and the message of the real Republican party hidden instead of elegantly enunciated in all its vicious glory.
It's hard to make the 19th century sound appealing in the 21st.
Try it sometime!
The GOP say what they mean. They have been exposed as having racial bias, and they remain insensitive to the needs of the middle class. That's a recipe for disaster, and that's fine with me. Watch out for Texas down the road in future national elections. The demographics are favoring hispanics, and this state could become blue with the right message and a prominent democrat running for VP or president of the united states in the near future! Go Democrats!!
I agree with Victor. The Republicans hid their real agenda well enough to get many Tea Party members elected to The House of Representatives, but since reporters were vigilent and asked this years candidates about their stance on abortion, the electorate was clued in to their agenda. The fact that the House has and many states have passed abortion legislation reveals the TRUE objective of the party. They may resort to this tactic again. We know better now! Thank you Tod Akin for making it clear what you are all about.
Please note that in the South, education is seriously, seriously behind. Crime is rampant, and juvenile crime is beyond out of control. We have some of the highest rates for teen pregnancy, yet some of the strongest public school stances on abstinence and teaching creationism. We have bankrupt states that can't afford to maintain their bridges and roads, and a notoriously corrupt governance.
However, the south has been home to some of the most gross injustice and hatred this country has ever seen. Unfortunately, most intolerance is tied to the prolific presence of Evangelical Christianity here, and general under-education of people who just don't know better.
The reason the right has won the South--
1) Old Boy Politics (blatant nepotism, croneyism, and corruption)
2) An uneducated and impoverished electorate
3) Guidance and moral compass governed by extreme Evangelical Christianity
Basically, no one down here more or less knows any better, and the Right has figured out the best way to monopolize on archaic fear of "the other guy" and the "destroying of our God-fearin' moral values"
If anyone wants to take a look at what my Facebook wall looked like after the election, everyone would die of laughter. I know people who voted outright for Mitt Romney even though they are a member of a labor union. I know people that rely on public assistance because their children's father abandonded them, yet they are imploring people to "pull themselves up by their boot straps."
Most likely number 1 reason people in Louisiana voted for Mitt Romney? He's Republican and NOT Barack Obama. Not because he was Mitt Romney.
People: the Red States are red not only because of the message or of the messengers, but most importantly, they are red because of the channel(s). Those few .1 percenters who own 80% of all the media in the U.S. own most of the communication channels that the people in those states can get. So when Sean Hannity calls the Obama campaign the dirtiest in history and that Obama is an angry black man, they have no way or time to check him out. Even the right wing purchased ministers give them the same anti-Obama message on Sunday and, all week long, on the "religious channels" that are included in the basic cable package. As long as people in any state get predominately biased, untrue messages that are presented as the Truth, it is likely that the message will be believed.
We must break up the media conglomerates. Fox News is the most well known and it is also the most listened to and believed in too many media markets. But Fox is now alone.
MSNBC is one of the many Comcast NBC media properties and the only one that I get that Comcast has programmed with accurate and open presentation of information and opinion. Al Gore's Current network is the only other commercial network that reaches my part of the country that is open to all ideas.
As long as the media monoply exists and the message and messengers are the same as they are now, the Red States will continue to be fed lies and distortions for right-wing gain. Unfortunately, most of those lies and distortions will be believed.
YOu're right about it not being a communications problem. It's the message: anti-women, anti-union, anti-poor, anti-imigrant, anti-gay, anti-everything that is not WASP. Their message was to the converted, unfortunately the converted only makes up a minority of the electorate. I'm hoping they don't change their message at all and we end up with a Democartic House, and super majority Senate in the mid-term. So keep on flying that Conferate flag GOP, I'm right behind you.
On all the morning talk shows "Republican Talking Heads" are saying the GOP has to reach out to the Latino community, get on board for immigration reform etc. Why are they not talking about reaching out to the African-American community and to women by understanding they have to stay out of the bedroom. They also need to reach out to the gay and lesbian community or are they only interested in the Latino community and why?
