I think the democrats are a permanent minority party

[CarnalK]

@DragonAsh

I don’t know if DSeid writes some where, but I’d pay to subscribe to any publication he writes for.
Great posts and lots of food for thought, for the posters in this thread (except the ones that suck at reading comprehension).

I realize now that I misread k9bfriender, I thought he gave a proper description of a true Scotsman but he didn’t. But what DSeid, ie no true xenophobe can be reasoned with, is wrongheaded. In general I agree with his vague position on appealing to non-college whites. Show them you care without abandoning the less enfranchised demos. IMO, my suggestion about a more employment focused immigration system kicks anyone to the curb. I think there’s just an emotional reaction here, that even the appearance of flexibility on immigration is “giving in to the racists”.

[Ancient_Erudite]

@Wesley_Clark

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.

I did some of my own homework.

Did you know Trump won 22 of the top 25 fastest birth rate states?

Trump only lost Hawaii ( 11th ) and Minnesota ( 18th )

The North Eastern states have a very low fertility rate, which means 20 years down the road they will be losing electoral votes, and that should bother Democratic strategists as the North East a very blue area. By contrast the South, Mid West and Mountain states are going quickly in population.

Take a look, its interesting.

List of U.S. states and territories by fertility rate

[Dacien]

We heard this same talk about the GOP during the Obama administration from the left. People need to scope out a bit, look at it from a birds-eye view. The Democrat party isn’t going anywhere.

[iiandyiiii]

@Dacien

The Democrat party isn’t going anywhere.

Just a friendly reminder, it’s “Democratic” for the adjective form. No big deal.

[Johanna]

@k9bfriender

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.

That happened once before—in the 1820s and '30s. The Federalist Party was annihilated in the polls and went out of business, and for a while everybody was Democratic-Republican. In 1824, although it was a one-party election, it divided into 4 rival factions. Before long, one of those factions (Jackson) had formed the Democratic Party, and later the Whig Party was assembled from the remaining detritus of the old Democratic-Republicans, and we were back on the two-party system.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Ancient_Erudite

By contrast the South, Mid West and Mountain states are going quickly in population.

I’m not sure how much it hurts your point, but I’ll note you switch from fertility rate to population growth. Indeed, the fertility rate lies below the total replacement rate in every state except North Dakota (by your cite), but through immigration continues to grow almost everywhere.

Will that immigration change the overall makeup of the electorate? I don’t know, but it seems plausible. The state with the fastest overall growth rate, Texas, is probably slowly inching towards blue as we speak.