A large part of the politics driving the white Christian base of the Republican Party is focused on social issues and foreign policy.  The link between one's social world view and its application to foreign policy has been discussed previously.  As Chris wrote back then:

There is a gap between voters who view national security in liberal terms--pluralistic, reality-based and problem solving--and those who view national security in conservative terms--faith and identity based. The liberal view identifies Iraq as the major national security problem facing the United States, and looks to its leaders to develop a workable solution to that problem. The conservative view identifies an abstract concept-- terrorism--as a general threat to "American-ness" or "white Christian-ness." The conservative view takes terrorism as the largest threat to national security, since nothing could possibly be more important to this viewpoint than maintaining traditional norms of identity. Conservatives want their leaders to wage war against this abstract threat to our identity / national security. It is in this sense that terrorism voters and moral values voters are nearly identical (pun intended), and equally unwinnable.

A more liberal America is a more peaceful and tolerant America.  Liberal America elects Keith Ellison and Virgil Goode responds on behalf of conservative America.  That identity drives partisan affiliation shouldn't be surprising, but it's worth remembering that social identity trumps economic identity.  Economic populism cannot be a silver bullet to appeal to all voters, because many white Christians will focus on their social identity first.  This makes the strategy for Democrats in the short term very difficult, but it also shows that the long term demographic trends will be very helpful for the creation of a Democratic majority.

But Republicans have their own response to the demographic trends that favor Democrats.  They point out that whites in the red states are having more children than whites in the blue states.  In the long term, supposedly, the red state white voters will out breed the blue state white voters.  This adds complexity to the discussion of demographics.  Christianity has been on the decline, yes.  But could it start to bounce back if white Christians continue to have more children than white non-Christians?  Or is the demographic time bomb, the fact that white Christians are already a 40% minority among those under 40, already set?

Another problem for progressive Democrats could be non-white voters.  White Protestants have strongly swung toward the Republican Party, and it could be possible that White Catholics will follow the trend.  This may be a sign of how the secularization of America radicalizes Christian voters.  If this is true, could the further secularization of America encourage non-white Christians to swing toward the Republican Party?  This would obviously be difficult for the Republican Party to do, but if they are faced with a shrinking base one solution would be to build a pan-Christian base of all races.  This is why I'm curious as to the projections for non-whites in the future and the breakdown between Christians and non-Christians.

Democrats also need to plan for the future at the state level.  The red states are projected to grow as a whole, while the blue states are on the decline.  But at the same time, we know that the changing demographics of the future will change the voting patterns of states.  For example, in 2004 the under 30 vote in each state didn't always favor the same candidate that won the state as a whole.  Bush won the under 30 vote in Maine, while Kerry won the youth vote in Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and Mississippi (yes, Mississippi).  It seems that this gives the Democrats more opportunities to flipping red states in the future than Republicans have.  Several, specifically Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, are states that are growing in representation and should be key targets.  Even the ones that are expected to decline or stay small may be fruitful to pursue.  I am especially interested in Mississippi, where demographics could give Democrats a chance at power in the next few decades as non-whites become a majority again.

The Democratic Party needs to be working now to develop policy ideas that it can implement once it establishes a working majority in Washington.  Just as conservatives started plotting and planning in the 1950s, there's no reason that Democrats shouldn't be developing a network of ideas and institutions right now in states that may not even be purple but right now but seemingly red (like Mississippi).  A more specific understanding of the future of the non-white vote and state demographics in particular would be my priority.  And although I don't have time to go into more detail, I would also add forward planning about the economic future of America and the types of policies we'll need.  What would you be suggesting now?