...Republicans (and also non-Republicans)...[at times]...argue that non-white voters somehow aren't quite real voters. The point is often framed as noting how up-the-creek Democrats would be without black voters.

[From a question posed by Bill Schneider to Judy Woodruff on CNN]

Bill: "Judy, how dependent are Democrats on the African-American vote?

Judy: "What would have happened if no blacks had voted in 2000? Six states would have shifted from Al Gore to George W. Bush: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Oregon. Bush would have won by 187 electoral votes, instead of five. A Florida recount? Not necessary.

Nebraska and Wisconsin don't have many black voters either, but Ben Nelson would have lost Nebraska without them and Russ Feingold would have lost Wisconsin, too, in both cases by less than half-a- percent. Bottom line? Without the African-American vote, the number of Democrats in the Senate would be reduced from 50 to 37.

A hopeless minority. And Jim Jeffords' defection from the GOP would not have meant a thing."

True, of course. But what's the point exactly? Presumably any political party would [be] put at something of a disadvantage if one of their major constituencies was suddenly struck from the rolls. [more...]

...what it comes down to is that if conservatives continue to have an attitude of "if it weren't for the [women, blacks, Indian reservation], we'd be in charge" then you better believe that women, blacks, and the Indian reservation will never, ever, ever vote conservatively. Various voting blocks aren't an electoral obstacle to get around, but a group of people who need to be persuaded by our message. And, folks, I'm sorry, but the way we deliver our message these days pretty much sucks. It's just not enough to know that we've got answers to everyone's problems, and they would of course agree if they would just be rational about it. [more...]