Two examples: Blacks and affirmative action (even though many black leaders are starting to now recognize that the problems of poor blacks are largely related to the social atmosphere in urban black centers rather than due to the “white man keeping him down”.

And on immigration: sure there are some Republicans who take too much of a hardline approach, but the position of Bush is a very middle of the road approach that should be lauded by Hispanics. But is that the way it has been received or has the debate been skewed, so that minorities are coached to believe that the mainstream GOP position is that they should all be jailed and deported?

I think superdestroyer is right in one sense, but I’m not as pessimistic about the future because I think that the fearmongering tactics can only last so long. Eventually the minority constituents realize that their interests are not met by accepting a situation of being beholden to one party. If they don’t have a choice to vote for another party, then the party they’re affiliated with begins to take them for granted and that’s when the split begins.

Most blacks have never voted for a Republican and probably never will. Hispanics are a lesser version of blacks in that accord.

The problem with demographic is that if over 50% of the population votes along demographic lines, then eletctions are basically pointless. Nothing can be change using politics in a place like DC because of demographic trends. Just as the children in the public schools in Dc what the effect of democracy folowing demographic is.

the republican party can also change. There is a reason that “blacks, Hispanics, gays, or Jews” don’t vote R, and that is because they Republican party leadership doesn’t listen to them. If the republican party were to loose it’s crazy stance on immigration for instance, many Hispanics would be happy to jump on board because of other shared values.

and as to democracies following demographics, isn’t that a good thing?

If there is any lesson from DC, Newark, Chicago, LA County, it should be that the Democratic party is almost immune to screw ups if the demographic trends are in their favor. I doubt that blacks, Hispanics, gays, or Jews will vote for Republicans no matter how badly the Democrats screw up. As blacks and hispanic are growing demographic groups while middle class whites are a shrinking demographic group, there is no real prospect for Republicans.

Do people really think that the moderates will have much political power if the Democrats are the only functional political power? I doubt that will be much of a Republican party left after the Democrats pass some form of single payer healthcare. It will be seen by blacks, hispanics, and 20 somethings as a freebie that will be paid for by “rich, white, Republicans.”

The question will be what will happen in the U.S. when national politics functions at the same level. Since the Republicans have decide to give up credibility on every single issue, the Democrats will be the only game in town even without their huge demographic edge.

In the future, the only important election will be the Democratic Primary.

Choose on the basis of which party he or she will caucus with. (This is indeed where you come down in the subsequent paragraph, but the point really warrants emphasis.)

Even with those members (or candidates) who will cross party lines still vote with their party leaders far more often then not. And they always vote with the party on organizing the House (i.e. committees and who will be Speaker, Majority Whip, etc.)

Really, it should not be a quandary at all–unless you are conflicted about the two PARTIES, and not just the two parties’ candidates in your district.