NationStates Jolt Archive

How many years before the Muslim voting block becomes larger than the GLBT voting block in the Democratic Party of America?

U.S. voting Population 4% GLBT (estimated by me and assumed stable, 78% registered as Democrats)
http://www.glcensus.org/press/10152004.html

U.S. voting Population 3% Muslim (growing at fast rate, 42% registered as Democrats)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061027/pl_nm/muslims_dc

In how many years will the Muslim voting block become a bigger section of the Democratic party than the GLBT voting block? And if/when that happens, do you think this will alter or affect the Democrat Party goals and direction?

Question is, when will Republicans stop being a Christian party and become a conservative party. Devout Muslims tend to be more conservative in their policies.

How many years before the Muslim voting block becomes larger than the GLBT voting block in the Democratic Party of America?

U.S. voting Population 4% GLBT (estimated by me and assumed stable, 78% registered as Democrats)
http://www.glcensus.org/press/10152004.html

U.S. voting Population 3% Muslim (growing at fast rate, 42% registered as Democrats)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061027/pl_nm/muslims_dc

In how many years will the Muslim voting block become a bigger section of the Democratic party than the GLBT voting block? And if/when that happens, do you think this will alter or affect the Democrat Party goals and direction?I'm not certain. Firstly, I think your number at 4% is rather low, especially since you count bisexuals in there.
Secondly, the muslim bloc doesn't count the percentage of GLBT muslims who might vote with the GLBT bloc. (Or vice versa).

Question is, when will Republicans stop being a Christian party and become a conservative party. Devout Muslims tend to be more conservative in their policies.

When the Reps lose both the White House and the Congress in 2008. The Christian wing of the party will be heavily discredited if they lose big.

Any political party should concern itself far more with the growth of the Hispanic vote, rather then muslim or black.

And it is to this note, that the Republican party will most likely remain a Christian Party.. for the very reason that the hispanic vote is at times largely tied to religion (more so then immigration I would say).

I'm not certain. Firstly, I think your number at 4% is rather low, especially since you count bisexuals in there.
Secondly, the muslim bloc doesn't count the percentage of GLBT muslims who might vote with the GLBT bloc. (Or vice versa).

Ah, good points. As to the first, I thought about it but decided the 4% is likely close enough because the Bisexual part of it would be the advocates IN the group that vote in that manner only, NOT all of the people that may or may not have participated in bisexual sexual encounters during their lifetimes. (but I am open to evidences to alter my opinion about it being 4%, up or down).

The second point, I think the GLBT Muslims cancel themselves out, I can estimate it as a negligible factor, do you have any reasoning to suggest it would have an impact on the overall outcome?

When the Reps lose both the White House and the Congress in 2008. The Christian wing of the party will be heavily discredited if they lose big.

That would make me so very happy.

Any political party should concern itself far more with the growth of the Hispanic vote, rather then muslim or black.

And it is to this note, that the Republican party will most likely remain a Christian Party.. for the very reason that the hispanic vote is at times largely tied to religion (more so then immigration I would say).

I'm not so sure about either of your conclussions there, not just yet anyway.

The Hispanic voting block is only 5.3% of the vote, despite them counting as 12.5% of the population (notoriously bad at voter turnout) AND they vote 60% Democrat (even if conservative on social issues).

-- Distribution and representation: The distribution of Hispanics across the United States weakens their influence. As the United States has a plurality voting system, there are a limited number of seats in which the Hispanic vote can be decisive.

-- Approximately 60% of Hispanics have voted Democrat in every election since the 1960s.

-- White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's efforts to move Hispanics into the Republican column are unlikely to succeed:

-- In the Western world, ethnic minorities identify strongly with leftwing parties.

-- The majority of Hispanic immigration is from Mexico, and Mexican voters identify strongly with the Democrats.

link (http://www.forbes.com/beltway/2006/06/07/hispanic-vote-weight-cx_np_0608oxford.html) WARNING, obnoxious pop-up adds come from the Forbes site...

