I wouldn’t presume to tell the House GOP caucus what to do, but what kind of crazy people would consider keeping John Boehner on as leader? It’s not like he has some great record of leading the caucus to electoral successes, and that you need to put the big losses of 2006 and 2008 in that light. All he’s ever done is lead his colleagues to defeat. Are those defeats all his fault? Of course not. But he’s hardly been some kind of font of innovative thinking.

At a minimum, sometimes a symbolic “we’re dumping the leader and going in a new direction” kind of moment can at least help clear the air and demonstrate that you understand you lost. And real leaders need to take responsibility for failures that happen under their watch. You know, personal responsibility, etc.

All jokes about “real” versus “fake” America aside, the roots of the “real” narrative are, in fact, real enough. The Republican Party is, at this point, the party of America’s white Christian plurality. The Democratic Party is, by contrast, the party of non-whites and of white non-Christians. There are, of course, white Christian Democrats. But most Democrats are black, Hispanic, Asian, irreligious, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or (like me) several of the above.

Chris Bowers summarizes some of the key facts:

1. Roughly 60% of all Democratic voters are now non-white and / or non-Christian (per exit polls).
   
2. Democrats hold a 3-1 margin among non-whites and / or non-Christians (per exit polls)
   
3. Non-whites and / or non-Christians now compose 39% of the electorate, their highest total ever (per exit polls)
   
4. Over 60% of the country under the age of 43 is non-white and / or non-Christian (Source). Many commenters will justifiably ogle the huge, pro-Obama youth vote this year, but really the non-white and / or non-Christian vote are deeply intertwined.
   a
5. Over 100% of the population growth in America comes from non-whites and / non-Christians. That is, the white Christian population in America is actually slowly declining, even though the population of the country is still increasing on right pace with average world population growth. (Source)

He says:

In this context, Obama’s victory should not be seen as a historical fluke created by the confluence of disastrous Republican governing, a 2004 Illinois Senate field that collapsed around him, and a great speech at the Democratic convention four years ago. It is, instead, a harbinger of America’s future.

In other words, it’s the Emerging Democratic Majority, America’s demographic chickens coming home to roost.

But it has this consequence. When you ask if the typical American is white or non-white, the answer is “white.” And if you ask if the typical American is Christian or non-Christian, the answer is “Christian.” And if you ask how the typical white Christian votes, the answer is “for the Republican Party.” Thus by a certain logic, the typical American is a Republican and we live in a center-right nation. On another level, this is at least part of the reason why so many progressives find Barack Obama personally exciting.

The typical national Democratic campaign features a white person who at least professes devout Christian faith fronting for a political coalition that’s mostly composed of minority-Americans. Add on the fact that it’s usually a man leading a party whose voters are mostly women and things only get more severe. That’s sound political strategy in many ways — the most successful leader of the New Deal coalition of Southerners, Catholics, and Jews was northern Protestant Franklin Roosevelt who was able to help expand the brand’s appeal. But one likes to see oneself reflected in one’s coalition leaders. So a JFK, an Obama, is very exciting — not only to black voters (or, in the right moment, Catholic ones) but really to all members of the pluralist coalition. It’s a reaffirmation that we, too, are all Americans and not some kind of second-rate hangers-on who need a white (ideally southern) Christian to help shield the public from our ickiness.

The Overhead Wire rounds up the results of a bunch of transit referenda — mostly positive. Meanwhile, the election outcome itself is, of course, a big win for transit and rail. Obama is much friendly to both than is George W. Bush or John McCain, the House Democratic incumbents who went down to defeat represented rural areas and wouldn’t be good allies on transit issues, whereas new Reps. like Gerry Connolly could be great leaders on transportation and planning topics.

From reader AB:

• 1998: Josh Lyman is modeled after Rahm Emanuel.
• 2004: Matt Santos is modeled after Barack Obama
• 2006: Matt Santos wins the presidency, and appoints Josh Lyman his Chief of Staff
• 2008: Barack Obama wins the presidency, and appoints Rahm his Chief of Staff.

In the art version we got a comprehensive Israel-Palestine peace agreement, so that’s something to look forward to in the future.

Interesting map available on the NYT home page shows the places where McCain did better than Bush did in 2004:

You can see why John McCain’s principled stand against higher taxes on the wealthy would have a special resonance in this region. Liberals who thought race had something to do with those appeals should be ashamed of themselves.

Andrew Gelman’s graph of age effects:

Within the African-American community there was, of course, very little age effect but among whites and Hispanics it was quite pronounced.

Looking at this is a reminder that it would be nice if age cohorts were broken down into four-year blocs on the exit polls. If we could compare an 18-21 bloc from 2000 to the 22-25 bloc in 2004 and the 26-29 bloc in 2008 then we could look at cohorts evolving over time. But the way the data’s currently organized, it’s a bit difficult to interpret.