And one of those Pew reports that is mentioned–I think it’s the June one–has an average “youth” age of 38. In other words, they took everybody under 50 and lumped them together and everybody over 50 and lumped them together. You’re not going to get meaningful conclusions of what people born from 1981 (or so) on when you’re looking at a data set with an average age higher than the max of the population set you claim to be talking about. I’m almost 32 and I guarantee I’ll have less in common with those that are 46 than I do with those that are 18.
Only if you are defining “right-wing” as bizcon or libertarian; otherwise, no, there is not.
"Am I mistaken in seeing this, or is Europe’s situation totally different such that an increase in minorities won’t do the left-wing parties there any good? "
All minorities don’t vote as a bloc. And with respect to the recent waves of migration in Europe, take for example the UK, there’s is an increasing notion (except among the very liberal) that unfettered migration of unskilled labor has been bad for society over the past 10 years. People seemingly don’t mind demographic changes if the newcomers are rich (see Australia), but do mind when the newcomers are poor.
Example: UK-born of Indian descent are just as wary of Eastern European immigration and Third World illegal migrants as native white English as UK-born Indians view the new arrivals as competition for jobs, health care access, etc.
I think that the same may be true in the US. Ask minorities about any hot button issue, I think that there would be a big variation: Asians v. Mexicans v. non-Mexican Hispanics v. Eastern Europeans v. Africans, the religious v. non-religious, etc.
And i think that when it comes to political parties, people often choose the party that’s the lesser of two evils. Many minorities may dislike the Democrats positions of many issues, but are just plain offended by whatever gaffe-of-the-day some random Republican committed.
In the US Latinos are not abandoning the Republican Party because of mainstream positions, but because of the perception that a significant number of Republican leaders don’t like them. Especially around immigration. Bush did pretty well, but he was relatively moderate in this area.
California is a case in point. Reagan did quite well with Latino voters. Pete Wilson backed an virulently anti-immigrant proposition, and lost them for the Republicans for good. (And lost the state also.) While some Republican candidates are moderate, it is hard to kick the taint.
In Europe the demographics are different, but many Republicans today are looking more like the extreme right parties in Europe, not the mainstream rightwing parties.
Given that most Americans would like to see less or the same amount of immigration, and the vast majority want better enforcement(which means a lot more deportations), it would make sense that one of the major parties would agree with the majority view.
Naturally, whether you want to see more or less depends a great deal on education. The well educated, who are unthreatened economically by mass immigration, support it, while the more poorly educated are opposed.
Given that this is the reverse of what we see in elections, where the lesser educated support the Democrats while the more educated(except for postgraduates) support the Republicans, it seems that the Democrats have a problem too. Much like the Civil Rights Act, if the Democrats decide to go all-in on appealing to the Latino vote they could find traditionally Democratic groups abandoning them again.
The Democratic Party(just like other political parties) is a moveable feast. The Democratic Party is not the same beast it was in the late 1980’s. Much of its agenda is more left leaning than it once was. With electoral success this leftward tilt will continue to be more pronounced.
Unless you’re short, in which case it’s easier to kick upward.
Speaking of which our friend Oily did run in some primary or other in June.