Straight Dope Message Board

[KarlGauss]

How do you suppose the Republican Party plans to survive, or even thrive, as demographics change?

The average age of Republican voters is said to be well north of 65. When they die off, become demented, or simply become less committed in the next decades, there will not be anything close to the amount of replacement voters needed to sustain the Party.

The outlook for the Republicans is even gloomier since today's first-time and 'young' voters are now even less inclined to support them than they might have been historically. I say this not just because of Republication policy on global warming, or the lack of opportunity for meaningful advancement as today's youth enter the real world. It's also that young and soon-to-be voters are being nurtured in an environment of extreme polarity. Convictions formed late in adolescence and in early adulthood stick and persist for a long time, maybe forever. The current degree of polarity will only make them stickier. And even if 30 or 40 percent of today's youth are somehow 'genetically' ingrained to stick with the 'right', their numbers will be dwarfed by the large majority who will peel off to the left.

With the above in mind, does the Republican Party expect to survive? I'm sure they would answer yes. My follow-up question would then be to ask just how they propose to entice new voters in the next decades. Intolerance and xenophobia will only get you so far.

It's a trope, but America is becoming browner (a double-whammying characteristic given its tight link to younger average age) and it is also becoming more 'liberal' (at least on an overall population basis). What drawing card could the Republicans possibly use to prevent themselves from becoming a marginalized political force and having no hope of forming a (federal) government? (State governments may be a different matter.) 1

[KarlGauss]

My mistake. I meant to put this in Great Debates. Can a kindly mod please move it there. Thanks. 2

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by KarlGauss

The average age of Republican voters is said to be well north of 65.

Surely this is impossible....? When Trump won the presidency, the under-44 age group voted 39% for Trump. The 45-and-older group went 52% for Trump.

There isn't a perfect correlation between "Trump voter" and "Republican," but surely the average/median/mean/mode Republican voter age lies somewhere in the 40s or 50s age range. 3

[pjacks]

Is this post from 2013?
All this was already said after Romney lost, and Trump ended up winning 4 years later by doubling down on white identity politics. And guess what- Trump actually got a larger share of the Hispanic vote than Romney did.

There are more whites without college degrees in this country than all PoC COMBINED. The coming demographic "wave" is being overblown, and identity politics is a losing game for Democrats. Also, utimately, Hispanics will assimilate into the melting pot and slowly begin to behave like white voters, just as the Italians, Irish and Slavs did before them. We are already seeing this with 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, and especially in states like Florida.

Of course, our joke of a governing system, which was created by pre-Industrual age slave-owners who shat in champer pots, favors disenfranchisement through the Senate and the Electoral College. This won't ever change because it is Infallible & Perfect, Glory Be To The Founders. Democrats are huddled in large cities and will continue to be screwed over by the system. Of course, Republicans will continue to make voting difficult at the state and local level, and Democrats will do nothing about it except whine. They've got whining skilled to 100, don't worry about that.

And consider that we are the verge of entering a climate change dystopia, where we will be stuck on a steaming, overpopulated planet with dwindling resources that will be bombarded by constant catastrophic weather events, creating wonderful things like refugee crises, food & water shortages, and further instabilities in already volatile nations. This is exactly the kind of situation wherein a nationist, rightwing populist party would prosper.

Young voters now perhaps favor the Democratic party, but if the party continues to be represented by bleached skeletons who refuse to listen to them or do much of anything at all, this will not last. Most are already disengaged from or disillusioned by the mess of a country the Boomers are leaving us. It's clear to most rational people that our political system is objectively broken and is completely incapable of addressing the various crises that we are left to face.

So have a great weekend! 4

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Surely this is impossible....? When Trump won the presidency, the under-44 age group voted 39% for Trump. The 45-and-older group went 52% for Trump.

