I think the democrats are a permanent minority party

Politics & Elections
#1

I used to think Karl Rove was full of shit with his talk of a permanent GOP majority. There is no way a party like the GOP, which when you ignore what they say they stand for (small government, middle class tax cuts, middle class jobs) and look at what they actually do, really only stands for 2 things. Plutocracy and white identity politics. I didn’t think it was possible to build a long standing coalition on white identity politics and economic policies that benefit the wealthy. But it is.

In 2012, the GOP lost the popular vote in the house by 1%, and won 234 seats.

In 2018, the democrats won the popular vote in the house by 6%, and won 225 seats.

Gerrymandering plays a role, but democrats being in urban areas plays a big role too.

There are arguably more red states than blue states (something like 30 red states). So the senate will probably be GOP for the forseeable future. Granted, Obama won slightly more states than the GOP in 2008 and 2012, but in 2000, 2004, 2016, the GOP won about 30 states vs about 20 for the democrats.

The electoral college is biased towards the GOP. They’ve lost the popular vote 2x in the last 20 years and still won the presidency.

So call me a pessimist, but I think the democrats are looking at permanent minority status for the next 20 years or so. At least until the silent generation and the oldest baby boomers die off and are replaced by millennials.

Am I wrong? Someone prove me wrong.

If I’m right, what should the democrats do? Should we focus more on state and local politics instead of federal? Should we throw all our weight into capturing one branch of federal office (the presidency seems our best shot) to prevent GOP legislation from being passed? Should we assume the senate is still in play for us? I know the democrats had 60 senators as recently as 2008, but whites w/o college have left the democratic party in droves since then. But then again, democrats have gained some college educated whites in the meanwhile. Plus the % of voters who are millennials or minorities has grown.

I know some people say ‘you shouldn’t worry about politics’. But at this point there are 2 things I care deeply about with politics. Affordable, reliable health care, and democracy. And I see the GOP as a threat to both of them. If the GOP weren’t a threat to them, I probably wouldn’t care nearly as much.

Granted neither party has any interest in truly reforming health care (ie, changing how it is run so that it is more affordable). But at least the democrats aren’t trying to destroy medicare and medicaid, or trying to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions, or trying to make it harder to sign up on the exchanges. And the democrats aren’t moving towards authoritarianism.

#2

I think Democrats are and will be the majority party. Reasons as follows:

  1. Texas is turning blue. If it does, Republicans will find it virtually impossible to win the presidency again. They can’t afford that swing of 38 EVs the other way.

  2. Democrats could disperse themselves into red rural states like Wyoming, the Dakotas and Idaho and easily negate the whole Republican advantage of getting Senators from those two states (although Democrats don’t want to do it this way.)

  3. Even with all those baked-in GOP advantages that you speak of, the Republicans have only barely been hanging on for their political lives by the skin of their teeth. Bear in mind, for instance, that ten years ago there were 60 Democratic senators. That’s even accounting for the Republican advantage of the small rural red states.

  4. Once Trump leaves the White House, he will leave such a heavy and tarnished legacy on the GOP that it might not recover for a full decade.

#3

“We’ll all be rooned” said Hanrahan :smack:

You know, if the DEMs were consistently getting 50%+ of the eligible vote and still weren’t winning government you’d have a genuine beef.

When DEMs don’t win with 25% of the eligible vote you’ve got nothing to justify the overweening sense of entitlement.

#4

I’m not sure about the next 15-20 years, but the Senate will eventually be overwhelmingly biased towards the GOP due to migration to urban states. In 2040 it’s estimated that 70% of the population will live in 15 states.

Much less confident in predictions about the House in the future.

#5

Why would the eligible vote matter one iota? If the Dems won 90% of the actual vote, but there was only 30% turnout (so 27% of the eligible vote) it would be acceptable for the GOP to win majorities?

#6

I don’t think that it is possible for a party to simply be a permanent minority.

If that is the case, then the majority party will start to fracture a bit, and end up creating two parties, or having a faction cross the aisle.

