JohnT, interesting maps. But since you said
By change, I hope you mean to GREATLY increase the differences between each shade of green at the very least. Preferable would be even to use completely different colors for each quintile (could still be connected by spectrum order, like white-yellow-orange-red-burgundy). It’s a shame, but DAMN those greens are so similar, I still have trouble seeing the oldest population triangle.
Exactly. I told him that the shading was not exactly colorblindness friendly.
He then suggested gradients of red. Outwardly I was very professional when I heard this, but I think I hurt something internally trying not to roll my eyes. 
I led him to some sites about color selection options which allow all to view the data as you suggested. He’s going to work on it this weekend and was very thankful that I brought up this deficiency.
What? No, not at all. They typically vote for conservative parties; for instance the Vietnamese boat people we inherited after the fall of Saigon voted for the least “communist” (ie most right-wing) local party available en masse. Indeed it was been suspected that’s why they were let in so freely by the then government here.
It’s a measure of the Republicans’ failure that this is not happening in the hispanic vote.
It’s hard work cultivating the Hispanic vote when you’re busy busy alienating Hispanics.
Adaher’s question, and the underlying assumption that it rests on, is one reason many minority groups who historically share conservative views have turned against the Republican party. The idea that non-whites, regardless of their cultural or national background, are somehow naturally inclined to vote Democratic simply because they are non-white is borderline offensive.
Recent immigrants are somewhat conservative, as a general rule. But that’s “conservative”.
Back in the day, we used words like “reactionary” as a form of mild semantic aggression in arguing with conservatives. Didn’t really mean it, for the most part, because we knew it wasn’t really true, they were just conservatives, wrong, but not that wrong!
The people driving the Republican Party Clown Car off Lemming Point are not conservatives, they are reactionaries in the actual, true sense of the word that didn’t really apply then. We didn’t make “conservative” a synonym for “batshit”, they did.
adaher’s points about how conservatives might have a shot at elections are somewhat valid, in spots. But the non-guano conservative’s problem isn’t so much getting elected as getting nominated. Ain’t our fault, they were lying under the bus when we drove it away…
I’m ready to be corrected but I wouldn’t associate Muslim or North Africa immigrants with liberal attitudes. Maybe the immigrants are more liberal than their old countrymen, but compared to Europe?
In France, socialist leader Hollande beat centre right Sarkozy, in part, because the significant muslim minority preferred him. Also, Tino Sanandaji reports:
http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/what-gop-can-teach-european-right.html
I hope you showed him this (Cynthia Brewer’s excellent site).
As to the OP – I get what you’re saying, but I think (no cites) there is more overlap between “culturally and/or economically ‘liberal’ (in the American sense, not the London Economist sense)” and “afraid of new immigrants changing the national culture” in Europe than in the US. Perhaps this difference stems from the US having more of a history and image as based on immigration, so this fear hasn’t seeped into the “progressive” voter bloc as much as it has in Europe (turning off many recent immigrant voters in Europe from supporting left-leaning parties).
I am almost flabbergasted by OP. :smack:
In France, for example, the two main parties are the Socialists and the center-right UMP. The UMP may be compared with the U.S. center-right Democrats … but the present President is a Socialist! The Socialists also have an absolute majority in L’Assemblée Nationale.
The GOP is best compared to French fringe groups like Le Pen’s Front National. While rising in popularity at the height of Bush’s crusade against Gog and Magog, at present FN has only two seats in L’Assemblée.
A true left versus right debate would be welcome, though unlikely, in the U.S. Instead it has a center-right versus extreme-right debate provoked by an unfortunate combination of media, money, mischief and malice.
Personally, I blame the two party system. Is there room for right-wing ideas that promote immigration in this country? Yes, absolutely. Is there room for right-wing ideas that promote immigration in the Democratic and/or Republican parties? Definitely not, so you’re stuck with a black/white choice and no hope for gray.
Chalk it up to wishful thinking. In adaher’s case, that’s usually a safe bet.
The demographic advantage of the American Democratic Party doesn’t depend on the racial breakdown, but on the fact that younger voters are more likely to vote Democratic. And as voters age, they tend to keep voting as they did when young. Over time, the more GOP cohorts will be dying, while the more Democratic cohorts will be moving into age brackets where they are more likely to vote.
For evidence that today’s younger voters lean Democratic, see the age breakdown here:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
On the tendency for US voters to keep the same partisan disposition, I have to say that, while I am pretty sure this is true, I haven’t found the kind of long-term study, following the same people for, say fifty years, that would nail it. However, this gives some evidence in that direction:
Also a demographic problem for the GOP is that Americans become a bit more liberal as they age:
That kind of study would track a period during which the parties changed their politics.
However, I am reasonably confident that process is at an end (because the parties cannot get much more ideologically homogenous than they are now and still be big-tent parties), and would not be a factor in a study tracking voting behavior over the next 50 years.
Thomas Edsall looks at polling data and finds that the young generation of Democrats is socially liberal but very unreliable on economic issues.
These are not the Democrats BrainGlutton was looking for.
And that makes them republicans somehow? Or are you guys going to go all socially liberal to try to appeal to them now? Is that the plan? Yeah didn’t think so. Keep on dreaming pal.
From Cite: “Returning to the Pew data, even though younger Democrats are less committed to the central tenets of traditional economic liberalism, there is a strong body of evidence suggesting that the partisan commitment these voters made to the Democratic Party when they first came of political age will endure.”
Do you even read your own citations? :rolleyes:
It might produce a completely new party system (without changing the parties’ names; that has happened many times before).
Cherrypicking is his middle name.
ada cherrypicking her.
Hmm. That sounds obscene somehow.
Yes and no.
The election two years ago in Greece, for example, was good for both extremes (far right and far left) and terrible for the two major centrist parties. IIRC the Communists and the democratic hard-left SYRIZA both did better than the execrable Golden Dawn.
To your broader point, increasing ethnic diversity in society tends to make the majority more ethnically conscious, unfortunately.
Sigh. You’re missing the point, those who accused me of cherrypicking. I never said they were REpublicans.
The point is that changing demographics forces changes in both parties. While changing demographics will force both parties to become more socially liberal(possibly, depends on immigration levels from socially conservative countries), the next generation is only cementing the basic conservative critique of government into the two party system.
So sure, they are Democrats, but the Democratic Party is going to look pretty different, a lot more libertarian than it is today. As will the Republicans.
Yeah, that’s what America needs. More parties that support right-wing ideas so that we can have real choice.