Actually, they would be smart to reach out to the Latinio community. They would also be smart to reach out to the African-American community. Both moves would offend their racist base, but where do the racists have to go anyway. About 1/2 of Republicans are evangelicals who are devoted to window peeping. They can't reach out to women on reproductive health and to gays and lesbians on marriage equality without really pissing off the evanelicals. They can't win Mississippi without the evangelical base let alone Missouri. Unlike the blatant racists the evangelicals are needed to actually do the hard work of the Republicans so they don't really want to piss them off.
Because the Latino population is the fastest growing, and they don't really want to change anything that appeals to their older white voters, so they want to change as little as possible. Appealing to more than one group they're currently alienating would require changing more. In addition, immigration reform is favored by the big-money wing of the party, which is probably why it's the only actual policy change they seem to be considering.
Why, so Republicans can "use" Latinos the way they "use" the religious folks? Get em all fired up using the correct trigger words, getting them to vote conservative, then forgetting about them until the next need-based election?
There has to be some kind of evidence between elections that elected officials work for those they catered to during elections...but there isn't.
Republican leadership gets voted in catering to Main Street, whereupon they immediately start working for the rich, the corporations, Wall Street, who in turn gut services and benefits to the voters...
Conservative voters steadfastly refuse to see how little their own party remembers them after the votes are cast.
Because they think winning the Latino vote is enough. It's much less inflammatory to the base than the other "groups" who could be courted, and may lead to them squeaking out national victories.
It appears that the GOP has noticed how many Latinos vote...and are salivating over how to get them. Not how to lead our country, make life better for all. Just the votes.
There is still a portion of the Latino voting population (as well as in evangelical African Americans) that will subscribe to an anti-abortion and anti-gay platform. Those are the only ones the GOP is really interested in.
#2.5-True, but for how long.
The anti-abortion issue has been a fundamental plank of the Republican platform for as long as I can remember and I am old. Time and again, I've seen it dragged out at election time to fire up the voters, and then not to be heard from again until next election. Years of this.
Abortion could actually be solved to a satisfactory degree if the right hadn't cornered the issue as their own and worked to legislate abortion as a single isolated event. Abortion is the last stage in a mile long chain of before and after consequences which need equal consideration by anyone desiring an authentic solution. That is not how the right has approached and legislated the issue of abortion, certainly not as a complex issue but boiled down to single points, like banning clinics and getting Roe v. Wade overturned. Will this end abortion? No, not even remotely. However, abortion remaining unsolved is very effective as an emotional hot button issue to fire up grass roots voters.
Courting a new Latino vote may not be as easy as keeping the already-entrenched white conservative vote on the hook. Would there not have to be some evidence that the right's abortion talk means something, which to date has been conservative threats against Roe v. Wade and shuttering clinics, while ignoring the entire rest of the issue. Why would anyone see that as being serious about ending abortion.
They can't reach out to ANY bloc of voters aside from the white male vote without offending their base. The base hates the gays, the blacks, the Latinos, and loves their religious BS to continue their abortion and birth control crap. The GOP really has themselves in a huge pickle! Do they go more moderate to get other voters, and lose their base? Or do they placate the base and lose more and more other votes? Either way, they're doomed to failure. We simply aren't going backwards, Americans won't have that.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
This has to repeated in every analysis of the GOP's future prospects: the dynamics of Republican primaries hasn't changed a bit. Any question of moderation must smack up the fact that any Republican politician who does moderate will face a primary challenge from further to the right. The Republican Party in California has been unable to moderate its stance on immigration, so there's no real reason to suppose it will be any different nationally. The circumstances are the same. They only hit California first.
The Republicans in California have handed the Democrats a super majority in both the Assembly and State Senate. They are now irrelevant.
What are democrats going to do to make inroads in the south and border states? Frankly, I want to see the Democratic Party on the offensive all across the country. We have been playing defense far too long.
Steve, if you want to really start a discussion, focus on what Democrats are going to do with their victory. My fear is nothing but bask in the Obama glow. My hope is they will use last Tuesday as a springboard to broaden the playing field.
We're already making inroads. Slowly, certainly, but they're happening. In Texas, the Democrats took away the Super Majority after the redistricting debacle. Obama received 40% of the vote there.
