If whites become a minority in the United States the great majority will probably vote Republican regardless of income. A majority of Asians may start to vote Republican, because they do well in our economy. Blacks and Hispanics often hate each other in the neighborhoods they live in. A political party that depends on the votes of both may be unstable.
In short, the GOP may dominate the United States indefinitely into the future. 
One, there ain’t enough Asians to make up for the losses that the Republican demographic is losing. While they are more financially conservative, they ain’t too crazy about the evangelical Christian litmus test. People like Jindal might be the new face of the Republicans, but they will not be a substantial part of the electorate for a while.
Two, as far as Blacks and Hispanics, they are not monolithic groups, and the Dems are as bad as anyone at treating them that way along with their own ‘leaders’. When we become a truly pluralistic society (and we already are in some ways - whites are only a majority by lumping all the Germans, Irish, Scottish, English, Polish, Italians and the rest of the mutts together. Then look at fun stuff like religion and subcultures,) then we might see the rise of multi-party system with several strong parties divided along who knows what lines. We might start emulating the Italians when it comes to forming coalition governments. That will be a joy. New Speakers of the House every six months years and who knows how many calls for impeachments. Fun fun fun!!!
But the Republicans are gone as a major force in US politics within ten to twenty years. Of course if they keep throwing their hail mary legislation, they might be gone for good in two years. I’m optimistic, but not that optimistic though.
But, yeah, anyway, the demographic makeup of America is changing, but race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of future voting patterns. Even education and income levels are no guarantee.
Urban vs rural seems to be the prime base for the two parties. That is the main change that is hurting the Republicans. Most of this country is now urban or suburban. And they made a play for the soccer moms, but I think they are too busy to rely on. “Got to drive the kids to practice, so, no I don’t have time to make calls.” They also tend to support reproductive rights. Something about being a mom on their own terms and not anyone else’s. Crazy, right? 
On the other hand a lot of Chinese-Americans and Korean-Americans are religiously Evangelical. In addition we may see the better class of Hispanics who are no longer single-issue illegal immigration voters, begin voting Republican as seen in 2004.
“(B)etter class of Hispanics”? Really?
I mean the educated, assimilated Hispanics who do not tend to mob politics. The same transition happened with the Irish, Italians, and other past immigrant groups.
Unlikely, I am happy to say. I live in a heavily Asian district, and out Congressman is one of the most liberal in the House, and keeps on getting reelected with giant margins without campaigning. California in general has moved a long way in this direction. Republicans lost all state-wide elections, lost a seat in the legislature, and the Republican enrollment is plummeting. A Republican said that they will soon be third after Does Not State.
The Wisconsin protests may be the start. In Michigan there are plenty of people disgusted by the rightys weird policies. There have been several protests in Lansing. That is how things start
One problem is how to get coverage of the demonstrations. They were front page news and big stories on TV in the 60s. . Nowadays the media downplays or ignores the demonstrations unless they are Tea Baggers.
So only stupid Hispanics who oppose Republican racist tactics toward Hispanics vote Democrat?
I’m pleased that you believe this. It means you vastly underestimate how long the Republicans’ odds are with Hispanics.
The problem you do not see is that Hispanics only need to look south of the U.S. border to see the ultimate end result of Republican style policies. Mexico is a Republican dream; a fully-evolved plutocracy where the rich are safe from harm and the people live in absolute squalor and are in constant fear of criminal gangs.
You, sir, jumped the shark with Bush if you are praying for the Hispanics to turn Republican. Especially if you equate education and “assimilation” with voting Republican.
Under the current form of government with a congress instead of a parliament and a directly elected* executive, the U.S. will never become a multi-party system. Parties outside the Big Two will always wither within two election cycles. Something might replace either the Republicans or the Democrats, but there will not be a long term third party.
