What do you think?
Rate this book
The Emerging Democratic Majority
ONE OF THE ECONOMIST' S BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR AND A WINNER OF THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY' S ANNUAL POLITICAL BOOK AWARD
Political experts John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira convincingly use hard data -- demographic, geographic, economic, and political -- to forecast the dawn of a new progressive era. In the 1960s, Kevin Phillips, battling conventional wisdom, correctly foretold the dawn of a new conservative era. His book, The Emerging Republican Majority, became an indispensable guide for all those attempting to understand political change through the 1970s and 1980s. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, with the country in Republican hands, The Emerging Democratic Majority is the indispensable guide to this era.
In five well-researched chapters and a new afterword covering the 2002 elections, Judis and Teixeira show how the most dynamic and fastest-growing areas of the country are cultivating a new wave of Democratic voters who embrace what the authors call "progressive centrism" and take umbrage at Republican demands to privatize social security, ban abortion, and cut back environmental regulations.
As the GOP continues to be dominated by neoconservatives, the religious right, and corporate influence, this is an essential volume for all those discontented with their narrow agenda -- and a clarion call for a new political order.
Political experts John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira convincingly use hard data -- demographic, geographic, economic, and political -- to forecast the dawn of a new progressive era. In the 1960s, Kevin Phillips, battling conventional wisdom, correctly foretold the dawn of a new conservative era. His book, The Emerging Republican Majority, became an indispensable guide for all those attempting to understand political change through the 1970s and 1980s. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, with the country in Republican hands, The Emerging Democratic Majority is the indispensable guide to this era.
In five well-researched chapters and a new afterword covering the 2002 elections, Judis and Teixeira show how the most dynamic and fastest-growing areas of the country are cultivating a new wave of Democratic voters who embrace what the authors call "progressive centrism" and take umbrage at Republican demands to privatize social security, ban abortion, and cut back environmental regulations.
As the GOP continues to be dominated by neoconservatives, the religious right, and corporate influence, this is an essential volume for all those discontented with their narrow agenda -- and a clarion call for a new political order.
240 pages, Paperback
First published August 27, 2002
About the author
John B. Judis
19 books63 followersJohn B. Judis is an American journalist. Born in Chicago he attended Amherst College and received B.A. and M.A. degrees in Philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley. He is a senior editor at The New Republic and a contributing editor to The American Prospect.
A founding editor of Socialist Revolution (now Socialist Review) in 1969 and of the East Bay Voice in the 1970s, Judis started reporting from Washington in 1982, when he became a founding editor and Washington correspondent for In These Times, a democratic-socialist weekly magazine.
He has also written for GQ, Foreign Affairs, Mother Jones, The New York Times Magazine, and The Washington Post.
In 2002, he published a book (co-written with political scientist Ruy Teixeira) arguing that Democrats would retake control of American politics, thanks in part to growing support from minorities and well-educated professionals. The title, The Emerging Democratic Majority, was a deliberate echo of Kevin Phillips' 1969 classic, The Emerging Republican Majority. The book was named one of the year's best by The Economist magazine.
A founding editor of Socialist Revolution (now Socialist Review) in 1969 and of the East Bay Voice in the 1970s, Judis started reporting from Washington in 1982, when he became a founding editor and Washington correspondent for In These Times, a democratic-socialist weekly magazine.
He has also written for GQ, Foreign Affairs, Mother Jones, The New York Times Magazine, and The Washington Post.
In 2002, he published a book (co-written with political scientist Ruy Teixeira) arguing that Democrats would retake control of American politics, thanks in part to growing support from minorities and well-educated professionals. The title, The Emerging Democratic Majority, was a deliberate echo of Kevin Phillips' 1969 classic, The Emerging Republican Majority. The book was named one of the year's best by The Economist magazine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
Read
August 14, 2013'Judis and Teixeira are offering their electoral prediction and arguing that the Democrats, really the left-wing of the Democratic Party, will achieve national dominance in the decades ahead. Although written with a transparent ideological goal, this work is as worthy of consideration as that of Phillips, to whom the authors make numerous respectful references.'
Read the full review, "Left Demography," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Read the full review, "Left Demography," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
April 14, 2007
The authors studied the current demographics of the United States and argued that the Democratic Party will be a majority of the voting population, and therefore primed to take on a majority in the Congress. I'm not sure if I completely bought their argument but I can definitely see a Democratic majority emerging in the next decade.
