ISTM the demographics argument is a bit like the “Every generation is more liberal than the one that came before it” notion.
1950s: “Today’s college kids are so liberal; they’ll take the country in the liberal direction.”
1970s: “Today’s college kids are so liberal; they’ll take the country in the liberal direction.”
1990s: “Today’s college kids are so liberal; they’ll take the country in the liberal direction.”
2010s: “Today’s college kids are so liberal; they’ll take the country in the liberal direction.”
If that were the case, America today would be a leftist Scandinavian country but it is not.
Ok so what party do you think “xenophobic white nationalists” vote for? Do you think they vote for Democrats? Or are you asserting that there are no such voters?
You can feel free to disagree, but that doesn’t make it not true. Some people disagree that the Earth is round, but that doesn’t make it flat.
As to the recommendations of Mr. Judis (that the Democrats focus more on an economic message), one big problem they have in this regard is that this is diametrically opposed to what much of their base fervently wants. This includes both SJW-types obsessed with transgender bathroom issues and the like, as well as minorities into BLM etc., and the general focus on intersectionality.
In the most recent election, these groups were split (ISTM) with the SJW vote going mostly to Sanders but the African-American vote (about 25% of the total, I believe) going overwhelmingly to Clinton. But middle class concerns were orphans. Which is as it had to be. A candidate whose main focus was on a message addressing middle class concerns would have a hard time overcoming what would be the overwhelming opposition from these two groups.
Not none at all. But few enough that they are not a significant base of support for the GOP.
Of course, that depends on your definition of “xenophobic white nationalists”. But my point here is that any definition of “xenophobic white nationalists” which is expansive enough to encompass a significant percentage of GOP support is also soft enough to include views that might be held by many people of Hispanic origin who have come to think of themselves as “white”.
So do you think that if we removed the “xenophobic white nationalist” vote from the last election that Trump still wins?
Would you be willing to disavow these people and tell them to go make their own party and stop voting on the same side as you? Do you feel confident that the GOP would have the same degree of success without them? Does it bother you at all that they seem to want the same things that you do?
I mean if it helps you sleep at night to minimize that part of the electorate and sort of deny that they are a meaningful part of your team, that’s fine, but they are still sitting on the same side of the stadium as you, cheering for the same things.
I’d be a little uncomfortable with that, but that’s me.
Hard to know. That was a particularly close election. Even a very small percentage of the vote can be the deciding factor in a very close election. But most elections are not that close.
The first question is silly. Everyone votes for whoever they want and no one needs anyone else’s permission. I don’t presume to tell anyone who to vote for. But if the question is whether I would prefer to have people whose views I disagree with put my candidate over the top in a given election (I did not vote for Trump FWIW, although I preferred that he win vs Clinton) the answer is absolutely yes.
I think the GOP would have roughly the same degree of success without people I consider “xenophobic white nationalist”. A bit less on the margins, in close elections here and there.
Whether xenophobic white nationalists want some of the same things as me is of zero concern to me.
I’m conjuring up that image now. Me, tossing and turning in bed and unable to sleep over the fact that xenophobic white nationalists are on “my side”. Finally I decide, hey, they’re not a meaningful part of my team and that does it, as I drift off …
So saying that they are/were not essential to the GOP is incorrect then? Sounds like you are disagreeing with F-P here.
No but they shouldn’t actively pander to them either and court their support. You can’t necessarily help who is on your side, but you don’t have to actively appeal to them either and design your policy proposals to attract them. Like the ridiculously stupid wall idea, or Muslim travel ban. Do you think those were meant for moderate, sane Republicans, or the “xenophobic white nationalists”?
Ok then, like I said if I found myself rooting for the same things as awful people, I might take a moment and think about that and try to figure out why I’m on the same side as these people. Sounds like you aren’t concerned with such things and pretty much are ok with whatever and whoever it takes to win. Fair enough. Different strokes and all that.
However, if I found my political leaders actively pandering to and courting these awful people, I’d have to ask myself why I’m supporting these leaders and why I’m on this side.
I don’t think these conflict, as explained in my prior post.
I don’t think you have to be a xenophobic white nationalist to support either the ridiculously stupid wall idea or the (also ridiculously stupid) Muslim travel ban. In addition, you need to distinguish between the GOP, which is what we’ve been discussing, and Trump, who is the author of those proposals.
America has been moving to the left for quite some time, possible since the civil war, or even the founding.
It’s just that when we look back, we see many of the accomplishments that were made by progressives as being obvious and inevitable, when they were not obvious or inevitable at the time.
Just as many of the social issues tackled today seem as though they are not an obvious issue that needs to be addressed, jim crow in the 60’s, or slavery in the 1860’s were not ended through the inevitability of time and obviousness of the wrongness of their ideas, but instead, were defeated by progressives speaking up and making their voices and opinions on what direction they want the country to move in to be heard.