I'd prefer to put my time and attention on the Democrats already elected and get some decent legislation enacted. I'd like to see the GREENS use their wider visibility to broaden the playing field NOW. Let's not wonder about Jill Stein in two years and be introduced to yet another New Green Face in 2016.
Developing the southern youth should be a part of expanding the democratic base. I say, should be, but it remains tough going. They fight a culture that rejects the northerner democratic message for the most part. Concentrating on Hispanic southern youth voters shows promise for democrats. However, electoral votes are can be acquired in other areas of the country. Nixon's southern strategy need to be overcome to bring in white voters. Not even generations of dying can change it. The strategy of southern containment by liberals goes on, while attempting to make gains with southern Hispanics.
Exactly--I have a red congressman whose buddies around him were defeated this election. I am going to join or form a group of Dems in my area to see what can be done about replacing him. Let's take back the house 2 years from now.
Even in the South, Darwinism is at work, no matter what they say. Adapt of perish. You know, "Evolve".
Sorry, they can't evolve because they don't believe in evolution. :)
Darwinism and Evolution are secular beliefs and has no place in God's Country! Science is the work of the Devil, and fact checking are just liberal lies! We will save Our country from the atheistic heathens that threaten our very survival!
[/sarcasm]
They haven't evolved in 300 years: they're still white supremacists who still believe in slavery, pirates, bank robbers, back alley assassins, murderers, thieves, sheep fornicators, snake handlers, holy rollers and TRAITORS.
Let the GOP cram the south bright red...They'll choke on their own stink. I see the Dem opportunities connecting the upper Midwest to the far west.
Let's start closing bases in the south, quit giving military contracts to companies in the south, and start asking them for once in their worthless lives to PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.
I agree with TC: That's the thing that gets me - the same states that claim they run red, use the most social benefits. But because they also fail at math, they choose not to notice the irony of their actual behavior.
Unfortunately, we can't as a nation continue to allow the past and churches to control our future. The GOP of the South is allowing those two triggers to be determining factors in how people and ideas are accepted. We can't do much about the past, except get people educated. Make people understand which century this is, and that all the Republicans used to be Northerners. "Hey guys, your party used to fight with Southerners. Oh, and it was socially progressive." If any church wants to openly direct politics, they need to be paying taxes. The taxes can go to social benefits, but they need to pay because they've lost the status that our founding fathers tried to provide to keep them isolated.
This has gotten ridiculous - in a very dark way.
Standing on principles is noble, IF that was what the Republican conservative leadership actually did.
This right here is the GOP does what it always does, using the same empty sanctimony and piety to hide a dungeon full of what they truly believe in: money, willingness to play dirty, and the unprincipled ability to "adjust" circumstances to benefit not the people it serves, but the party elite.
When was the last time we saw anything akin to honorable out of Republican leadership. Were they actually standing on true noble principle, their voters wouldn't be such angry scared people.
I don't think for a second
Republicansthe Confederacy ought to change what we believe and what we stand for.If they stood on principles, then the congressmembers who signed Norquist's pledge wouldn't have done so. It directly affects their ability to uphold their offices. The Congressional oath of office includes the following lines:
"without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"
"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Meanwhile, the Norquist Pledge makes it impossible for a congressperson to raise taxes or reduce credits. That means even as inflation grows, our government's ability to gain funding shrinks. The two ideas are incompatible, and one of them, we all pay for. Since nearly ALL GOP candidates sign the pledge, they aren't upholding the oath of Congressional office. There's nothing noble about them.
http://www.ilonanickels.com/CC_oathofoffice.html
http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Senate%20Pledge(2).pdf
Obama won 55% of the 18-29 age group in Mississippi. I hope the GOP remains blind to their demographic doom (even in the South) for quite a while longer.
It is my belief that the GOP is dominated by the southern style, evangelicals who will not change. They believe the government should operate on the bible as interpreted by them. That will not work, at the levels needed to be elected, outside of the south.
