On that note, it’s worth reading How Democrats Suppress The Vote from 538.com.
Millennials carried Obama in both 2008 and 2012. They gave him something like 80% of his net votes over the GOP candidate despite them only making about 20% of the electorate. I think when Obama won by 9 million votes, 7 million net votes came from Millennials who were barely 1/5 of the electorate.
They will be 40% in 2020, so we shall see. The demographic issue is not 20 years away, it is a slowly changing aspect of politics and I still think it will change how politics is done in the US. We are already seeing the early stages of the demographic shift, at least when it comes to presidential candidates. Obama was carried by millennials 2x and Sanders has more support from millennials than Clinton.
Also you act like the party being tied to the coasts and the big cities is a sign that it is a minority party. The coasts and big cities make up a sizeable chunk of the US. The NYC metro area has more people than most of the plains states combined.
You are correct to pin the Dems’ chances at 50%: 538 agrees and I concur if by 50% you mean something in the neighborhood of 40-60%. I’d put the odds of a non-establishment candidate winning the GOP primary as something less that 30%. Which is really quite high. And whether an establishment Republican beats Hillary is vulnerable to economic performance, something that is hard to forecast this far out. I wouldn’t rule out a boom, a bust or something in between. All are plausible, which is part of the reason the Fed is scratching its head regarding the interest rate increase.
Also, the fact that 60-65% of Republicans support mostly inexperienced candidates who are mostly burnishing their brand and refreshing their mailing lists suggests that a good share of the electorate has lost touch with reality. So if there’s a recession for example, even crackpots like Carson could win the Presidency.
FWIW, at this point I would give the Democrats (assuming Hillary is the candidate) about a 55% chance, IOW, a slight edge, over a mainstream Republican (e.g. Bush, Rubio, Kasich), 80% vs Carson, and 95% (or higher) versus Trump.
The horror! The horror!
These are very close to my guesses (though I think Carson has as bad a chance as Trump). Look how much we’re agreeing F-P! 
I read this too and it’s an interesting article. Voting should be extremely easy and consolidated to avoid these weird outlier very-low-turnout elections, in my view. Voting day should be a national holiday.
The point isn’t that the outcome is bad, but that the process to get there is dependent on specifically running those elections when turnout is most biased towards a certain subset of the population.
That said, I’m not sure the implied solution of having one super-long ballot every other year instead of shorter, more frequent ballots is a solution. A lot of people already skip a number of offices on the ballot out of self-identified ignorance (I’m looking at you, judicial elections!) - make it twice as long and school board and port commissioner might not make the cut either.
I’ll offer the disagreement here, then. While I think a Clinton vs. mainstream Republican will be very close (the winner will take less than 53% of the popular vote), I think Clinton has a much higher chance of ending up on the high side of that. Without a major event, probably 90%. But if a major event occurs (sinking back into recession, a Clinton scandal with actual fire, or a major national security event), she could drop below 50%. I don’t think those events are likely, but it’s not zero either, so this probably works out to somewhere around a 65-70% chance of victory for Clinton.
But the city workers, etc. mentioned in the article are generally the only ones who get fake government “holidays” off. Unless you’re saying that businesses should be required to close, which is an extreme overreaction to a minor problem that can be solved with postage stamps at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Alternatively, it could suggest that a good share of the electorate hates the Democratic candidates so much they are willing to support mostly inexperienced candidates.
This is sarcasm right?
Yes, I have something like 40 separately-elected officials (lumping together things like the city council and school board where they get elected in groups), plus a number of issues most years. That should probably be reduced, but that would be even harder to convince people of.
And about the issues, it would also require a change in the way tax levies are dealt with. My school district is funded by five year levies. When losing means having to wait two whole years for a second chance (instead of 3 months for a special election or 6 months for the next regular election), short-term levies like that aren’t going to be feasible. Again, that also needs fixed, but our school funding method was ruled unconstitutional in the 90s and it still hasn’t been corrected.
Going for worst candidates than George W Bush is not a way to keep the nation healthy.
Seen it before when the Republicans were on the wrong side of prohibition in the 1930’s. Nowadays I see the gerrymandering preventing progress with dealing with things like education funding, control of global warming gas emissions, Health care, immigration reform and many more issues.
IIRC the gerrymandering the Republicans did to keep prohibition going also had the side effect of helping to elect guys that were blind sided by the economical disaster that was coming. And yes, even with the problems coming and the realization by many that continuing with prohibition was dumb, the people elected the Republican Hoover.
The Democratic candidate that was in favor of repealing prohibition had to wait a few years but eventually he got a case of Beer from Anheuser Bush in a big public celebration when prohibition was defeated thanks to the landslide that put Roosevelt and the Democratic party in control for many years. And it was caused by the Republican incompetency and draconian drinking laws.
IMHO the same will take place as I can only foresee a future Republican president failing to do anything effective as the agenda is going to be full of ignorance in science and moves to stop progress.
The point for me is that yes, the Republicans might win more elections thanks to all their gerrymandering, vote suppression and ignorance of many voters. But that does not lead to the implosion of the Democratic party if defeat comes; it paradoxically means that the larger the Republicans will get, the harder they will fall.
That would not be “alternatively,” but another way of stating the same thing.
Gerrymandering certainly does seem – lately – to be a field where the Dems are more sinned against than sinning – and that is because the Pubs know the demographics are against them – lately.
Not at all. Neither Trump nor Carson are strong candidates in November. Republicans driven solely by a hatred of Hillary (not an unusual form of mania, especially among certain over the hill men) would want an electable Republican. That would mean an establishment candidate.
So we are left with the “Tenuous grip on reality” hypothesis, the sorts of people who think it’s a good idea to build Great Walls of the Colorado River and think Mexico will willingly foot the bill. The sort of people vulnerable to gold, vitamin, and survivalist scams.
Here’s Nate’s thinking at 538. His “Prior” is 50-50 this far out. Would could modify it?
Nate Silver: [INDENT]If Clinton has a 75 percent chance of facing a 50-50 election, and a 25 percent chance of facing a 75-25 election (e.g., against Cruz, Carson, Trump, or a GOP electorate that gets all screwed up because one of those guys runs as a third party), then her overall chances of winning are 56 percent.
Now, I think you can argue that Clinton would be a slight underdog against Rubio, for instance.[/INDENT]
Gerrymandering used to have a sorta kinda function. An agreement amongst incumbents as to the best way to remain so. As such, it usually reflected the politics as it was rather than the way a party would like to shape it. Not ideal governance, certainly, but at least founded upon and dependent upon actual voting.
But we are arrived at a place where one party gets more votes and less power. No way that’s right, just no way.
What about the Democrat gerrymandering in blue states like Illinois and Maryland?
Both parties gerrymander. However, when the GOP wave came through in 2010, they stopped being subtle about it.
Sort of like filibusters. It was used on occasion before, but once the angry people in the Tea Party took control of the GOP they threw decorum and collegiality out the window.
In 2012 the GOP won 52% of the vote and got 75% of the seats. Do you think that’s a good thing?
Ohio, for one: We just voted in a measure this week (though so far, it only applies to the state legislature, not the House of Representatives). And amazingly, it was endorsed by both the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as pretty much every other political organization you can name.