#7

Democrats win the majority of the vote in the house, senate and presidency and still lose those elections.

#8

On election night, I heard that the #1 issue mentioned in exit polls by folks who voted for Democrats was health care; for those went GOP, it was immigration.

What happens if the Democrats just throw up their hands and say, oh, we agree with the GOP on immigration, so that debate’s now over; are we likewise in agreement on health care? No? Huh. Okay, so: should we debate that, now?

#9

Those 15 states will have a lot of electoral votes. Not 70%, but a lot more than 50%.

#10

I’ve read a lot of folks who think that focus on local issues is a good idea regardless of whether you agree with the premise of the OP or not. After all, that’s where gerrymandering starts, for example.

#11

Well, they lose the support of quite a number of democratic voters, as we do not agree with the GOP on immigration. To start with, the GOP’s stance on immigration is not actually grounded in facts, so in order to agree with their concerns and their solutions is to join them in irrational fantasy. An irrational fantasy that not only harms the people who would like to immigrate to our country, but also our country itself.

Even if I were willing to bend on immigration, what is next? Is there anything that the democrats would be not asked to throw up their hands and say that we agree now? Abortion, guns, the economy, taxes, welfare, entitlements? What happens when the GOP doesn’t agree with healthcare either?

You are basically saying that the democrats shouldn’t even try to find a compromise solution, but just completely capitulate anything that they value, in order to beg for some scraps.

Healthcare will become a greater and greater concern for more and more americans. There are many who voted for the GOP who personally receive benefits from the ACA that the GOP is trying to take away. They currently have healthcare thanks to the ACA, so they are not worried about that, they are worried about the immigrants that they are told to fear to distract from the fact that the GOP wants to take away their healthcare.

No, I think the dems should run on healthcare, and point out every single time that the republicans have tried to take it away. When they bring up immigration, just point out that illegal immigration is a net negative, if they bring up legal immigration, point out the benefits it has to the economy, and move back to healthcare.

#12

But they will have only 30 seats in the senate.

#13

I don’t get it: you’re talking about people who currently prefer Democrats to the GOP, but who wouldn’t prefer the Democrats for a myriad of other reasons if this one were a tie?

I’m saying drop one issue if you think you can win the rest of the issues by dropping that one, and if you think you’ll lose the rest if you don’t drop that one.

If I’m wrong about that — if capitulating on immigration won’t get them everything else — then, sure, it’s a different story. But if I’m right, and that happens to be the one thing they don’t get if they capitulate and it’s one of the many things they don’t get if they refuse to capitulate? What’s the upside?

#14

I don’t think it would matter because immigration is just a proxy for white identity politics. If it weren’t immigration, it would be some other aspect of white identity politics that was the #1 priority of republicans. inner city (aka black) issues like crime or drugs, NFL protests, Islamic extremism, etc. Anything that made native born white christian tradcons feel their identity and sense of status was under threat would be the no. 1 threat.

You can’t beat the GOP by claiming to be white nationalists too. For one thing, the democratic party can’t win that fight. For another, a huge chunk of the democratic coalition is people who don’t like white identity politics (mainly its victims and white liberals, who combined make up the bulk of democratic voters). Also the GOP heavy reliance on white identity politics is partly why college educated whites, especially women, have become more swing voters recently. If the democrats start being white nationalists too, their coalition gets deeply demoralized.

#15

And their house seats will represent fewer voters per representative.

#16

Well… about that, it is not so clear that Democrats should:

#17

30% of the senators. Never get to make a single appointment without giving into every whim of the opposing party.

aka complete fucking bullshit.

#18

Why is it bullshit? The concept is in the very name of the country.

#19

Why you are wrong in map format

#20

Doesn’t make it a good idea. Being able to extort that from the larger states was, is, and will continue to be a horrible injustice.

Hypothetical: say 3 people each lived in 49 states and 300,000,000 in the remaining. You would be ok with the 147 people having 98 senators? If not, what proportion do you consider acceptable?