We had our Obama sign out for two weeks and there was no cross-burning on our lawn... of course nobody else had any political signs whatsoever. Not sure what that means. Our particular neighborhood is quite mixed ethnically, multi-national as well. And when I went to vote early, everyone behaved rationally. And I live in east-Jesus Dallas County.
Dallas, Texas? Dallas County went 60/40 in favor of Obama.
The sequester issue lost Obama votes in Dallas--big defense employers in the area!
My daughter works for one and the pro-Romney pressure wasn't subtle.
Within two more cycles 8-10 years, without change, the Republican party will lose Texas and Georgia. Arizona and Montana are already in peril as red states. If they lose Texas, you are looking at a permanent minority.
I thought all the southern red states were planning to secede.
I'm a blue dot in the red sea of Texas... and all my conservative friends here want to secede. After all, it was a part of our deal in joining the union... retaining our right to leave it. I do have some questions about such a transition though. Like, will I need a passport to visit friends and relatives in other states after I become a resident of The Republic of Texas? Will the U.S. Military un-occupy San Antonio? We have like 4 air force bases and an army base here or something. Or do we just take them over and have a Texan Air Force? I don't think that will go over well. What about all those military contractors? That could get awkward and tough on our local economy. What will we do after we lose federal funding to secure the borders? I guess we could send our new air force down there or something. I just haven't quite figured out all the logistics, but I'm working on it. :P
There is a good book out on the South having a friendly divorce from the rest called Better Off Without 'Em by Chuck Thompson.
I think that the south should secede. I think that the defense costs and force size should be divided by population and that troops should be allowed to transfer to the force of their residency. I think the immediate action on the part of the North would be to cut defense more in line with our income.
The south, including Texas, gets about $2 for every tax dollar they send to Washington. With the defense budget being the largest single expense, I would expect that they would drop their defense spending quite fast when they have to pay for it themselves.
The 'southern red states' aren't as solidly red as they used to be, and not nearly as solidly red as the people in charge would like others to think. Alabama, where I live, has several 'solid blue' pockets: Mobile/coast area, Birmingham, and Tuscaloosa being among them. As well as having some 'purple' areas. If the Republican party continues the path it's currently on, within 15-20 years the current republicans will be a minority even here. And that's just with birth/death rates, completely aside from Latino/African American/LGBT demographics shifting as well. The older, evangelical republican 'Elite' are aging toward oblivion, and the younger set, even among evangelicals, are much more socially liberal than their parents. It will happen sooner or later, it's just a matter of how much time it takes.
I posted a map showing the percent mix by popular vote on Flickr. I was forced into making it when another person tried to make one and didn't know they were using a "blue-mixed-with-red" for their blue base tone. Their Hawaii (which voted 71%-28% in Obama's favor) looked "grape" purple.
On my map (source outline not mine, but free to use for educational purposes) I used Cyan and Magenta for mixing. Cyan is blue that has no red in it. Each state is mixed using just the percentage count for those two colors on the candidates. It's as representative as I could make it. Florida is given as 49% to 49% because the count wasn't in at that time. That state gives you a baseline for an even vote which appears drab purple. You'll note that states with higher sided percentage counts (like VT, UT, or HI) appear bright.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76260647@N06/8169070414/
When the r's tell the truth they lie..when they lie they always tell the truth...bizarro world on display for all...keep on keeping on....diminishing returns on professional bigotry is good for this country.
I am a mostly liberal (and somewhat libertarian) voter in a deep red area. I cannot discuss politics with my coworkers, my family, my neighbors, or most of my local friends. Yes, there is an information gap where the churches and other conservative media reinforce (and shape) beliefs. But these are good people who can be reached. Democrats have to learn to communicate their message, more effectively. If you have a good message, it SHOULD win out. Instead, the South is just written off. Lots of "blue spots" but its a hard slog.
If all they listen to is Faux news and the Rushbot, and all they hear is that everything the Democrats stand for is eeeeeeevil, then it doesn't matter much what the Democrats do for messenging if they refuse to hear.
I Blog from the Deeeeep South...check me out,
Donald Trump lost the election for the Republicans
Hey GOP- Disown the Bigots!
Donald Trump lost the election for the Republicans...