It always seems as though it is a dramatic change that is being asked for, one that would change the fabric of our country, and yet, every time, in hindsight, it is just one more incremental step towards creating a fairer and freer society.
That’s a fair point. Unfortunately for the Dems, they are running up against some structural issues here. Republicans dominate lower population states which translates into them getting representation than the otherwise should. They also are behind on gerrymandering. The upside to that is when the pendulum swings back the other way it’s going to swing harder.
I did notice that you changed “xenophobic white nationalists” to “people whose views I disagree with” which is just further abstracting away from saying racists and bigots which is really what “xenophobic white nationalists” are. I guess if that’s what you need to do to feel disassociated with them then so be it, but changing to more innocuous terms doesn’t change the underlying truth of the matter. You are ok with them because they help you get what you want.
The article implies the shift from hispanic to whiteness may take 3 generations. I’m not really worried about the US in 2050, I’m concerned for the next few decades (the 2020s and 2030s). By the 2050s, the oldest millennials will start dying of old age. You really can’t make predictions that far off.
So for the next few decades, I see no reason why all these hispanics will suddenly become white. Even if they do identify as white, that doesn’t mean they vote as whites. I see no evidence of that. A 2nd generation half hispanic doesn’t necessarily equal the voting habits of a white person from a rural area.
The % who identify as hispanic will likely grow over the next few decades. Even if those hispanics identify as whites, we don’t know how they will vote. Maybe that’ll pull white voters to the left, nobody knows.
Lots of us have seen it. Studies have shown a fear of the national culture and identity changing are a major motivator of Trump voters. Living in a white zip code is tied to more support for Trump. Trump winning has empowered white nationalists.
You don’t have to accept the reality of the world we live in, but it is there for all to see. A big part of Trump’s appeal was his resistance to globalization and multiculturalism. His desire to cut the US off from the world, to ban muslims, kick latinos out of the country, let the police brutally clamp down on blacks and let men dominate women was a big part of his appeal.
Maybe on a long enough timeline, the people being rejected will join the majority. 100 years ago italians, polish, irish, etc. were victims of prejudice. Now most vote pretty strongly GOP. But Jews are still strongly democratic. We really can’t predict what things will be like in 50 years, but for the next 5-30 years the demographic trends seem reliable. White millennials are about 20 points to the left of white baby boomers. The % of non-whites is growing. The % of non-christians and atheists is growing. The % of single women is growing. The trends are there, but that doesn’t mean they are evenly spread out across the US. I don’t think the demographic trends are going to push the plains states to the left, although they are going to push southern states with large urban areas to the left (Texas, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, etc).
Also the other co-author of the book still fully believes in the ideas presented.
Running a black candidate for President in 2020 is what the Democratic Party would do if it were masochistic and wanted to guarantee a loss. The country is still extremely racist.
Obama won in a perfect storm. Not only was the usual Switch parties after eight years unless the incumbent is running advantage(*) for (D) in effect; but the worst economic crisis in 75 years was underway; Katrina and Iraqstupid had left the electorate disillusioned with (R); even many future Trumpists sensed that Sarah Palin (and by implication the man who chose her) were unqualified; some smart GOPsters and GOP-funders were probably rooting for defeat since the next few years were destined to be full of bad news; and Barack Obama may have been the most charismatic candidate for President since JFK.
Yet BHO still won just 53 to 46. He won despite that he was Black, not because of it. Note that he was re-elected by a much smaller margin despite that new factors were in his favor.
Since 1944 this rule has failed only in 1980 and 1988.
Oh nonsense. The vast majority of people in this country are not racist. If you limit it to Democratic voters it is even less so.
This doesn’t comport with reality. Obama was the face of the democratic party for his presidency and was relatively popular with the electorate. You can see it in congressional results, as an example. Democrats did a lot better with him on the ballot than they did without.
Nothing that I said, including what you quoted or anything else, is remotely equivalent of “ok with whatever and whoever it takes to win”, and nothing could be reasonably be interpreted as meaning that.
I responded in more general terms, because it’s a general principle and would not change regardless of who did the voting.
But if it would help you understand things better I’ll state FTR that if my preferred candidate stood to lose by one vote and then Hitler and Stalin walked in and voted for my guy, thus putting him over the top, I would be pleased. And if then Jeffrey Dahmer and Osama bin Ladin also voted for my guy, I would be even more pleased, in case there’s a recount. Capiche?
My prior comment was about whether the numbers you were citing supported your point. They don’t. If you’re correct in all this then it’s at best your opinion. But you can’t prove it by pointing to percentages of self-identified Hispanics.
More below.
It’s a mistake to talk about whether things will “suddenly” change. “Hispanics” themselves are not a monolithic group, and individuals within that group can today stand anywhere on the spectrum of assimilation and group identification. But the entire spectrum could be shifting in the direction of self-identification as Americans. Of course it would be a gradual change, but then the growth of Hispanics as a percentage of the US voting population is also a gradual change. So one could offset the other, which was the author’s point.