Barrack Obama. The guys in CA today at USC stumping for our propositions. A senator from Illinois is in CA stumping for CA propositions. He's a senator. From another state. He's in CA. Stumping for our propositions.

He's very popular.

Any political party should concern itself far more with the growth of the Hispanic vote, rather then muslim or black.

And it is to this note, that the Republican party will most likely remain a Christian Party.. for the very reason that the hispanic vote is at times largely tied to religion (more so then immigration I would say).

good point. if the republican party could shake its "image" of being racist and being anti-hispanic, they could drain off huge numbers of hispanic democrats in the west. (they might have to also work on not being seen as the party of protestant fundamentalists)

the democrats have to work on THEIR image of being anti-religion. it shouldnt be too too hard if they give it a try, most democrats are religious.

good point. if the republican party could shake its "image" of being racist and being anti-hispanic, they could drain off huge numbers of hispanic democrats in the west. (they might have to also work on not being seen as the party of protestant fundamentalists)

the democrats have to work on THEIR image of being anti-religion. it shouldnt be too too hard if they give it a try, most democrats are religious.

More likely, and the point of my thought and the reason for the thread, is that instead of Hispanics becoming Republicans, will they (and the Muslims) simply change the Democratic party to match their desires, issues and wants?

I am talking about in the long run, not one or two elections afterall... One way or another, can the Democratic party stop itself from becoming just 'another' socially conservative party?

When the Reps lose both the White House and the Congress in 2008. The Christian wing of the party will be heavily discredited if they lose big.

With any luck, the "Spend 'til it Hurts" wing of the party will be abandoned, as well. Maybe the anti-immigration reform wing will be discredited, as well.

I think a candidate in Georgia, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California could do pretty well, if they would just emphasize border control and immigration reform.

Barrack Obama. The guys in CA today at USC stumping for our propositions. A senator from Illinois is in CA stumping for CA propositions. He's a senator. From another state. He's in CA. Stumping for our propositions.

He's very popular.
He's campaigning for President. How many votes does California have in the EC? Of course, he wants to be popular there.

He's campaigning for President. How many votes does California have in the EC? Of course, he wants to be popular there.

Of course. The point is that he IS popular here and in many other states. The guy is out stumping for governors in other states, senators in other states. The fact that a senator from small state can be so popular that people running for office in other states or people promoting ballot measures in other states would ask him to come speak on their behalf says something.

And your other point is also correct. If you're popular in CA that means a lot when running for pres.

More likely, and the point of my thought and the reason for the thread, is that instead of Hispanics becoming Republicans, will they (and the Muslims) simply change the Democratic party to match their desires, issues and wants?

I am talking about in the long run, not one or two elections afterall... One way or another, can the Democratic party stop itself from becoming just 'another' socially conservative party?

i dont think it can prosper if they try to out republican the republicans in social conservatism. there are quite a few "liberal" views that are held by the majority of americans.

the democrats have to redefine those issues in a favorable light. most americans believe in abortion rights, for example. the republicans spin that to suggest that the democrats support 9th month abortions. they focus the abortion discussion on the rarest and most disturbing of abortions--the "partial birth" abortion. the dems need to get a grip on the debate and spin it back to "if a woman pees on a stick and discovers she is 6 weeks along, she can get an abortion" that the majority of americans support.

Of course. The point is that he IS popular here and in many other states. The guy is out stumping for governors in other states, senators in other states. The fact that a senator from small state can be so popular that people running for office in other states or people promoting ballot measures in other states would ask him to come speak on their behalf says something.

And your other point is also correct. If you're popular in CA that means a lot when running for pres.
I don't really understand what has made him so popular, though. He hasn't had a big legislative agenda, he's a freshman Senator, so he's not going to sit on any of the best committees. Is it because he's a black man from Illinois with an Arabic-sounding name? I know that sounds bigoted, but I can't see any other reason why he should be popular, even within Illinois.

a senator from small state

Illinois isn't exactly small. It's the 5th most populous state in the Union, and Chicago is the 3rd largest city. Sure, it's smaller than California but what isn't?

