It's true there was a growing tendency of blacks to vote for Democrats before 1964. That's because Democrats had been tending toward becoming the party of civil rights before then. I might have mentioned Harry Truman's order to desegregate the military. Or the walkout of the Dixiecrats in 1948.

You mentioned Jimmy Carter in 1976. Fair enough, that happened. But at the elections of 1968 and 1972. Then go back to 1964. Look at the differences between 1960 and 1956.

Then compare all that to the election of 1928, when an apparently unelectable Catholic still managed to carry the deep South.

That's what I mean when I call it a long (or medium) term project.

You're also illustrating, I think it fair to say, what I mean by short term risks.

Most blacks were voting for Democrats well before 1964. The lived in areas where there were no viable candidates such as the South or in northern urban cities. Blacks have not been republican voters since Reconstracution. As the Voting Rights Act did not had the south to the Republicans. Jimmy Carter won most of the south by large margins in 1976. What lost the south were things that the Democrats did not really need to do such as forced busing, quotas, and set asides.

It used to be that Republicans were the party black people voted for–the party of Lincoln. The key marker for that change was the passage of the voting rights act of 1964. Democrats became the party of civil rights. Republicans became the party of white anxiety and resentment.

I suppose this is no longer 100% true. But it remains true enough in the absence of any significant outreach by Republicans.

People vote in favor of what they perceive to be their own interest. In the aggregate, 90% (I don't know if this figure is accurate, but I imagine it's close) of black individuals perceive the Democrats as the best choice.

Some might think this presents an opportunity for Republicans to peel away some percentage of black voters. In a closely divided electorate, there is probably some advantage to doing this. I think it would necessarily have to be a long (or medium) term project.

But I imagine there are also short term disadvantages. One would be risking the loss of anxious and resentful white voters.

There is a culture-wide status quo as far as race goes. I think it's an open question as to which side truly benefits.

Here's a video clip of Paul discussing on CNN the conditions imposed upon him by the RNC.

then question is always will non-white voters ever give any party that is not the Democratic party a chance.

Present day elections for the Democratic party about about white swing voters and turning out non-white voters. Can any political party exist with only white voters. I believe that the current Repubican party demonstrates that no, it cannot.

Also, when the Repubican party finally collapses, a new party, to be relevant, will have to try to compete in all 50 states. If that task if to hard for the Established Repubican Party, do you really think that the libertarian or the green party will be able to find candidates in all 50 states or will they not bother to compete in minority-majority district just like the current Repubicans do not bother to compete.

The current social conservative would probably have nore influence on policy if they would turn out and vote in the Democratic Primary instead of taking over the collapsing Republican Party.

Instead of thinking about a thrid party, why not think about how the U.S. will function as a one party state?

And therein lies the problem with running as a third-party candidate. Unless someone comes along and TRULY challenges the status quo AND inspires Americans, we're stuck in the two-party system indefinitely.

http://thepajamapundit.com/