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.
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?
While voter demographics favor Democrats, voter suppression, purging people from the voter rolls, and gerrymandering favor Republicans. Because of gerrymandering, Democrats often get the most votes state-wide, but win fewer Congressional seats. It's a big hurdle to overcome.
Last edited by strawflower; 06-12-2018 at 10:42 AM..
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?
The fact is our Hispanic population isn't made up of newcomers at all. About 70% of the Hispanic vote comes from folks who were born here, most often 3rd or 4th generation native-born citizens.
George W. Bush was certainly aware of that fact as a Texan, and he both pulled a lot of support from the Hispanic vote and appointed a lot of Hispanics once elected. So did Barack Obama. But as a Chicagoan, Obama was less successful than Bush.
Why haven't the Democrats captured more of them? Because the party neglected building ground-level support for the 8 years Obama was in office. Even longer than that- ever since Bill Clinton, the Democratic party spent far more time and effort trying to snag wealthy, white people with lots of money than spending time in the barrios trying to raise populist support.
And then they nominated the worst possible fly-over nominee in 2016. Hillary hated working down at the ground level as badly as Mitt Romney hated it. But unlike Mitt, she wouldn't even make an attempt to reach the folks down on the streets, of any heritage or color.
Donald Trump saw that early on, and intentionally ignored all the Big Money boys, going straight to the base and grabbing tight to it with both hands.
I give him full cred for that savvy; he saw it when no one else in his own party did, and no Democrats at all saw it until it was far too late.
Last edited by banjomike; 06-12-2018 at 11:49 PM..
...the party neglected building ground-level support for the 8 years Obama was in office. Even longer than that- ever since Bill Clinton, the Democratic party spent far more time and effort trying to snag wealthy, white people with lots of money than spending time in the barrios trying to raise populist support.
This is true, and is a substantial reason for (1) why the Democratic candidate lost in 2016, (2) why the "Obama coalition" was more of a one-time hurrah, than a lasting trend, and (3) why Democrats aren't enjoying a steady growth of support from the children and grandchildren of immigrants.
My question is, what is now the natural political-home for the wealthy and well-educated, white or otherwise? I mean, consider the graduate student from India, who gets a PhD from Stanford, joins a tech company, and eventually obtains his US citizenship. For whom would this person vote? Which party is going to court him?
My question is, what is now the natural political-home for the wealthy and well-educated, white or otherwise? I mean, consider the graduate student from India, who gets a PhD from Stanford, joins a tech company, and eventually obtains his US citizenship. For whom would this person vote? Which party is going to court him?
Political parties that have the goal to win a governing majority are going to focus on maximizing support from significant segments of the electorate in key places. Highly educated immigrants are a sizable constituency at the national level, but are they a critical mass in a particular swing state or district, and are their concerns necessarily aligned with Americans of comparable economic status, or immigrants from other countries with very different cultures?
The answers to those questions would determine if a political party is going to target such prospective voters. My guess is that the Republican party under Trump isn't a great fit, but the Democrats aren't necessarily in alignment with elite immigrant professionals either. Both of the two major parties seem to place little value on promoting an environment for leading edge innovation and serious, data driven policy these days, so there is a gap that may need to be filled by alternatives. This probably will develop more as a "bottom-up" rather than "top-down" approach, since it's a lot easier to elect officially independent candidates locally than at the national level. So I think such voters may not be a constituency that either major party can take for granted.
I think it would be hard to explain 33 GOP governors, 16 Democratic governors, (and one independent) with some of the theories here, all of which affect things at the margins. Such theories can't explain a 2-1 ratio.
President Obama in particular relied on identity politics, and had success with it. But IMO he was just unusually good at it.
Part of the story here, too, is that many Republicans have recognized the changing demographics and have started to do a good job in reaching out to non-white voters. At one point a couple years ago, the GOP had something like 4 minority governors and the Dems had exactly 1: David Ige of Hawaii.
Trumpism is the last hurrah of the Baby Boomers. Old and conservative, the Boomers are loyal and turn out to vote, unlike younger generations. However, the influence of the Baby Boomers is in slow decline. Roughly 700,000 Boomers kick the bucket every year. Hillary won the popular vote and Trump barely squeaked out a victory in the Electoral College by less than 100,000 votes. When 2020 rolls around Trump will have a couple million less Boomer votes to count on.
Party affiliations means little. Society has been getting more liberal over the past few decades. Thus, the demographic changes are doing what they've been advertised to do.
Society has also become more stratified and unequal.
Social issues get more play because they are more visceral, but by economic standards the US is approaching pre-New Deal levels.
Trumpism is the last hurrah of the Baby Boomers. Old and conservative, the Boomers are loyal and turn out to vote, unlike younger generations. However, the influence of the Baby Boomers is in slow decline. Roughly 700,000 Boomers kick the bucket every year. Hillary won the popular vote and Trump barely squeaked out a victory in the Electoral College by less than 100,000 votes. When 2020 rolls around Trump will have a couple million less Boomer votes to count on.
The problem with the theory that has been proven inaccurate for 5 decades is that people tend to become more conservative when they get older and the parties themselves change to attract voters.
We now have fewer whites than at any point in history and we have record Republican power with more elected Republicans that at any time in history with more than twice as many GOP than Dem Governors and Repubs controlling the House, Senate and Presidency.
The problem with the theory that has been proven inaccurate for 5 decades is that people tend to become more conservative when they get older and the parties themselves change to attract voters.
We now have fewer whites than at any point in history and we have record Republican power with more elected Republicans that at any time in history with more than twice as many GOP than Dem Governors and Repubs controlling the House, Senate and Presidency.
In a 2 party system, over the long term both parties will be fine because they adapt their policies to attract new coalitions as necessary.
After the 2012 election, the establishment GOP issued its “autopsy” report that recommended that the Party embrace immigration reform with a path to citizenship for illegals as a political necessity to broaden its appeal to Hispanics. The rank and file of the party rejected that approach overwhelmingly, and nominated Donald Trump who doubled down on the existing base of the party, rather than broadening it. It was a perfect plan for a 70 year candidate concerned only about the here and now, but does nothing about the long term problem.
The GOP’s long term prospects are probably best in the Senate. There are more conservative states than liberal ones and the branch of government that gives equal weight to Wyoming and California. The House and Presidency over time will be much more challenging for the GOP if the opposing coalitions don’t change.
As far as persons getting more conservative as they get older, Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson would beg to differ. She’s found that as millennials approach middle age, they’re actually becoming more liberal. Studies have shown that rather than growing more conservative as they grow older, the majority of voters form their political identities in young adulthood and stay that way for life.
What I always have found surprising is that people assume new immigrants that become citizens (thereby having the right to vote) would automatically be Democrats. Perhaps my experience with immigrants is unique, but the majority of new citizens I have known approx 75% have been Republicans.
This is especially noticeable with Cubans. Every Cuban I've ever known even the ones born in America are hard core Republicans. When Marco Rubio started getting national press coverage I wasn't surprised in the least with the values he represented. (and he was born in America btw)
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.
