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.
A) Republicans get massive amounts of the white vote due to hateful and childish Democrat rhetoric.
B) Hispanics vote in lesser percentages.
C) About half of Hispanics, and a good percentage of Middle Easterners and Mixed-race Americans consider themselves white, frustrating Democrat efforts to pigoenhole us into minority groups that they can whip into a frenzy of grievance.
D) Republicans have been slowly but surely picking off minority votes. Trump did better than Romney, who did better than McCain. During the "red tide" midterms, Hispanics and Asians voted heavily Republican in key areas.
E) Shy Trump/Republican voters. Hard working people of all colors did not appreciate Obama destroying our health care system, and regardless of what they say at the exit polls, and turning against Socialism.
Cause we had one of the best health care systems in the world? Socialism? What do you think the military is?
Forgive me for not reading your links yet. I'll do that later when I have more time.
However, off the top of your head, do you recall if the links used national demographic shifts, and applied them to MI, PA and WI? Or did they use specific demographic trends of each state and apply each state's demographic shift/trend to that specific state.
I suspect the demographic shift can differ by state by state somewhat.
State by state.
Quote:
This report explores how these demographic changes could shape the next five presi- dential elections using national and state projections produced by the States of Change project. In a 2015 report,2 this project presented long-term projections to 2060 of race and age profiles for the populations and eligible electorates of all 50 states. The authors have since supplemented these data with education projections, further segmenting the population into those with four-year degree and those without. This report focuses on what those projections imply for the presidential elections between 2020 and 2036 under different assumptions about future turnout and voter preference patterns.
Here’s the 2015 report that breaks down the data by state. The later reports built upon that data foundation.
This is definitely true. With the exception of the principal cities (Chicago, Minneapolis) and college-towns (Ann Arbor, Urbana-Champaign), the Rust Belt is stagnant. There is little reason for immigrants to locate here, or for job-seeking young-people to relocate here.
This has been the conventional wisdom, and indeed, is the presumptive point of this thread. Sheer demographics ought to have relegated the GOP to history's proverbial dust-bin, but clearly, that has not happened. Beguiling predictions suggest that it finally will happen in 2020, or 2024, or 2028, or whatever... but I doubt it. Yes, the percentage of the voting-public that's non-college-educated whites is inexorably declining. But the GOP has indeed been successful with increasing its share of other groups, and I think that this trend will persist.
Even if the "Trump coalition" will decline and diminish, Trump-type of issues are pervasive, and will continue to sway voters. What I wonder, is regarding the future of the non-Trump GOP... the Nelson Rockefeller type of GOP. Presumably, its core constituents are people with post-graduate education, regardless of race. This groups seems to be moving resoundingly to the left.
The rise of right-wing populists in the Trump model is probably helping push some of the more socially moderate, globally oriented, traditional Republicans away from the party. Such voters are more likely to have advanced degrees and reside in suburban parts of larger metropolitan areas. The problem for Democrats is that these leftward trending voters are more concentrated geographically compared to rightward trending white working class voters, so they are not likely to benefit in the electoral college. But this trend could help the party pick up a few House districts that they don't already hold in states like California or New Jersey.
The "Rust Belt" isn't seeing as much growth as other parts of the nation, but it does have potential as large, coastal metropolitan areas become increasingly expensive. Many studies have shown the income vs. cost of living ratio to be highest in the Midwest, and more so in some of the less "trendy" cities like Indianapolis, Kansas City and Columbus. Potential climate changes in more southerly latitudes and water supply constraints in much of the West could also help the Rust Belt gain more of a competitive advantage.
Democrats have been banking on demographic change to be the ultimate long term solution to gaining power. But the 'White non Hispanic' population is at by far it's lowest point since the first European settlements took root in the 1600s and yet Democrats are at their lowest level of control in over 100 years.
Looking at the way seats have switched since the mid 1990s you would think it was Democrats facing a declining voter base, not the GOP.
What do you think are the causes and will this change? Will the demographics eventually shift enough to overcome the GOP?
1. The democrat party has shifted further to the left alienating many that had been Dim.
2. The Republican Party has moderated and shifted to the left a bit
3. Many of the "brown people" that are part of the demographic shift and their kids change to Republican after they realize the advantages offered by the Republican policies
IMO, the above is why the Dems have not dominated are even profitted from the demographic shifts that I have been told by experts since I was in high school in the 70's would forever shift all power to the Democrats.
The rise of right-wing populists in the Trump model is probably helping push some of the more socially moderate, globally oriented, traditional Republicans away from the party. Such voters are more likely to have advanced degrees and reside in suburban parts of larger metropolitan areas.
These voters really the modern "forgotten men" (and women). What happens to the voter who wants lower taxes, robust commerce and generally reduced government influence... but who is worldly, secular, and socially-moderate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas75
The "Rust Belt" isn't seeing as much growth as other parts of the nation, but it does have potential as large, coastal metropolitan areas become increasingly expensive.
