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.
You forgot “ravage their chaste wimmenfolk”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
More and more Jim Crow laws, aka “voting protection”.
The real question would seem to be how does the Republican party plan to continue being the party of more or less a rudderless pirate ship.
A Cincinnati Enquirer journalist visited rural Ohio, just before the recent Democratic debate, and interviewed several residents, most of which were Trump supporters and this was his conclusion:
It’s the economy stupid! It has been, and always will be.
Trump supporters generally support Trump? What a shock! Fascinating journalism.
But this part of the country has been Democrat historically. I have yet to see the Democratic party address the misgivings that the Clinton campaign failed on, and allowed Trump to win in the first place. Their platform seems to be “Get the asshole out of the White House”, which I’m not opposed to, but it seems to not be a strategy that will win the disenfranchised back.
Rural white parts of Ohio haven’t been Democratic in a long time, in my understanding.
Keeping taxes (relatively) low and emphasizing fiscal responsibility (assuming the party ever gets back to that) tends to attract quite a few followers.
If Democrats/liberals are counting on demographics to ensure that Republicans/conservatives become obsolete, they’ll be in for a lot of disappointment in years to come. Newly arrived immigrants and young voters have a habit of moving rightwards in their political leanings as time goes on.
Except that they have only been keeping taxes low for the very rich.
And increasing the deficit hugely.
Tell that to the Republicans in California. Immigrants who hear one party tell them that they are awful people might not be that willing to join that party. Unless they get really rich, maybe.
Republicans/conservatives won’t be going obsolete, no matter what, but the two newest generations of voters won’t be drifting rightwards, either, except relatively to the generations which follow them. Core values don’t change over time and the belief that people get more conservative as they age is pretty much an old wives’ tale. Compared to 1994, the only generation more conservative now is the Silent one.