U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-02-2015, 09:31 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,008,246 times
Reputation: 1117

Advertisements

Ultimately, demographics is major long-term problem for Republicans. Their electorate is overwhelmingly older whites - every year a significant number of this constituency dies off. Younger voters are much more likely to vote Democratic, and they aren't going away any time soon: In fact, every year more of them turn 18.

This demographic disadvantage is something Republicans really need to address in a very serious way if they want to be competitive in future POTUS election in the foreseeable future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-03-2015, 08:57 AM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,244,466 times
Reputation: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle View Post
Ultimately, demographics is major long-term problem for Republicans. Their electorate is overwhelmingly older whites - every year a significant number of this constituency dies off. Younger voters are much more likely to vote Democratic, and they aren't going away any time soon: In fact, every year more of them turn 18.

This demographic disadvantage is something Republicans really need to address in a very serious way if they want to be competitive in future POTUS election in the foreseeable future.
So, younger whites vote democrat? I think you are underestimating the mid-term results and the trends. Loking ahead to 2016: Many latinos/mexicans are social conservatives, as are many blacks. Hillary won't be able to win 93% black vote. Also, democrats have a big problem in the south. Look at Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, GA as evidence of how southerners feel. In Florida, the dems spend billions trying to oust a rebublican governor. They also spent millions on the special election vote a few months earlier... they lost both! I just don't see how you can downplay the mid-terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 01:04 PM
 
Location: MPLS
752 posts, read 449,651 times
Reputation: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians View Post
"So, younger whites vote democrat?"
More so than their elders, which is problematic for the GOP. Democrats don't need to win them outright; if those entering the electorate are more Democratic than those leaving (RIP), it's a net gain for the party.

Quote:
"I think you are underestimating the mid-term results and the trends."
I think you're overestimating the significance. This happened in 2010, remember? Did Republicans win the following presidential election? No; their nominee lost by more than 100 electoral votes. Here's the situation: Democrats can't win a low-turnout election (midterm), whereas Republicans can't win a high-turnout one (presidential). So what we're on track for is simply another round of reversals.

Quote:
"Loking ahead to 2016: Many latinos/mexicans are social conservatives, as are many blacks."
More socially conservative than whites, but extremely economically liberal. Generally speaking, economics trumps abortion.

Quote:
"Hillary won't be able to win 93% black vote."
Gore won 90% of the black vote, Dukakis won 89%, Mondale won 90%. There'll probably be some drop-off for Hillary, but let's not mince words: blacks really dislike the GOP, so upwards of 90% is likely doable.

Quote:
"Also, democrats have a big problem in the south. Look at Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, GA as evidence of how southerners feel."
With the exception of Florida, those states are irrelevant.

Quote:
"In Florida, the dems spend billions trying to oust a rebublican governor. They also spent millions on the special election vote a few months earlier... they lost both! I just don't see how you can downplay the mid-terms. "
I can downplay the midterms because almost no one voted. Rick Scott won reelection by 1%. When 2016 rolls around, turnout in Florida will increase by a third, and those additional voters will be younger and heavily minority. Do you imagine that Scott's margin would've held in the midst of such an influx? Not a chance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 01:31 PM
 
12,639 posts, read 7,323,464 times
Reputation: 7449
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
I think the party already has. A majority of the country is in favor of restricting late-term / partial-birth abortion, but is opposed to banning the procedure outright.
That's not the position the Democrat Party takes in its extremist platform.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 01:33 PM
 
12,639 posts, read 7,323,464 times
Reputation: 7449
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
More so than their elders, which is problematic for the GOP. Democrats don't need to win them outright; if those entering the electorate are more Democratic than those leaving (RIP), it's a net gain for the party.



I think you're overestimating the significance. This happened in 2010, remember? Did Republicans win the following presidential election? No; their nominee lost by more than 100 electoral votes. Here's the situation: Democrats can't win a low-turnout election (midterm), whereas Republicans can't win a high-turnout one (presidential). So what we're on track for is simply another round of reversals.



More socially conservative than whites, but extremely economically liberal. Generally speaking, economics trumps abortion.



Gore won 90% of the black vote, Dukakis won 89%, Mondale won 90%. There'll probably be some drop-off for Hillary, but let's not mince words: blacks really dislike the GOP, so upwards of 90% is likely doable.



With the exception of Florida, those states are irrelevant.



I can downplay the midterms because almost no one voted. Rick Scott won reelection by 1%. When 2016 rolls around, turnout in Florida will increase by a third, and those additional voters will be younger and heavily minority. Do you imagine that Scott's margin would've held in the midst of such an influx? Not a chance.
Scott isn't running in 2016 so you can have as many ignorant voters turnout as you want, but he'll still be governor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 02:46 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,082,311 times
Reputation: 7282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians
"So, younger whites vote democrat?"
dirsihmael"More so than their elders, which is problematic for the GOP. Democrats don't need to win them outright; if those entering the electorate are more Democratic than those leaving (RIP), it's a net gain for the party. "

Your posts have been spot on. Another huge factor is Latinos will keep becoming larger portions of the overall vote, as legal Latinos eligible to vote have a median age over 10 years younger than the nation at large.