Rush Limbaugh lost the election for the Republicans...
Newt Gingrich lost the election for the Republicans...
Sean Hannity lost the election for the Republicans...
Ann Coulter lost the election for the Republicans...
Liz Cheney lost the election for the Republicans...
Dick Cheney lost the election for the Republicans...
Glenn Beck lost the election for the Republicans...
Dick Morris lost the election for the Republicans...
Ted Nugent lost the election for the Republicans...
Neal Boortz lost the election for the Republicans...
Paul Broun lost the election for the Republicans...
Joe Wilson lost the election for the Republicans...
Rick Scott lost the election for the Republicans...
Honestly, you're listing the loudest, most visible voices of the GOP today.
The Republicans lost the election for the Republicans. Their @!$%# doesn't sell anymore. All those people you list . . . they ARE the Republicans.
RT The Dixie Dove:
Additions to your very comprehensive list-
Todd Akin
Rev Fisher
John Sununu....
the right wing conservatives in my parts seem to be pointing the finger elsewhere than there own party.. " it was the obama campaign attacks" "it was the lies that were told about the GOP" "it was santa claus".
idiots.
If I could add, everyone who met before the President took office and pledge to obstruct is goals lost the election for the Republicans. I heard a gentleman on one of the weekend shows defending the Republican position by saying that he does not believe that they were being racist in their actions. I wanted so bad to call in and say that it doesn't matter what he believes. What matters is what those receiving the message heard. Most of the folks I talked to were not happy that the birthers got the voice they got, that the insults regarding his citizenship persisted, that questions about his faith continued, that they claimed he hated white people and then by extension, part of his own heritage, that he be denied a fair opportunity to work his agenda, and finally, the overall double standard that he was being held.
That is absolutely true ,true, true.Except for Chriss Christy who changed because of one thing .......Sandy, and the bad weather.And only did so because he was pleading for the survival of the many.Now wait to see what they are going to do with the budget, and once again, the survival of the many.Money mongers they are, and they never think of others, and they never think.
Bravo... you should cut and paste this to a new blog so everyone can see it.
LBJ turned the south from blue to red with the Civil Rights Act of '65. If you look at the presidential race of '68, George Wallace -- infamous for his anti-integration stance in AL won the deep south. I grew up in AL -- I can tell you from experience that "we" didn't want "them" to be part of "our" society! And the Latinos are the new "them"! Heartbreaking, but the deepest motives of the GOP are heavily based on racism.
LBJ knew what would happen. But he decided that doing the right thing was better than perpetuating the injustice. He did say that it would take a generation or two to change things. It's time.
And not the whole south, and not as solid as it used to be. VIRGINIA went blue twice, as did Florida, and North Carolina is a SWING STATE. Never thought I'd see that.
Drop the social religious stands and maybe you would have a chance. Seperate religion from government and more might go along but in a world where you see Latinos as trespassers, gays as sinners, women as objects, your not going to get very far.
Of course they're preparing for it. They're busy passing restrictive voting laws one after the other. They're litigating the Voting Rights Act in court. By the time it is no longer possible to win by racking up 90% of the white vote in a clean election, the response will be to clamp down on the minority vote.
And as for "communicating" the national party's message, I can only assume Krauthammer means "lying" about it. They just need to wrap that big ball of BS in a thick enough veneer of truthiness, that's all.
Exactly , you have to always remember conservatives have their own definition for EVERYTHING , like when they say we need less partisanship , they literally mean dems must do exactly what the gop wants ..Or " we are pro education" ...Means they are going to gut the education budget
Kraut is talking about the gop going back in the closet and putting the hoods back on , displaying their bigotry more annonomusly ... get elected first , then screw minorities and the poor , like the good ol days
Austin is a blue island in a red ocean, but there is hope in the air. We have some really great potential leaders up and coming, like the Castro twins from San Antonio and Austin's own Cecile Richards. Hispanic voter turnout is abysmally low, but if that community can be energized, the potential is there. We are already a majority-minority state and Hispanics will be the largest component in just a few years.