Illinois isn't exactly small. It's the 5th most populous state in the Union, and Chicago is the 3rd largest city. Sure, it's smaller than California but what isn't?Alaska and Texas.
Oh, you mean in population. ;)

I don't really understand what has made him so popular, though. He hasn't had a big legislative agenda, he's a freshman Senator, so he's not going to sit on any of the best committees. Is it because he's a black man from Illinois with an Arabic-sounding name? I know that sounds bigoted, but I can't see any other reason why he should be popular, even within Illinois.

Because he speaks very plainly without all the political rhetoric when asked questions. He doesn't seem to dodge questions when asked. The fact is I like him so far. I realize I need to learn more about him, but when he is interviewed he seems very in tune with issues and answers plainly and he seems sincere and we don't have much of that from either party these days.

Illinois isn't exactly small. It's the 5th most populous state in the Union, and Chicago is the 3rd largest city. Sure, it's smaller than California but what isn't?

True. Sometimes it just looks that way while I sit here in my behemoth of a city in a behemoth of a state.

i dont think it can prosper if they try to out republican the republicans in social conservatism. there are quite a few "liberal" views that are held by the majority of americans.

Perhaps not. But some interesting observations are that both Hispanic and Muslim families are social groups that statistically have more children than traditional American families do now days AND they tend to stay together longer (less divorce etc.,) , and have closer extended family relationships (cousins, aunts uncles etc., working together in smaller social circles). Will these environments encourage more traditional family oriented viewpoints and political positions of the issues? Especially on abortion and child adoption laws and parenting issues etc.


the democrats have to redefine those issues in a favorable light. most americans believe in abortion rights, for example. the republicans spin that to suggest that the democrats support 9th month abortions. they focus the abortion discussion on the rarest and most disturbing of abortions--the "partial birth" abortion. the dems need to get a grip on the debate and spin it back to "if a woman pees on a stick and discovers she is 6 weeks along, she can get an abortion" that the majority of americans support.

I agree that most Americans believe in Abortions rights, provided abortion rights is meant to mean what it does in the polls; in the case of incest, rape, early teens, late mothers etc.,. for themselves, but they don’t believe in abortion on demand for others (if there is such a thing or not is not my point, only my point on poll taking results). But more importantly, a political party is governed by it’s members, and IF those members become predominantly large family oriented, religious followers (Catholic or Muslim), will their membership change the Democratic Party platform to match their new membership point of view? I think it might.

Because he speaks very plainly without all the political rhetoric when asked questions. He doesn't seem to dodge questions when asked. The fact is I like him so far. I realize I need to learn more about him, but when he is interviewed he seems very in tune with issues and answers plainly and he seems sincere and we don't have much of that from either party these days.
We don't see much of him, around here. I'll start paying more attention to him when I can watch interviews. He might be a little young and inexperienced to be President, but it would be nice to see a fresh and forthcoming personality in that office.

I don't really understand what has made him so popular, though. He hasn't had a big legislative agenda, he's a freshman Senator, so he's not going to sit on any of the best committees. Is it because he's a black man from Illinois with an Arabic-sounding name? I know that sounds bigoted, but I can't see any other reason why he should be popular, even within Illinois.

He's honest. He's a breath of fresh air in the political world, because he truly beleives that government can be saved from itself. He's a politician who beleives that one doesn't have to lie to be a good politician.

He's very inspiring, as well.

When the Reps lose both the White House and the Congress in 2008. The Christian wing of the party will be heavily discredited if they lose big.

I wouldn't count on that--right now, the evangelicals are the largest single bloc of solid Republican voters, making up about 60% of the party. It's more likely they'll purge the non-religious than get purged themselves.