This has not been an invisible problem, but rather a problem the GOP ignored, and having lost 5 of 6 popular POTUS votes, plus 61% of electoral votes over the last 6 contests, we're witnessing the results.

In the short term, the GOP will most likely require a majority of Hispanic votes to get to 270. Even W's 44% will not suffice, unless they combine that with reversing the 36% shellacking they took from single women.

It does not matter if one dislikes what it would take to reverse that. Their opinions do not change the MATH of the issue. They can choose to appeal broadly or choose POTUS defeat soundly, but they are mutually exclusive choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 04:59 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,008,246 times
Reputation: 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
I think you're overestimating the significance. This happened in 2010, remember? Did Republicans win the following presidential election? No; their nominee lost by more than 100 electoral votes. Here's the situation: Democrats can't win a low-turnout election (midterm), whereas Republicans can't win a high-turnout one (presidential). So what we're on track for is simply another round of reversals.
Exactly the point I made in another post. I know many Republicans are gushing about the mid-term results when overall voter turnout was 36.4%. During POTUS elections it's usually about 50% or a little higher.

I'd like to see them continue to gush, though. Hopefully they'll nominate an unelectable ideological conservative, giving the Democrats (probably Hilary) a landslide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 08:04 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,244,466 times
Reputation: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
More so than their elders, which is problematic for the GOP. Democrats don't need to win them outright; if those entering the electorate are more Democratic than those leaving (RIP), it's a net gain for the party.



I think you're overestimating the significance. This happened in 2010, remember? Did Republicans win the following presidential election? No; their nominee lost by more than 100 electoral votes. Here's the situation: Democrats can't win a low-turnout election (midterm), whereas Republicans can't win a high-turnout one (presidential). So what we're on track for is simply another round of reversals.



More socially conservative than whites, but extremely economically liberal. Generally speaking, economics trumps abortion.



Gore won 90% of the black vote, Dukakis won 89%, Mondale won 90%. There'll probably be some drop-off for Hillary, but let's not mince words: blacks really dislike the GOP, so upwards of 90% is likely doable.



With the exception of Florida, those states are irrelevant.



I can downplay the midterms because almost no one voted. Rick Scott won reelection by 1%. When 2016 rolls around, turnout in Florida will increase by a third, and those additional voters will be younger and heavily minority. Do you imagine that Scott's margin would've held in the midst of such an influx? Not a chance.
You are cherry picking statistics. As you know, dems threw EVERYTHING at Rick Scott and they still lost Florida. Now, you say that the south doesn't matter?? But how would Hillary match up vs Jeb? Can Hillary win Arkansas? Remember, Gore lost Tennessee
Also, if the democratic candidate can't win ANY southern state then they must win Ohio and many other midwestern states. Those illegals-turned legal will need to move to Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, etc. Do you really see that happening? Think of this scenario... A Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio Ticket.
Now, there is a lot that will happen between now and then, but that would be a problem for your party. Jeb was considered a good governor, and Rubio is also from Florida... and he is hispanic. Also, Bush's wife is hispanic, so good luck trying to play the anti-hispanic game.
You guys are looking way too much at polls and stats instead of todays reality.
BTW, 42.7% of all statistics are just made up on the spot
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 08:14 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,082,311 times
Reputation: 7282
Guamanians, The South held for McCain and Romney, and both lost the EC count by a combined 697-379! Ohio is no longer a must state for the Dems, since Virginia and NM are both blue due to the new pops in each.

The GOP literally must walk a tightrope just to squeak to 270, winning just about every swing state. That is a longshot possibility, at best. This goes beyond any issue over any individual nominee. Its a systemic issue, tied to a nation with significant demographic changes at work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 08:24 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,244,466 times
Reputation: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
Guamanians, The South held for McCain and Romney, and both lost the EC count by a combined 697-379! Ohio is no longer a must state for the Dems, since Virginia and NM are both blue due to the new pops in each.

The GOP literally must walk a tightrope just to squeak to 270, winning just about every swing state. That is a longshot possibility, at best. This goes beyond any issue over any individual nominee. Its a systemic issue, tied to a nation with significant demographic changes at work.
Yes there are changes, but you are missing some key points. You say that McCain & Romney won the south, but thats not entirely true. I think they lost Florida and maybe NC. Those states are big! Also, look out for Virginia... Warner was supposed to win in a landslide but he barely squeaked by. The states with GOP governors & senators will have an influence as to who wins those states in 2016. I would consider it a home field advantage scenario.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top