That is true for the executive branch, but Congress could certainly see a plurality. I don’t know the rules of the House in that case, how safe the Speaker seat is during their term, and committee assignments. But those two or three election cycles would make things messy. Whoever is in the White House in the period will most likely have my sympathy.
But even with a two party system, those parties will not have the unity they had in the past. Not that they ever have been monolithic, but one could identify the two or three strongest groups within each party. I see that splintering even more, and perhaps opening up room at the bottom for more independent candidates at city and state levels.
The demonstrations need to move to a more strategic place for the media to notice.
Say, if the anti-globalist protestors clogged the Los Angeles / Long Beach docks, they’d paralyze a large portion of global trade. (Now that’s one protest I would drive 400 miles to join.) It would be impossible for the media to ignore it because the flow of Chinese crap would be pinched.
Unfortunately there’d also be a harsh retaliation by the rich for that one, too. But there’s no way the media would ignore that.
It’s all about location, location, location.
“From the mouths of babes!”
Here, folks, in a nutshell and stripped of hypocritical rhetoric, is the modern Republican philosophy. They need to rule, and retain the lion’s-share of wealth, because they are better than the rest of us.
Bush had a somewhat reasonable view of immigration policy, but it got shot down by his own party, which has only gotten more fanatical since. The Republicans haven’t seemed to have figured out that if you want to appeal to a group you need to stop supporting policies attacking members of the group, and not just shout louder about how great you are. The California Republican Convention both came out for outreach and no change in any of their positions. Don’t think it is going to work, I think they have the Minuteman sector pretty well covered already.
I can’t see how not supporting the toleration of people who have illegally sneaked into the country is “racist”. It just happens that Mexico is closer to us and poorer than us. If it happened to be Russians or Germans or Chinese or Nigerians who happened to be sneaking over en masse, the Republican reaction would be no different. And this is not my position either.
According to this 44% of Hispanics voted GOP in 2004: http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/2004vote.pdf
I’m pretty sure most Republicans, even if just in the interest of their nation wish not their nation to be a third world, crime-ridden borderline shithole. Plus, the socialists are stronger in Mexico than in the US which may account for its poverty as opposed to Japan, Korea, and Taiwan which have leap-frogged ahead of Mexico economically since World War II.
Middle classes and the rural working class tend to vote Republican while the urban working class and the rich vote Democrat in general. According to most statistics (before the 2008 aberration) Democrats lead with those with PHDs and those without high school education while Republicans lead with college graduates.
As I mentioned, Bush knew how to appeal to Hispanics, but the rest of the party rejected his approach. The Republican share of this vote fell to 31% in 2008. Not trending your way, is it?
Taxes are quite a bit lower in Mexico than in the United States.
They are quite a bit higher in countries that have been less effected by the Great Recession, and which are recovering faster.
Take Obama’s Washington-it increasingly resembles Louis XVI’s Versailles-take his trip to Rio De Janeiro:
-22 airplanes to Rio
-15 massive armor plated SUVs
-60 motorcycles
-4 helicopters
-they had the whole Marriott Hotel in Cobacabana-with a battalion of military police outside
-his visit to the Christo Redentor was at night-a battalion of Brazilian Army soldiers were around it
This visit (he brought his MIL, babysitters, and hndreds of hangers-on) probably cost us $10,000,000!
Meanwhile we have a deficit of $235 billion/month.
Life is good!
Cite, please?
Hey, he rented out the Taj Mahal in India!*
*Claims may not be accurate. Please see your fact-checker if symptoms of cynicism or exasperation appear. Do not taunt Happy Fun Liberal.
No idea if your numbers are correct but …
A few weeks ago in this very forum, it was mentioned that over $100 billion per annum could be raised with a modest tax hike on America’s richest and this was sneered at (perhaps with the usual pretentious description: “rounding error”). If that’s a rounding error, what’s 10 Million with an “M”?
Like the Scum in a Mafia game, you right-wingers should really get a private board going so you can get your arguments straight without contradicting each other in the public threads! 