Thinking about it, you must be right. Maybe I read 'Republican supporters'? I'm pretty sure I didn't make up the figure but damned if I can find it again. 5

[DSeid]

1. Structurally their strength in rural states and districts amplified their power.

2. They don’t have to win other demographics. Just keep the overwhelming support they have in the ones they currently do so well in and do less poorly in other ones. A post-Trump GOP can make inroads into groups that the current GOP does poorly in within a few cycles. 6

[Bone]

Originally Posted by KarlGauss

My mistake. I meant to put this in Great Debates. Can a kindly mod please move it there. Thanks.

Done.

[/moderating] 7

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by DSeid

1. Structurally their strength in rural states and districts amplified their power.

2. They don’t have to win other demographics. Just keep the overwhelming support they have in the ones they currently do so well in and do less poorly in other ones. A post-Trump GOP can make inroads into groups that the current GOP does poorly in within a few cycles.

Also, voters naturally get tired of one party after that party's been in place for 8 or 12 years. It doesn't matter how well Team Red or Team Blue do during those years when they hold the White House, once eight years have gone by, voters itch for change. 8

[Dr_Paprika]

I think the Republicans do have reason to be apprehensive about changing demographics. It is true that Trump defied expectations. But there were a lot of factors behind this, and no reason they would all apply to subsequent pairs of candidates. Trump is unique in many ways.

There has already been a schism of sorts between classical conservatives, mega donors and Trump supporters, which can include dissatisfied workers, people without a college education, those who favour a specific issue, loyal Republicans and those who don’t like the alternatives. These different factions may have different feelings about things, but most of them would rather be in power.

Accordingly, the Republicans will modify their messages if this is needed to gain broader support. They will seek candidates with specific appeal in a given district. They may even moderate and modify certain views. 9

[Ludovic]

I agree with the basic premise of the thread since, all else being equal, the current batch of politicians are looking at at least a .2% swing blueward each election cycle which they will have to deal with.

I imagine in the near term, voter suppression efforts will ramp up.

In the medium and long term, there may be a shift in the makeup of the party's candidates to reflect the changing values of the electorate. Or the current politicians will try to change the focus of their views to take this into account, but voters will see through this if it is too blatant.

We're already seeing some of the latter playing out (with of course a lot of voter suppression efforts as well.) A President who at least paid lip service to equal rights for homosexuals and marijuana legalization would be unthinkable 20 years ago, but the public views have shifted. 10

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I imagine in the near term, voter suppression efforts will ramp up.

That is a given. GOPs know they can't win free and fair elections above local level. Entrenched power gives them tools to gerrymander, disenfranchise, and suppress, their only means to retain unjust power. How long will US citizens submit to rule by losers?

Putin's Puppy POTUS, Moscow Mitch, and the GOP Senate are stacking federal courts with unqualified sycophants bound to maintain GOP control, no matter what, for generations. Can a rotten judiciary save kakistocracy?

Another stage of suppression: more violence against candidates, dissidents, bystanders, people of color or perceived difference, anyone without a MAGA hat, et al. RNC and local GOP officials will deny incitement despite coded language heard, understood, and acted upon. "Kill A Liberal" won't just be on truck mudflaps.

Eisenhower said, "If a political party does not... advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power." Ike nailed-em. When will they go the way of Whigs? 11

[Little Nemo]

Narrowing the franchise.

It's not like this is unprecedented. There were several states which were effectively one-party states for decades. And this happened within living memory. The Republicans just need to revive those old practices. 12

[Bone]

I expect the historical trend of people being more small "c" conservative as they age will continue to hold. 13

[RioRico]

How can the GOP wing of the crippled Republicrats survive demographics? Answer:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Narrowing the franchise.

It's not like this is unprecedented. There were several states which were effectively one-party states for decades. And this happened within living memory. The Republicans just need to revive those old practices.