You also have to understand the evangelical mindset--and this is something Kevin Phillips really illustrated well in American Theocracy. They look at losses as tests of faith, and think that if they remain faithful, they'll be rewarded later. Losses, to them, aren't a sign of disfavor--they're a test of faith.

I wouldn't count on that--right now, the evangelicals are the largest single bloc of solid Republican voters, making up about 60% of the party. It's more likely they'll purge the non-religious than get purged themselves.

You also have to understand the evangelical mindset--and this is something Kevin Phillips really illustrated well in American Theocracy. They look at losses as tests of faith, and think that if they remain faithful, they'll be rewarded later. Losses, to them, aren't a sign of disfavor--they're a test of faith.

Evangelicals do not equal Republicans. They might, or might not be voting predominately Republican these days, they might even be card carrying members of the Republican party in some cases. They might even be financially conservative thinkers.

But what they ARE, is social conservatives. IF the Republican party has the social conservative agenda, then they will vote predominately that way. IF, however, the Democrat party were to become socially conservative, then the evangelicals will vote that way. They represent a viewpoint and will vote with whomever best represents that viewpoint regardless of political party alliance.

Democrats of today are not the Democrats a hundred years ago, and in another thirty or fifty years, they will likely represent a different platform of issues yet again.

If the republican party loses now, for example, it might not be in spite of the evangelicals losing strength, but because the evangelicals changed sides...

Evangelicals do not equal Republicans. They might, or might not be voting predominately Republican these days, they might even be card carrying members of the Republican party in some cases. They might even be financially conservative thinkers.

But what they ARE, is social conservatives. IF the Republican party has the social conservative agenda, then they will vote predominately that way. IF, however, the Democrat party were to become socially conservative, then the evangelicals will vote that way. They represent a viewpoint and will vote with whomever best represents that viewpoint regardless of political party alliance.

Democrats of today are not the Democrats a hundred years ago, and in another thirty or fifty years, they will likely represent a different platform of issues yet again.

If the republican party loses now, for example, it might not be in spite of the evangelicals losing strength, but because the evangelicals changed sides...
Here's the problem with your theory--it assumes that there aren't many evangelicals in the Republican leadership, when the opposite is the case. Hell, they've gotten so influential that they've got the Maverick formerly known as John McCain kissing their collective rings on an almost daily basis in hopes of getting the nomination in 2008. The evangelicals aren't going anywhere because they have power in the Republican party that they can't get in the Democratic party any time soon, and they spent so much time in the wilderness before the 80s that they're not going to give that up.

Here's the problem with your theory--it assumes that there aren't many evangelicals in the Republican leadership, when the opposite is the case. Hell, they've gotten so influential that they've got the Maverick formerly known as John McCain kissing their collective rings on an almost daily basis in hopes of getting the nomination in 2008. The evangelicals aren't going anywhere because they have power in the Republican party that they can't get in the Democratic party any time soon, and they spent so much time in the wilderness before the 80s that they're not going to give that up.

IMO, You over estimate the power of the few leaders over the entire group. IF the few individuals wrap themselves up too much, they will be left behind as the group moves on. The Jimmy Swaggerts come and go, the Jim and Tammy Bakkers come and go, Billy Graham is replaced by his son etc.,... Leaders come and go. If the leaders stop leading properly, the evangelicals will stop following. I stand by my earlier assessment. They will vote with and go to the issues, they will not follow the political faces indefinitely.

I wouldn't count on that--right now, the evangelicals are the largest single bloc of solid Republican voters, making up about 60% of the party. It's more likely they'll purge the non-religious than get purged themselves.

You also have to understand the evangelical mindset--and this is something Kevin Phillips really illustrated well in American Theocracy. They look at losses as tests of faith, and think that if they remain faithful, they'll be rewarded later. Losses, to them, aren't a sign of disfavor--they're a test of faith.