March 5, 2025
An influential and historically useful statement of a flawed and ultimately damaging perspective, this book argues that the rise of "post-industrial" cities guarantees future success for the Democratic Party, as the tech workers, artists, and designers central to the economies of these places will lead the way for the masses to vote blue. The Achilles' heel of the analysis is the authors' assumption that lower-wage, nonprofessional service workers of all races will line up behind the professionals, and they fatefully predict that the whole Midwest will remain more or less faithful to the Democrats. The fraying of the nonprofessional base of the party has, of course, dealt a death blow to this whole story, leading to the double election of Donald Trump.
One might think that the steady degradation of conditions for those on the lower rungs of the "post-industrial" labor market is the cause of all this -- what reason do they have to sign up for the Democrats' glowing vision of post-industrial prosperity if the median wage for those with only a high school diploma has fallen about 10% since 1990? But as I understand it, these authors have argued in a new book from last year ("Where Have All the Democrats Gone?") that it is the alleged cultural extremism and wokeness of the party that has done them in -- an amusing claim, since the growth of cultural radicalism in liberal cities was the result, rather than the cause, of Trump's initial 2016 victory, and every mainstream Democrat with a national profile has done their absolute best to contain its influence when election season rolls around.
I'm no fan of most of what passes for "wokeness" these days, but these authors are clearly wrong about what's wrong with it. Like most left-neoliberals of their ilk, they believe that "the '60s went too far" and the Democrats have now figured out the perfect formula to salvage what was best from it -- Black identity without Black militancy and "rioting"; sexual freedom but with respect for the "traditional family"; a hedonistic attitude that does not threaten order and morality. In other words they see no real problem with the continuation of racial segregation, sexual oppression, and the growth of mass incarceration and the surveillance state. I personally do, but I guess that is why I am not a Democratic strategist with big book deals.
(Another interesting flaw with the authors' analysis is their assumption that professionals vote for Democrats because they view "the free market" as a damper on their ability to be creative and express themselves, which supposedly is what professionals love to do. Could it perhaps be instead that they like the government to support investment because they can count on an expanding labor market to support their salary growth? But I digress!)
One might think that the steady degradation of conditions for those on the lower rungs of the "post-industrial" labor market is the cause of all this -- what reason do they have to sign up for the Democrats' glowing vision of post-industrial prosperity if the median wage for those with only a high school diploma has fallen about 10% since 1990? But as I understand it, these authors have argued in a new book from last year ("Where Have All the Democrats Gone?") that it is the alleged cultural extremism and wokeness of the party that has done them in -- an amusing claim, since the growth of cultural radicalism in liberal cities was the result, rather than the cause, of Trump's initial 2016 victory, and every mainstream Democrat with a national profile has done their absolute best to contain its influence when election season rolls around.
I'm no fan of most of what passes for "wokeness" these days, but these authors are clearly wrong about what's wrong with it. Like most left-neoliberals of their ilk, they believe that "the '60s went too far" and the Democrats have now figured out the perfect formula to salvage what was best from it -- Black identity without Black militancy and "rioting"; sexual freedom but with respect for the "traditional family"; a hedonistic attitude that does not threaten order and morality. In other words they see no real problem with the continuation of racial segregation, sexual oppression, and the growth of mass incarceration and the surveillance state. I personally do, but I guess that is why I am not a Democratic strategist with big book deals.
(Another interesting flaw with the authors' analysis is their assumption that professionals vote for Democrats because they view "the free market" as a damper on their ability to be creative and express themselves, which supposedly is what professionals love to do. Could it perhaps be instead that they like the government to support investment because they can count on an expanding labor market to support their salary growth? But I digress!)
September 20, 2026
Judis & Teixeira were right about many things in this 2002 book. Post-industrial society makes the members of some groups more numerous and liberal and makes the members of some liberal groups more numerous. We’re talking white-collar professionals, college graduates, unmarried women and ethnic minorities. At the same time, the share of “white working-class” voters – a Republican-leaning group – was correctly predicted decline. Christians wouldn’t be a growth demographic for the GOP (correct: secularism increased). All this would benefit the Democrats.