Narrowing the franchise, by suppression or outright bans of target groups, guarantees a lack of "consent of the governed"... unless there's a Chinese Politburo deal: You get material wealth as long as you shut up. Even there, retaining power requires state violence. I doubt we'll see a Starship Troopers world where only veterans may vote or hold office and everyone else is happy because prosperity and no repression.

US "single-party" states with limited franchise have been white-run feudalisms. Deep South FTW! California's current Dem majority stems from previously dominant GOPs making themselves quite unwelcome over the last couple of decades, not from nasty libs disenfranchising poor innocent conservatives. Californians can vote fairly easily. GOP power will vanish with universal voting.

How can the GOP survive? Possibly by reinvention. Possibly by dictatorship. Possibly the nation or political structure will not survive, suiting US enemies just fine. With any political move, consider: Who benefits? 14

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Bone

I expect the historical trend of people being more small "c" conservative as they age will continue to hold.

But as Baby Boomers die off this is going to represent a smaller percentage of the population, so it isn't going to help them in the long run. 15

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by RioRico

US "single-party" states with limited franchise have been white-run feudalisms. Deep South FTW! California's current Dem majority stems from previously dominant GOPs making themselves quite unwelcome over the last couple of decades, not from nasty libs disenfranchising poor innocent conservatives. Californians can vote fairly easily. GOP power will vanish with universal voting.

California is an excellent example. When the GOP was in power they attacked Hispanics and immigrants, just as the national party party is doing today. When the demographics changed, they got wiped out pretty much. Now all they have is the Central Valley. The new redistricting method is a fair one, they don't have to cheat to win, unlike Republicans. 16

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Bone

I expect the historical trend of people being more small "c" conservative as they age will continue to hold.

Originally Posted by Voyager

But as Baby Boomers die off this is going to represent a smaller percentage of the population, so it isn't going to help them in the long run.

Exactly: in order to be the party that caters to small-c conservatives, they'd need to cater to the views that young Gen-Xers* and beyond will be stuck in as they age, which will be different views from the ones the current oldsters are stuck in. So they'll need a combination of fresh blood and shifting policy views if they don't want to be in the political wilderness, or else resort to voter suppression.

*Old Gen X-ers are in their demographic. 17

[Czarcasm]

So you want to put your faith in a generation that takes 90% of their morals, ethics and knowledge of the world from an unregulated mass media? 18

[pool]

I was listening to a video of Noam Chomsky recently and he was saying something to the effect of how both parties bow to their corporate overlords and modern Dems are basically the soft Republicans of yesteryear and modern Republicans have now skewed so far right as to be off the scale.

He makes the point about how Republicans have built a sort of strange coalition of single issue voters in these last few years, namely things like people who want guns, those who are anti-immigration, and how at some point, Republicans after Reagan and maybe Bush senior, had previously if not completely pro choice had at least tolerated abortion as a personal issue, at some point they largely flipped on the issue, going the other way on abortion and picking up the Evangelical vote along the way.

So to keep power I guess one must keep a coalition of single issue voters that are distracted by those issues, meanwhile meaningful legislation that would change people's lives for the better like workers' rights, healthcare, pollution, and global warming is never passed and keeps the corporate system happy. 19

[l0k1]

They are no longer even concerned with projecting the image of ruling with the consent of the governed. Nixon and Reagan era Republicans used phrases like Silent Majority and Moral Majority to suggest (even if it wasn't true) that they spoke for the majority of the governed. Today, people on this very board, will say that it's 100% OK, a feature not a bug, that the electoral college overrules the popular vote, and the Senate majority represents way less than half the country, that democracy is unfair, and if we fixed it, we'd all be living under the tyranny of California.

The Republicans aren't even shy about saying that their plan is to Gerrymander and Disenfranchise their way to victory. 20

[septimus]

nm 21

[Wesley Clark]

I don't think it will matter.

Even if America becomes more and more diverse, that diversity will be limited to a handful of large cities and blue states. So those blue states and blue cities will become more left leaning, but huge chunks of america will still be lily white and just as republican as they've always been.*

America is about 40% non-white (although the electorate is only 30% non-white due to non-whites having lower turnout and many non-whites being ineligible to vote for various reasons).

Even if America is 50% non-white in 30 years, and 40% of the electorate is non-white, we will still have a lot of mostly white states that will continue to vote GOP.

So I doubt it'll matter.

Plus as time passed, the 'in group' becomes broader. It used to be 100 years ago that you had to be the right kind of white and the right kind of christian. You had to be an anglo-saxon protestant. So eastern europeans, russians, italians, germans, spaniards, french, catholics, mormons, etc. were out-groups and faced persecution.

Now you just have to be white and christian. So in the future the definition of 'in group' will probably broaden and the far right will have a lot of latinos and LGBTs in it promoting persecution of other people.

Anyway, I doubt it'll matter.

*Having said that, states like Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, etc. will ideally move to the left as demographic changes. But the plains states and much of the south will still be very right wing. 22

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

America is about 40% non-white (although the electorate is only 30% non-white due to non-whites having lower turnout and many non-whites being ineligible to vote for various reasons).

Even if America is 50% non-white in 30 years, and 40% of the electorate is non-white, we will still have a lot of mostly white states that will continue to vote GOP.

So I doubt it'll matter.

Plus as time passed, the 'in group' becomes broader. It used to be 100 years ago that you had to be the right kind of white and the right kind of christian. You had to be an anglo-saxon protestant. So eastern europeans, russians, italians, germans, spaniards, french, catholics, mormons, etc. were out-groups and faced persecution.

Now you just have to be white and christian. So in the future the definition of 'in group' will probably broaden and the far right will have a lot of latinos and LGBTs in it promoting persecution of other people.

That's true in a vague sense but these days it seems like we are going backward with regards to Latinos and the GOP, and perhaps society in general. It seems that before this millennium, anti-Latino prejudice was more casual even if it was still as virulent. But casual racism can be counteracted by exposure and education. If you've already firmly othered Latinos, then you'll always be convinced that many of them are getting free shit from the government and are engaging in voter fraud. 23

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by pool

So to keep power I guess one must keep a coalition of single issue voters that are distracted by those issues . . .

I think this is spot on.

Not saying they should of course, but if the Dems embraced the 2nd Amendment or pledged to outlaw abortion, the Republican bloc would fragment into political insignificance and none of its descendants would bear the Republican name. 24

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by KarlGauss

I think this is spot on.

Not saying they should of course, but if the Dems embraced the 2nd Amendment or pledged to outlaw abortion, the Republican bloc would fragment into political insignificance and none of its descendants would bear the Republican name.

I don't agree with that. The obsession with guns and abortion is more a proxy for the two parties attitudes on multiculturalism. Even if you removed these two wedge issues, some other wedge issue that is a proxy for multiculturalism would rise up to take its place.

At root that is what politics is about. On one hand you have a multicultural, pro-democracy party and on the other side you have a party that believes in social heirarchies and views democracy as a hindrance to their goals because it empowers the multiculturalists.

Eliminating the gun debate won't solve it. For all intents and purposes, the democrats have totally give up on the gun debate and it hasn't made a difference anyway. Under Obama gun control was barely mentioned and the conservative base still screamed 'they're coming for our guns'. Even if democrats give up and let the GOP legislate away women's rights to their own bodies, the religious right would still scream about abortion.

The root cause of our political divide is due to attitudes on authoritarianism and multiculturalism. High authoritarians who reject multiculturalism are republicans and low authoritarians who embrace multiculturalism are democrats. Wedge issues are a symptom and expression of this divide, not a cause of it. 25

[JRDelirious]

I've been hearing prophesies of the demographic doom of the Right or the Republicans for a long time. I'll wait to see it happen. People somehow seem to forget that conservatives have and raise children too. And that, for example, Latino and Black communities can be very conservative when it comes to things like LGBT.

Originally Posted by pool

So to keep power I guess one must keep a coalition of single issue voters that are distracted by those issues, meanwhile meaningful legislation that would change people's lives for the better like workers' rights, healthcare, pollution, and global warming is never passed and keeps the corporate system happy.

Which in an age of information being narrowcast into self-selected targeted bubbles through the troll-susceptible direct communication platforms, may be even easier. Never mind fake news that your safety net is being eliminated, what's that anyway -- here's 50 posts from your subscribed feeds about how they're coming for your guns, making your daughter use the men's room, and saying the Bible's not that great. 26

[Fentoine Lum]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

I've been hearing prophesies of the demographic doom of the Right or the Republicans for a long time. I'll wait to see it happen. People somehow seem to forget that conservatives have and raise children too. And that, for example, Latino and Black communities can be very conservative when it comes to things like LGBT.

Which in an age of information being narrowcast into self-selected targeted bubbles through the troll-susceptible direct communication platforms, may be even easier. Never mind fake news that your safety net is being eliminated, what's that anyway -- here's 50 posts from your subscribed feeds about how they're coming for your guns, making your daughter use the men's room, and saying the Bible's not that great.

Helps if you can keep them fawning over celebrity and "success" as ya extract, redistribute and concentrate societal wealth. 27

[PastTense]

People change politically as they age. Someone 65 is a baby boomer. Remember what baby boomers were doing when they were in college? The general image then was that they were protesting the war in Vietnam, smoking pot, wearing long hair, and were sexually promiscuous. They were not generally Republican then; they were very strong supporters of Democrat Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs. 28

[guizot]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

I don't think it will matter.

Even if America becomes more and more diverse, that diversity will be limited to a handful of large cities and blue states.

All areas of the U.S.--urban, suburban, and rural--are becoming more diverse. The suburban areas (the traditional Republican strongholds) are increasing in diversity at the greatest rate, the rural areas at the least rate. But all are increasing.

The Republican Party has known about this for a while, and their plan to survive is to continue to do what they've already been doing, as mentioned above: gerrymandering, and the use of propaganda to create single-issue, die-hard voters.

It doesn't matter that, in reality, most of the nation is not "divided" to the degree that is always parroted in the media. As long as a certain core of voters can be duped into latching onto certain issues, (by whatever spin the party and its network, Fox, can devise), the gerrymandering will create strategic voting blocks. The false narrative of the "divided nation" is one that the Republican Party pushes (and the media mindlessly repeats), because it is really the only way they do have to survive. 29

[survinga]

They'll first have to become sane again. It's been a long time since they were a normal party. The Republicans had to first become sick and crazy to allow a guy like Donald Trump to win the primaries in 2016. So, before they thrive or survive, first they must lose the insanity that produced Trump.

Accomplishing that will not be easy. And if they don't accomplish it, they will cease to exist as a party in my lifetime. 30

[Velocity]

One way Republicans can stay relevant for decades to come is that liberal ideas generally go through two phases:

1. They are ridiculed, intensely opposed, and draw horror
2. Over the course of decades, they gradually become mainstream



Since Democrats are the liberal party, there will always be causes that are in Phase 1# and not yet in Phase 2#. For instance, gay marriage would have been unthinkable and those who supported it would have been considered radicals half a century ago, but today it is mainstream, and those who oppose it are labeled bigots.

Today, race-based reparations (to use one example) is intensely opposed, but a decade or two from now, it may be as mainstream as gay marriage, and those who oppose it will be "bigots." But no matter what, there will always be issues still in Phase 1#, for which conservatives can oppose liberals, and temporarily enjoy the support of the American majority in doing so. And that backlash can be very powerful, enough to give Republicans the presidency once every 8-12 years or so. If the Democrats push race-based reparations hard in 2020 and 2024, promising trillions of dollars to black Americans and blacks alone, that could very well lead to Republicans winning presidential elections, for instance. And even if black reparations passes..........then what? Liberals will promptly move on to the next idea, which will be unpopular for its first few decades, and conservatives can oppose that temporarily-unpopular idea next. 31

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Velocity

One way Republicans can stay relevant for decades to come is that liberal ideas generally go through two phases:

1. They are ridiculed, intensely opposed, and draw horror
2. Over the course of decades, they gradually become mainstream

Since Democrats are the liberal party, there will always be causes that are in Phase 1# and not yet in Phase 2#. For instance, gay marriage would have been unthinkable and those who supported it would have been considered radicals half a century ago, but today it is mainstream, and those who oppose it are labeled bigots.

I feel the Republicans have lost their sense of timing on this. They're now the party that's still opposing ideas that the mainstream has accepted. They're still fighting yesterday's battles. 32

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by PastTense

People change politically as they age. Someone 65 is a baby boomer. Remember what baby boomers were doing when they were in college? The general image then was that they were protesting the war in Vietnam, smoking pot, wearing long hair, and were sexually promiscuous. They were not generally Republican then; they were very strong supporters of Democrat Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs.

The "general image then" was a media creation, foisted by music, clothes, and magazine companies. The 1946-1964 era was by no means monolithic, and even "weekend freaks" in (sub)urban settings held straight jobs and voted GOP. Young adults outside the 'hip' cities too often were stuck in flyover-land for life, same as their descendants.

Protesting the war? Many did, and many enlisted for whatever reasons, me too. Puff pot? So did Nixon supporters. Sexually promiscuous? One can only wish! But most were thinner then. Look at generational obesity. How many conservatives are too fat to fuck?

IMHO all generation stereotypes are crap. Do people go conservative with age? Some. Some keep the dream of an equitable world where our grandkids can survive and thrive. Do those today calling themselves 'conservative' really fit the label? Ha. 33

[survinga]

Originally Posted by Velocity

One way Republicans can stay relevant for decades to come is that liberal ideas generally go through two phases:

1. They are ridiculed, intensely opposed, and draw horror
2. Over the course of decades, they gradually become mainstream

The phenomenon you're describing often occurs when you have normal parties that deal with the reality of what's going on around them. But under the current Republican party, I don't see that happening. The idea of Universal Health Care via any mechanism (ACA-done-right or M4A or something in between) is soundly rejected still. Climate Change being driven by man is still rejected by a great many Republicans....not only doing something about it, but even acknowledging that it exists. They still argue that tax cuts pay for themselves even after numerous real-world experiments have destroyed that doctrine.

So, when something slips from #1 to #2, I don't see the Republicans moderating their position to get with the times. 34

[Red Wiggler]

Core values are formulated in young adulthood and don't change very often. The myth of the average voter drifting rightward as he ages is just that, a myth. He just appears more conservative relative to the new younger, more liberal generations that follow.

Even younger Republicans eschew the party line on social issues. The party may be able to adhere to its outdated economic models for years to come but it will have to drift leftward on many social issues or be left in the dust. 35

[puddleglum]

Hoteling theory.
As one party attracts new voters, the party changes to reflect those new voters. This then repels some old voters. Bill Clinton won 49% of the two party white vote in 1996 and his wife won 39% of the white two party vote in 2016. Since the white vote is 5 times as large as any other block there are still plenty of votes to move in the future. 36

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

I don't think it will matter.

Even if America becomes more and more diverse, that diversity will be limited to a handful of large cities and blue states. So those blue states and blue cities will become more left leaning, but huge chunks of america will still be lily white and just as republican as they've always been.*

Yeah, this. I'd be more worried about the Democratic Party in the near future.

10 years from now, the median state will look more like a current Red state than it does now. The gap between the popular vote and the electoral vote (and Senate representation) will continue to grow. The structure of the Constitution bolsters the primarily-rural party.

Originally Posted by Karl Gauss

Not saying they should of course, but if the Dems embraced the 2nd Amendment or pledged to outlaw abortion

I think this demonstrates a misunderstanding of how this stuff works. The party can't make that change without the voters driving it. Otherwise they'd go vote for someone who was in favor of abortion and gun control. This is sort of arguably what happened with the GOP and immigration. The party saw the demographic writing on the wall and many members of it really tried to make inroads on multiculturalism and immigration, realizing that many Latinos shared lots of "conservative" ideology except the anti-brown-people part. But it didn't work. The voters weren't there, and what we got instead was borderline white nationalism.

There will always be a wedge issue, and one issue ceases to be a sufficient wedge, it's basically dropped and forgotten. The most recent of these is gay marriage. It was the front line of national debate for quite a while and when the right lost, they just stopped talking about it. But that happens when public opinion shifts, not when parties or individual politicians decide to concede the issue. 37

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by KarlGauss

How do you suppose the Republican Party plans to survive, or even thrive, as demographics change?

The average age of Republican voters is said to be well north of 65.

Well, someone may say this, but they are wrong.

When they die off, become demented, or simply become less committed in the next decades, there will not be anything close to the amount of replacement voters needed to sustain the Party.

They said this 20, 30, 40 years ago, too. What do you think happened to make those predictions wrong? 38

[Dale Sams]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

Yeah, this. I'd be more worried about the Democratic Party in the near future.

10 years from now, the median state will look more like a current Red state than it does now. The gap between the popular vote and the electoral vote (and Senate representation) will continue to grow. The structure of the Constitution bolsters the primarily-rural party.

I think this demonstrates a misunderstanding of how this stuff works. The party can't make that change without the voters driving it. Otherwise they'd go vote for someone who was in favor of abortion and gun control. This is sort of arguably what happened with the GOP and immigration. The party saw the demographic writing on the wall and many members of it really tried to make inroads on multiculturalism and immigration, realizing that many Latinos shared lots of "conservative" ideology except the anti-brown-people part. But it didn't work. The voters weren't there, and what we got instead was borderline white nationalism.

There will always be a wedge issue, and one issue ceases to be a sufficient wedge, it's basically dropped and forgotten. The most recent of these is gay marriage. It was the front line of national debate for quite a while and when the right lost, they just stopped talking about it. But that happens when public opinion shifts, not when parties or individual politicians decide to concede the issue.

Only thing the Dems have to do to win is to be the party they claim to be. Not the party of bombing hospitals, weddings and funerals. Assasinating Americans, hiring Debbie Wasserman after she retires from the DNC. The party of scolding and elitest celebrities. The party of "Well they do it too" The party of super-delegates. The party of Russian conspiracy theories and shaming third party voters. The modern McCarthyite party.

Just be the good guys and you'll win. Is it that hard to do? 39

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Well, someone may say this, but they are wrong.

As I said above, I was wrong about that

They said this 20, 30, 40 years ago, too. What do you think happened to make those predictions wrong?

Less income disparity back then? Less education? More ingrained prejudice? I'm not sure. What do you think? 40

[BobLibDem]

I don't think they think that far ahead. The country gets less white and less rural every year. Texas is starting to get a tinge of purple, when it turns blue then their electoral paths are quite slim. The only cards they hold are in the Senate where rural America continues to ruin the nation. 41

[Red Wiggler]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I don't think they think that far ahead. The country gets less white and less rural every year. Texas is starting to get a tinge of purple, when it turns blue then their electoral paths are quite slim. The only cards they hold are in the Senate where rural America continues to ruin the nation.

Indeed. The young urban/old rural divide is going to get bigger. Atlanta. Phoenix. The Tejas cities. Charlotte and the Triangle eventually. Republicans will no longer be able to compete when two thirds of the two largest incoming voter age groups reject their policies.

The Pubbies' best chance in the future in to win over a much bigger share of the Hispanic vote. And do so while simultaneously sending the message to the rest of their base that those brown people are coming here to take their jobs, destroy their culture and commit brutal crimes. 42

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler

...And do so while simultaneously sending the message to the rest of their base that those brown people are coming here to take their jobs, destroy their culture and commit brutal crimes.

You forgot "ravage their chaste wimmenfolk" 43

[octopus]

Originally Posted by KarlGauss

As I said above, I was wrong about that

Less income disparity back then? Less education? More ingrained prejudice? I'm not sure. What do you think?

In a system like the US’s a two party system is a very stable state. What those two parties actually are, in terms of the uneasy coalitions that form them, morph over time. 44

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by Dale Sams

Only thing the Dems have to do to win is to be the party they claim to be. Not the party of bombing hospitals, weddings and funerals. Assasinating Americans, hiring Debbie Wasserman after she retires from the DNC. The party of scolding and elitest celebrities. The party of "Well they do it too" The party of super-delegates. The party of Russian conspiracy theories and shaming third party voters. The modern McCarthyite party.

Just be the good guys and you'll win. Is it that hard to do?

Conspiracy: Tramp and his minions have admitted roles in conspiracies with Russian agents. He could kill many conspiracy notions by releasing his financials to show that Putin doesn't own him. Let's see-em, Donnie. Prove they're only fringe theories.

Elitists? How about Tramp's billionaire-club buds? McCarthyite? Senator Joe waved his blank list of Commie names. TrampWorld doxxes and threatens death to non-fascists.

But yes, Dems (the party) MUST represent non-rich people. Wee Willie Clinton's toxic 'triangulation' turned the party into explicit corporate whores, serving an only slightly different subset of corporate pigs than GOP slime submitted to. Before extending hands for corporate 'donations', bend over and smile.

Dems aren't great but they're not the party of fading white supremacists. 45

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by octopus

In a system like the US’s a two party system is a very stable state.

Still, and with respect to what I only alluded to in the OP, I think that Trump could bump it into a new equilibrium, or at least into a new 'stable state' almost discontinuous with the earlier one. One where Republicans are on a steep downhill slope. 46

[Czarcasm]

From The Boston Globe-Around 2005, [Arlo] Guthrie became a registered Republican voter. He told The New York Times, “to have a successful democracy you have to have at least two parties, and one of them was failing miserably. We had enough good Democrats. We needed a few more good Republicans. We needed a loyal opposition.” 47

[Thing Fish]

There is no plan. Political parties are made up of politicians, whose main concern is always with winning the NEXT election. As institutions, they're simply not capable of formulating or sticking to any long-term plans which involve the slightest risk of short-term losses. They'll make it up as they go along, and either they'll succeed or they'll fade from the scene and be replaced by some new party. I agree that their situation doesn't look at all good in the medium term, though. 48

[septimus]

Hillary beat Trump 3 to 2 among 18- to 29-year olds.
Hillary beat Trump 6 to 5 among union households.
Trump beat Hillary 10 to 9 among 65+ in age.
Hillary and Trump were tied among those earning $100k or more.
Trump beat Hillary 3 to 2 among whites.

Any of these numbers surprise? Age was not as good a predictor as many think. Neither is the assumption that those with good income are afraid of Democrats. Race is a strong predictor.

Some numbers changed in the 2018 Congressional races:
While white men still favored the R's 3 to 2, white women were evenly split.
The Ds beat the Rs slightly more than 2 to 1 among 18- to 29-year olds.
The Ds lost to the Rs only very slightly among 65+ in age.

Gender and education level have become very strong indicators of the D/R vote:
White men without college favored the Rs 2 to 1.
White women with college favored the Ds 3 to 2.

Turn-out is important. Young people turned out in 2018 at record levels for an "off year."

You can bet that Republican strategists are studying these numbers. 49

[DrDeth]

More and more Jim Crow laws, aka "voting protection".

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...iteration.html 50