I would have thought that this would have been the case, especially after the security-concerns post-9/11, the rise of telecommuting and remote-work, the distaste for lengthy commutes and dependency on the automobile, and so forth. Why didn't NYC and DC empty out, filling the PA and WV hills? Instead, the opposite seems to be true. The big coastal cities are getting ever larger and more expensive, while the Rust Belt is implacably losing residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
2. The Republican Party has moderated and shifted to the left a bit
This is highly debatable. The hawkish, anti-Soviet, cold-warrior-style Republicans of the 1950s-1980s are indeed gone. With Trump-style Republicans turning isolationist, the left/right foreign-policy perspective has almost reversed, between the two parties. Republicans have indeed turned starkly to the left, in being newly the blue-collar party, the party of people without much of an education, or much success in the modern economy. All of this leaves completely adrift the libertarians, or the people whose main concern is that their investment-portfolios prosper.
I would have thought that this would have been the case, especially after the security-concerns post-9/11, the rise of telecommuting and remote-work, the distaste for lengthy commutes and dependency on the automobile, and so forth. Why didn't NYC and DC empty out, filling the PA and WV hills? Instead, the opposite seems to be true. The big coastal cities are getting ever larger and more expensive, while the Rust Belt is implacably losing residents.
The "Rust Belt" isn't really one homogeneous entity these days. Larger metropolitan areas, state capitals and major university centers in the region are performing much better than smaller industrial cities just a short distance away. Often under the radar, significant numbers of high quality jobs have dispersed from the big coastal cities - for example, the financial industry (e.g. JP Morgan Chase) in Columbus or Google and Apple in Pittsburgh. Such urban centers are doing very well today even as smaller traditional manufacturing-dependent towns languish.
The truth is cites even in Rustbelt states are growing but the rural areas, large towns and small cities beyond them are thinning out. As everyone keeps point out- The Republicans are also winning the voter distribution game. Since 1992, Republicans have won the popular vote exactly once in a Presidential election. But they have parlayed that into three White House terms with the SC appointees, policy changes and legislative wins that can bring.
I think the unspoken advantage for Rs is that their voters are more likely to suck it up and vote regardless of 'enthusiasm' and 'inspiration.' A lackluster, begrudging vote counts just as much as one from someone who made 235 social media post and carried their 'I voted' sticker to an icon's grave.
People in the center also seem to have given up and quit voting. I think this is because with the exception of Clinton in 96, the more moderate candidate has not won a Presidential election in since Bush 1 in 1988. And the four most recent former presidents are greatly resented by large portions of their base for being sellouts or not sticking to the progressive or conservative bearings of their party.
The truth is cites even in Rustbelt states are growing but the rural areas, large towns and small cities beyond them are thinning out.
Agreed. The Rust Belt is splitting into its own glamour-cities, and everywhere else. Worst faring among these are midsized cities, those with say 100K people and below. They just don't offer enough in the modern economy, to be compelling job-magnets (unless they're college-towns like Ann Arbor).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpeatie
I think the unspoken advantage for Rs is that their voters are more likely to suck it up and vote regardless of 'enthusiasm' and 'inspiration.' A lackluster, begrudging vote counts just as much as one from someone who made 235 social media post and carried their 'I voted' sticker to an icon's grave.
That’s entirely possible. Another possible variation, is that Republican voters are more likely to vote for abstract principles, such as “smaller government”, or “stronger national defense”, or “getting tough on terrorism”. This is orthogonal to actual policy changes. The point is less about how to revise the country and the world, than to feel good about our leaders sharing our values, or at least appearing to. Democrats are more transactional. By saying this, I don’t contend that Democrats are somehow smarter or more strategic. But it does seem to me, that Democrats are more enthused about specific policy changes, that benefit them: a revised healthcare system, that subsidizes insurance in specific ways for specific people. A law that lets specific people get married, who heretofore could not. You pass laws that benefit us directly, and in exchange, we’ll keep voting for you.
Well, making actual policy changes is hard; making good, lasting and effective ones is even harder. Criticizing policy changes as being immoral, obtuse, ineffectual and foolish, is easy; it dovetails nicely into the abstract-principle narrative. If this is all true, then it gives Republicans a powerful built-in advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpeatie
People in the center also seem to have given up and quit voting. I think this is because with the exception of Clinton in 96, the more moderate candidate has not won a Presidential election in since Bush 1 in 1988. And the four most recent former presidents are greatly resented by large portions of their base for being sellouts or not sticking to the progressive or conservative bearings of their party.
Moderation isn’t sexy. It’s doesn’t excite people. It doesn’t lend itself well, to quips and sound-bites, slogans or rallying-cries. It is natural to assume, that by doing nothing and merely letting things flow naturally, the moderate-course will prevail. Sometimes this is true. Lately it’s not been true. We need to start getting passionate and excited about moderation… easier said than done!
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.
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.
Socialism? What do you think the military is?
