At a time when Republicans are doing worse among Asians, Latinos, and African-Americans, they’ve been steadily increasing their support among Jews.
Granted, Obama still won 69%, so there’s a way to go, but the GOP is making progress.
Rand Paul has been pretty tone def (and ignorant) when speaking of Civil Rights.
Which is only a problem because he’s a member of a party that black voters have a problem with, and everything you say is interpreted in the worst way. That’s a problem in 2016, probably won’t be as much of an issue in 2048.
Libertarianism does not create the kinds of cultural conflict that religious conservatism does.
Of course it does. For one thing, it creates cultural conflict with religious conservatism.
Well, maybe that, but religious conservatism of the Protestant kind that motivates the Religious Right is getting smaller. That’s kinda the point you’ve made before, those people are dying off.
In 30 years, the Religious Left will be the problem.
Cite?
Nevertheless, there are some things about libertarianism which might be points of cultural conflict with several different other groups.
So maybe we’ll see the Republicans collapse, and then the Democrats will split into two parties to re-establish the two-party system. OK, that seems plausible to me. But is that supposed to be something that I ought to worry about? I’m not seeing the problem.
The kinda point is that they already control you, and they’re getting stronger.
They’ve always been the *solution *before.
if The Religious Right is growing, how come their power within the GOP is waning, and why would you predict demographic disaster for the GOP?
How come you think that’s a fact?
And is there any point in even asking you that sort of question?
Pretty important to this one. Immigration reform is in the 2nd tier of things I’d like to see accomplished, but it is at the top of the 2nd tier.
Your post shows, IMO, a somewhat racist viewpoint and a lack of understanding of human nature. Why would you think that since Italians are not deported at a high rate today compared to yesteryear, that the issue would have no importance to an Italian? Why would you think that Latinos born in the US and not facing deportation themselves wouldn’t care about immigration reform and deportation?
Do you think that everyone’s attitude is “fuck it, it doesn’t affect me” without exception? If you do, you’re wrong (again).
Well, smoking weed is pretty much legal now, and porn is freely available, so I’m done with voting.
Fuck that. You got yours now it’s time to vote Republican so the government doesn’t give yours to Those People.
Polls consistently show that voters think immigration is “very important” but when ranking it as a priority, it’s usually not even in the top 10.
And I suspect it’s no different from you either. If the Democrats were the deportation party and the Republicans the liberal immigration party, would that really change your vote given the parties’ differences on economic issues?
Immigration is an issue that kinda cuts across the usual political lines. E.g., the GOP is divided on it – the base is mostly hostile for cultural reasons, but the business interests want that cheap labor, and then there are the libertarians who consider “open borders” a form of freedom. Likewise, the Dems are divided between liberals who sympathize with the immigrants on high-minded moral principle, and workers who fear the competition.
I agree completely. I think this is also a reason why it tends to be a low priority unless you have a personal stake in it or a family member does. There are no strong ideological feelings about it for most people. And a lot of people are conflicted on the issue.
Plus there’s the general gobbledygook surrounding the debate. Deportation is supposedly evil( at least one politician called it un-American), yet few support open borders, which is the only way to end deportations. If you support any mainstream immigration reform at all, then you support MORE deportation, not less.
Thats because the opposition party moderates while the party in power drifts towards their base. thats not what we have seen in recent years. We have seen the opposition party drift towards ever more extreme elements of their base while the party in power is moderating to the point of being virtually indistinguishable from the opposition party from 20 years ago.
Regardless of what the planks say, the focus of the party has shifted drastically to the right over the last 34 years.
Why are we even talking about De Blasio??? He defaulted into the mayoralty after Weiner couldn’t stop taking pictures of his junk. Noone thinks that he’s a real contender and he is proving to be a lightweight in NYC.
Warren might be able to win in a populist wave year but De Blasio??? Being a populist lefty that bashes the banks is one thing. DeBlasio is so far left that this Democrat from Virginia doesn’t even recognize him as being in the same party.
Not that I doubt you but you havea cite for that? I don’t usually see breakdowns of local elections during off years.
I doubt the Democrats will want to dismantle the social safety net, reduce taxes on the rich, and virtually eliminate regulation in 20 years. I can see Republicans coming around on gay marriage in 20 years but I don’t see them coming around on abortion in 20 years.
Sure, if that state is Texas.
I question whether the Republicans are actually the opposition party, given that they control the House and a majority of states.
I’m not sure what that means. The party acts crazier, but the ideology is unchanged from the Reagan years aside from liberalizing a little on social issues. The tactics are what’s changed.
Cooch won 18-24 year olds and then 50 and over. Which solidifies the theory about how young people’s voting habits are set a little: Obama’s 2008 youth who were 18-24 are now 23-27(and the 25-39 cohort went big for McCauliffe). But the people who were between 13-19 when Obama took office aren’t nearly as inclined to vote Democrat. Of course this is only one election, we’ll know more in 2014. But I do not believe that a party is likely to die out generationally. I don’t think that’s possible, and I don’t think it’s precedented.
Democrats will never want to because Republicans will never want to. But the Democrats of today are less likely to support big new programs than the Democrats of 1980. Part of this is economic reality, but another party is political reality. They got a bit too enthusiastic in 2009 and they’ve been paying for it. I think it will be a long time before Democrats take that leap again. If they ever do.
No, but a party can change generationally. That is precedented. As the Staunch Conservatives die out, the GOP will fill up with younger, more moderate conservatives. Probably not with libertarians, though – big-biz interests still will rule, and libertarianism is not always compatible with those interests.