The Republicans ran a senior, white war hero against a mixed-race younger man. The racist appeals were hardly concealed. The “Bradley Effect” was invoked constantly, mostly by people who failed to understand it, and its expected effect always seemed to mysteriously rise to the exact number that McCain would need to win. For all intents and purposes, the Republicans were fervently hoping that racism would do what their candidate could not do.

Pinning big hopes on the “white vote” is quite stupid. First, most whites do not really consider themselves part of the “white race”. Study after study has shown that whites subconsciously feel that they are the “absence of race”…and only when they consider race at all. Second, white voters are unlikely to overlook the jingoism, poor economic policy, history of incompetence, and religious fundamentalism that the Republicans represent just because they, too, are white. Simply put, being white does not automatically make one a wingnut. That would seem to obvious. Third, the racial identity appeal essentially relies on an odd notion that minorities have some “unfair advantage”, while completely ignoring all of the “unfair disadvantages” that minorities face in the real world. Therefore, the wingnut proposes that we take from the minorities and redistribute to the oppressed whites. Fourth, most of the “oppression” that whites really do experience comes from the very forces that the Republican party represents.

But this is par for the course for Republicans. They believe that the vast majority of the nation are wingnuts merely waiting for the right wingnut candidate to emerge so that they can release their “inner teabag”.

Then why did Republican President Bush fund it?

Are you saying that Republican President Bush was funding corrupt organizations with Federal money?

Baby steps, “Dennis”, baby steps…

LOL. This is completely not true. Try looking at some poll numbers, sparky.

The inroads were all happening before the GOP went full metal wing-nut on the immigration issue. Thanks Tom Tacredo!

But the comparison is heavily flawed by the inclusion of Anderson, who pulled 8% of the vote. When the 3rd party candidate isn’t a complete joke, it really messes up the analysis; or have we forgotten the whole “Clinton never received the majority of the vote” BS that dominated during the talk of a permanent republican majority…

The main difference is that McCain won the white vote 55-43, while Reagan won it 56-36. That’s a 20 vs 12 point spread, and it’s not insignificant. The biggest demographic change is among hispanics, from 2% in 1980 (WTF?) to 9% in 2008, with an increase in democratic spread from +19 to +36. That’s a huge spread popping out of nowhere, and I’ll go out on a limb and assume it’s only going to get larger in the future…

Yes. It has nothing to do with it being a corrupt organization, jr. Nothing at all.

“I believe in States’ Rights!”

Given that McCain was running against a person actually capable of being President, a significant portion of those white votes came from the bigot brigade. My guess is 16 percent.