Perhaps some day, hopefully, soon, Amerca will understand these two questions:
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy or, in our present context, the Rich.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. This would make Romney the perfect candidate since his mendacity is now historic, wide spread and well documented. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.
Humanity has struggled for thousands of years to emerge from the darkness of conservatism.
TO you hit it right on the nose!!! I could'nt have said it any better!!!
Gerrymandered to near death southern Democrats are impotent---for now. So when the real American leaves the confederacy behind please be kind to us southern democrats.
If the republicans have succeeded at anything, besides emphasizing the racial, religious and economic divides of this country, it was to become better corporatists than the Democrats. They got the bigger players with the most bucks to fund a sinking ship. We still need to get the corporate money out of politics and abolish corporate personhood once and for all. Its a dangerous concept for any nation to allow to exist.
I'm an old white man living in the south, so I can say this: I'm glad the country is no longer dominated by old white men.
"True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country" K. Vonnegut
GOP will court the Latino's and the Black's. But we know they will only lie to get the white house. They wont do anything to help this country build. History speaks for it self!!!
I watched part of a PBS program, History Detectives, where they were investigating a KKK record, The Firey Cross. Turns out, the record was recorded in Indiana in the 1920's. I didn't know that there were about 18 million KKK members throughout the country at that time.
The clan grew it's base through politics, it's members getting themselves elected in small towns.
They showed a picture of a lynching with two black men hanging from a tree and what looked to be a picnic with women, children and men all around the tree smiling as if there were NOT two men hanging, dangling dead from the tree! I have to say, it was the most horrifying, sickening picture I've ever seen.
It's 2012 and those haters, those dispicable people are still out there... still getting themselves elected in small towns. The GOP needs to do some laundry, clean out the filth that's stinking up the country.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pictures like that in archives and collections across the country. And the ugly truth is that white Americans are almost never exposed to them except in ones or twos. It's a thing, like the near extermination of the Native American population, that we take considerable pains to avoid. It's only when you see a few dozen of them collected in an exhibit that you begin to emotionally grasp that like slavery before it, the laws mandating segregation were mere facade and that its maintenance and persistence instead depended entirely upon pure terrorism.
It was pure terrorism, perpetrated with state sanction and active support over which only the thinnest veil of pro forma official disapproval was cast. Because it was critical for the terrorists and terrorized alike to know that the terrorists could murder and destroy with impunity but also necessary for the pretext of state disapproval to be maintained to ward off outside interference.
On and off for a century, the Klan was not at all unlike the semi-official militias that did the murderous dirty work in the Balkans, the Sudan, Rwanda and, now, Syria. And what's even worse in a way is how very, very often it was just the ordinary good decent churchgoing white folks of a town for whom the very idea of a member of a minority accused of raping or killing a white being given a trial before his inevitable execution was intolorable.
This is how the Federalists died. After they lost in 1800, they were a purely sectional party. They had a death grip on state offices in several New England states, but they never again carried a state outside the region. And then when they opposed the War of 1812 too vigorously, they became extinct. (The Federalists were making a lot of treasonous sounding noise about New England seceding on the eve of a war with Great Britain, a country which would gladly have seen the whole country go to pieces just out of decades of accumulated annoyance with us if they hadn't been so tired and broke from their twenty five year war against the French Republic and, later, Empire. It left a bit of a bad taste in people's mouths.)
Over the next two decades, demographics work against the Republicans in Texas, Arizona, Georgia and even South Carolina, much as they have already worked against them in New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia. And yet, in the remaining states, keeping the flames of white anxiety burning will continue to be a potentially winning strategy at the state and congressional level. And, worse, for them, the magnitude of their problem will be masked, and the incentive to fix it attenuated, by their 2010 gerrymandering.
They're in a trap of their own devising. They'll continue to do will in midterms for a while, but they can only regain their status as a national party if they abandon the kind of rhetoric and issues that assure them of victory at the state level and in the midterms. If they don't do that, they can maybe win presidential elections if the Democrats screw up or overreach or if the economy is really, really screwed or something, but their ability to win a campaign out of their own efforts, without an assist by the opposition or forces beyond their control, is fading fast.