The authors believed that if the Dems maintained their political orientation of Bill Clinton-style “progressive centrism” the party’s minority share of white working-class voters could be maintained. This would lead to a Dem-dominated political realignment around 2010. Obama's success seemed to fulfill this prophecy but then things went wrong for Team Blue. The Dems have ‘won’ the popular vote in five of this century’s seven presidential elections, so they actually *have* been the majority party, but the party's support is disproportionately from residents of large states, in a system designed to limit the power of large states. The political realignment this book predicted has not occurred. The Democrats lost a significant share of their white working-class voters, and then, to a lesser extent, Hispanic and Asian. Currently (September 2026), the GOP runs all three branches of the federal government.
If this book’s analysis is correct, what must have happened is that the Dems abandoned progressive centrism. But was that the problem? Candidates associated with progressive centrist Bill Clinton – Al Gore and Hillary Clinton – lost presidential and primary elections. And four of the past five presidential elections were won by candidates who positioned themselves as outside of the political establishment and promising change. White, non-college educated voters have embraced the populist right in many Western countries, not just in the USA, so it seems that the Dem’s post-2012 failure may have been due to something multinational and structural.
The authors believed that if the Dems maintained their political orientation of Bill Clinton-style “progressive centrism” the party’s minority share of white working-class voters could be maintained. This would lead to a Dem-dominated political realignment around 2010. Obama's success seemed to fulfill this prophecy but then things went wrong for Team Blue. The Dems have ‘won’ the popular vote in five of this century’s seven presidential elections, so they actually *have* been the majority party, but the party's support is disproportionately from residents of large states, in a system designed to limit the power of large states. The political realignment this book predicted has not occurred. The Democrats lost a significant share of their white working-class voters, and then, to a lesser extent, Hispanic and Asian. Currently (September 2026), the GOP runs all three branches of the federal government.
If this book’s analysis is correct, what must have happened is that the Dems abandoned progressive centrism. But was that the problem? Candidates associated with progressive centrist Bill Clinton – Al Gore and Hillary Clinton – lost presidential and primary elections. And four of the past five presidential elections were won by candidates who positioned themselves as outside of the political establishment and promising change. White, non-college educated voters have embraced the populist right in many Western countries, not just in the USA, so it seems that the Dem’s post-2012 failure may have been due to something multinational and structural.
October 28, 2025
This was fascinating to read as the prediction did not come true. This was written in 2002 and it did cover the history of the elections from the 80's through the 90's which was interesting and useful. The next book I'm reading is by the same authors titled: "Where have all the Democrats gone?"
November 26, 2023
Just like it's namesake, it fails to recognize brewing trends on the horizon, but in its time it foresaw the development of the Obama coalition, which sort of continues to this day.
November 23, 2024
Interesting insights but basement troglodytes exist
June 1, 2016
I'm still waiting for everything they claim is going to happen in this book to happen. It's happening, but WAY more slowly than they ever thought it would. And the 2020 election results - which saw Trump increase his margins of support among both African-American and Latinx voters - show us that the Democrats can't take for granted that changing demographics are going to do all of their electoral work for them.
Unfortunately, the Republicans are an incredibly crafty bunch, like pubic lice that just won't fucking quit and eventually cause you to shave off all of your pubes. The Republicans will never go away and the Democrats will always go through little tin-eared spells where they campaign like morons and let the evil guys win the day. The push-and-pull of American democracy. ABOLISH THE FILIBUSTER, ADMIT DC AND PR AS STATES, AND PACK THE EFFING SUPREME COURT, baby!
Unfortunately, the Republicans are an incredibly crafty bunch, like pubic lice that just won't fucking quit and eventually cause you to shave off all of your pubes. The Republicans will never go away and the Democrats will always go through little tin-eared spells where they campaign like morons and let the evil guys win the day. The push-and-pull of American democracy. ABOLISH THE FILIBUSTER, ADMIT DC AND PR AS STATES, AND PACK THE EFFING SUPREME COURT, baby!
Read
December 31, 2010I think they make a convincing case. Demographics are moving the the Democrats' direction (and the fact that the GOP is wedded to the politics of resentment against the groups that are becoming a larger part of the electorate: professionals, women and minorities).
October 20, 2007
Interestingly enough, the authors' projections started to be realized in the 2006 congressional election and could be shown accurate as America moves toward 2008, 2010, and 2012.
December 6, 2008
Really helpful breakdown of the voting trends over the last thirty years and how they have been moving to the election results of Nov. 2008.
April 18, 2013
One of the few cases where the authors' analysis became more accurate with time.
June 11, 2013
They were about 6 years off from their completely prescient analysis.
June 1, 2014
A nice treatise presaging the Obama coalition by about... 6 years. Not bad. Not bad at all.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews