If by national elections, we’re talking about the Presidency, the Republicans have only lost two in a row. The Miami Dolphins aren’t feeling any pressure yet.
Obama was running as an incumbent in 2012 and the Republicans knew that would be a big advantage for the Democrats. In 2016, you’ll have had eight years of a Democratic presidency and some people will feel it’s time for a change. So it’s silly to count the Republicans as a lost cause for the next election much less for all future elections.
We are not counting out Republicans out for all time, we are wondering what they need to change to come back. Yes, they’ve only lost twice in a row but if they change nothing they are going to lose a lot more. There is no denying the demographic advantage the Democrats currently have over them, and it is just going to become more pronounced as older voters die off and Hispanic voters increase.
Actually they rather famously had convinced themselves they were guaranteed to win. And really, they did have plenty of advantages; they were running a white man against a black man in a bad economy.
I don’t think that is a valid assumption. You must consider where all those White men are. Even though the raw vote totals have been fairly close the last two elections, the electoral vote has been a landslide. The minority vote this past time was enough to shift several states to Obama. It doesn’t really help the future GOP candidate if he or she gets all the White votes in Alaska and Idaho.
I don’t think that’s right. I doubt 20% of White men will number more than 90% of Blacks, 20% of Asians, and 20% of Hispanics combined. Granted, each group will not vote in the same percentages, but I am not sure that’s a safe assumption.
Again, you are assuming a equal distribution, which isn’t the case. Interesting factoid: if only Whites voted, Romney would have won all but 4 states. Romney lost with nearly 60% of the White vote, which makes up 72% of the electorate. Even with roughly 30% of support from the rest of the electorate, he would have won if people were evenly distributed. It’s not just a demographics, it’s geography as well.
The problem is likely to get worse if people continue to to cluster by political views (as they tend to today), and urbanize. The most populous blue states are likely to stay blue, whereas many of the formally purple states are going to likely to see minority population increases. States like Virginia, Florida, Colorado and New Mexico might be irretrievably lost given a significant demographic shift.
The other issue is that changes in the composition of the electorate will likely occur not only because of demographic changes, but also because of increased levels of participation in certain groups. The new normal seems to be a greater percentage of younger people, minorities, and others actually voting. Coupled with the democratic machine being FAR better at turning out and firing up voters, and you can count on the GOP having to reach a higher bar in each subsequent election. I don’t think it’s insurmountable, but I do not have any real confidence that the GOP can appeal to a broad base without alienating many of the people whose money and votes they count on.
The money is the largest issue. The dems can likely count on a broad fundraising base for the foreseeable future. That allows them to court voters with greater efficiency, and to champion policies with broader appeal. They can be less beholden to special interest as a result. While they still need big donors, they are less likely to shape their message only to those with deep pockets or large constituencies. Just look at how the dems have been able to keep unions and others at a distance policy-wise, whereas the GOP cannot to the same wrt to the religious right, the gun lobby, or anyone else. The Kochs and Adelsons of the world actual want to shape policy. It doesn’t matter if it’s rich billionaires on either side, people do not want these people shaping policies for the majority of Americans.
But, given that the numbers are still relatively close, a good/bad candidate either way could be enough to swing things. I don’t doubt that even given these advantages, Kerry would have probably lost to Ronmey had they hypothetically run against one another, and there are a number of reasonable republicans who would have a shot against even a good dem candidate. The larger point is that it will be a uphill battle from here on in for and republican in the future.
I guess it’s possible that Georgia might tip in my lifetime, but otherwise all the current reliably Republican states with a large Hispanic population are going to stay that way. If there’s a blue Texas in a Presidential race then I’ll be ready to call the Republicans dead as a national force, but it ain’t happening in 2016.
I think you overestimate the voting public. The last election showed us that a great many are willing to vote contrary to their best interests for the sake of ideology.
Keep in mind that unless the Dems put up a charismatic minority or female candidate, it’s quite possible that young, minority and female voters won’t bother to vote in enough numbers for the Democrats to defeat the Republicans. It all depends on which side is motivated enough for a particular election, even if the demographics are currently favoring the Dems.
Of course the Republicans can win another national election.
The party was thought to be dead after 20 years of New Deal FDR-Truman rule, yet they came back in 1952. The party was also considered dead after the LBJ landslide in 1964 and returned to the White House in 1968. Watergate was thought to have finished the party but Reagan (thought to be completely unelectable by elites) won in 1980.
That’s not true actually, we’ve cut spending before without people getting upset. In fact Clinton cut spending in several programs (welfare and military) and his popularity soared.
I think a balanced approach that is properly explained to the American people will have broad based support.
And did the party change nothing at all to achieve those comebacks? You guys are just not getting it, there is no question about whether the GOP will come back or not, the question is HOW. If you think they can keep going exactly as they have and win you are sadly mistaken.
On reflection 2050 is too far out, I remember some of the demographic prediction in regards to blacks as a percentage of the U.S. population when I was growing up ended up being off base as population growth rates are hard to predict in the future as changing demographics can alter birth rate, but in the “medium term” next few decades my point stands. You can bet a candidate in 2020 who wins 40% of the Hispanic vote, 40% of the Asian vote, 60% of the white male vote and at least splits the white female vote will win handily in any measure that matters (popular vote, electoral vote etc.)
It’s a perfectly valid assumption based on current states. If Romney had won 40% of Hispanics and 40% of Asians in addition to his current white numbers Obama would no longer be President and there’d be articles talking about Romney’s “Reaganesque landslide victory.”
There were plenty of articles talking about Romney’s “Reaganesque landslide victory.” They all appeared in the days leading up to his landslide defeat. For the Republicans to win, they’re first going to have to learn how to count votes.
Congrats to Martin for some excellent posts in this thread.
I believe the answer is no. Look at 2012. The universe was aligned against Obama. He is black, which costs him a significant chunk of votes off the bat. His signature achievement, Obamacare, was villified for 3 years to the point where people actually believe in death panels. Unemployment was over 8% for virtually his entire term. If ever an election should have been lost by an incumbent, it was here.
So in 2016, a white Democrat will run with unemployment well below 8% and Obamacare showing positive results. The Republicans will still be the angry old white guy party, with animousity toward women, gays, blacks, and Hispanics. And they dare not veer an inch to the left to halt the bleeding among women and minorities, because the angry white right wingers have the party by the short hairs and won’t let go for a second. Either Hillary or Biden would easily mop the floor with any Republican.
Perhaps by rigging the rules in states like WI, MI, OH, PA, VA, and FL, they might steal an election. But I doubt it, since this transparent scheme will in itself be a campaign issue.
Yes, they’ll win another election. For all Romney’s uninterestingness and 47%-foot-in-mouth-issues, he lost the popular vote by less than 4%. Granted, Obama had his own stumbling blocks, but there’s no guarantee the next Democratic candidates won’t face the same ones. If the elector-splitting proposal that’s up in several states gets passed by one or two legislatures, he wins the electoral vote. It was only a decade ago that GWB drew 40% of the Latino vote; that would have won Romney the electoral vote.
Remember, they control most of the state legislatures and they’ve just redrawn most districts for lower offices in their own favor. That will certainly play in to presidential politics.
Peter King is a lot of things, but reasonable is not one of them. He’s not Gohmert/Bachmann nutso, but he holds a number of extreme views.
Some interesting nuggets in aCNN story regarding the makeover plans for the GOP The idea of controlling the number of debates and compressing the primaries might help them weed out the crazies, or at least minimize their impact.
In each of those cases, the winning Republican candidate was someone who had been a very prominent figure over the recent decades: Eisenhower was the winning WWII General, Nixon the former VP and Presidential candidate, Reagan was a strong candidate previously in primaries. So, in each of those cases the “Great Man” aspect was in play. For the foreseeable future, the Republicans don’t really have a similar figure in the wings. Chris Christie is really just getting started as a national figure, otherwise who is there?
If the economy is still sluggish in 2016 then the Republicans will have a hard time losing. Obama’s mobilization of young and black voters won’t last forever, and “independents” tend to follow the economic winds.