Having had some interaction with some very right-wing christians recently (yes, Aus has a few), I'm not willing to say you're wrong.

However, I would expect a major result of that would be the Republican party splitting for good. Leave the Christian Right the Republican name and start a new party - maybe resurrect the old Whigs, or a completely new Conservative party.

Question is, when will Republicans stop being a Christian party and become a conservative party. Devout Muslims tend to be more conservative in their policies.

As long as most Americans continue to oppose real conservative values and only pay them lip service in the interest of fashionable identification, the GOP cannot ever abandon the Right-wing Christians because they are its only easily mobilized group of voters. Fiscal conservatives won't show up in any great numbers to "repeal the Death Tax," but the Fundies will show up in droves to see to it that "'dem queers ain't gett'n married!"

Having had some interaction with some very right-wing christians recently (yes, Aus has a few), I'm not willing to say you're wrong.

However, I would expect a major result of that would be the Republican party splitting for good. Leave the Christian Right the Republican name and start a new party - maybe resurrect the old Whigs, or a completely new Conservative party.

There's already a party called the Conservative Constitution party. It's a party of Right-wing Christians and nothing else.

IMO, You over estimate the power of the few leaders over the entire group. IF the few individuals wrap themselves up too much, they will be left behind as the group moves on. The Jimmy Swaggerts come and go, the Jim and Tammy Bakkers come and go, Billy Graham is replaced by his son etc.,... Leaders come and go. If the leaders stop leading properly, the evangelicals will stop following. I stand by my earlier assessment. They will vote with and go to the issues, they will not follow the political faces indefinitely.

The rats eventually stop following the Pied Piper too. Doesn't mean they won't already be getting washed out to sea when it happens.

Having had some interaction with some very right-wing christians recently (yes, Aus has a few), I'm not willing to say you're wrong.

However, I would expect a major result of that would be the Republican party splitting for good. Leave the Christian Right the Republican name and start a new party - maybe resurrect the old Whigs, or a completely new Conservative party.

I'd be so down. I agree with a lot of the stated Republican principles - fiscal conservatism, free market economics, etc... - it's the social baggage and the hypocracy that I can't stand. That and the neocon "blow the shit out of them but never ever talk to them" approach to foreign policy.

As long as most Americans continue to oppose real conservative values and only pay them lip service in the interest of fashionable identification, the GOP cannot ever abandon the Right-wing Christians because they are its only easily mobilized group of voters. Fiscal conservatives won't show up in any great numbers to "repeal the Death Tax," but the Fundies will show up in droves to see to it that "'dem queers ain't gett'n married!"
You're right. Political parties aren't about ideas, anymore. They're about the acquisition and maintenance of power. Most Americans want socialized medicine. It doesn't matter which party is in power, eventually the system will be forced upon us. Lots of other issues are like that. Immigration reform is a battle that will never be fought because we want our cheap food. Never mind that the illegals shitting in the spinach fields cause outbreaks of e-coli. (wild pigs, my ass) Most Americans want a secure retirement, but are unwilling to support even the most minimal adjustments in a broke Social Security system.

Life in this country is going to have to suck and suck badly before we see any real reforms. People are just too lazy and too complacent to risk any real changes.

Having had some interaction with some very right-wing christians recently (yes, Aus has a few), I'm not willing to say you're wrong.

However, I would expect a major result of that would be the Republican party splitting for good. Leave the Christian Right the Republican name and start a new party - maybe resurrect the old Whigs, or a completely new Conservative party.

That's more likely than having the christians leave, but I doubt a third party forms--I think it's more likely they become the new moderates and join the Dems, sort of like how moderate Dems left the party during Reagan's administration.

That's more likely than having the christians leave, but I doubt a third party forms--I think it's more likely they become the new moderates and join the Dems, sort of like how moderate Dems left the party during Reagan's administration.

If we are going to survive it better head back to center. Really does any sane person want more of the " same " ?