The white population votes more heavily Republican by age, as shown in the tables on this page. So do Hispanics. It’s not true for African-Americans, interestingly.
The old saw about people becoming more conservative with age is not a reliable indicator of how the present 18-44 population will vote in the future. The younger voters are, the more likely they are to skew Democratic. There might be a huge shift in attitudes in the future: nobody can know.
What we do know is that the populations most likely to support Republicans are dying out. You can try betting the party on the notion that when whites become a minority they will vote out of identity politics and support Republicans. And why not? That is the current state of the Republican Party supporters. The fact that attitude overlooks is that your voting bloc is shrinking both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of a growing population. Expecting that the results will stay the same despite that reality is the true wishful thinking.
And for pete’s sake. Could one of you making the counterargument please remember that this is a long-term prediction?
Social justice is often presented that way by those who prefer to maintain their privileged status, but it is still a misstatement, as the many “woke” whites demonstrate. It’s okay to vote for a more just and fair society for all of us, and it’s okay to question the motives of those who can only understand the same level of motives that they themselves hold.
The population trends are not in dispute. The point is that even we assume if Hispanics continue to vote 2:1 Democratic, their growth in the population will be offset if the percentage of whites voting GOP also becomes 2:1. Of course the latter isn’t guaranteed, but neither is the former - Bush 43 got 40% of the Hispanic vote, and there’s no reason to assume that would be impossible in the future.
And there’s simply no point in trying to imagine what the political landscape will look like more than 20 or 30 years out. It’s pure speculation, the equivalent of people in the 1980s wondering if the US in 2017 would still be standing up to the Soviets after the Japanese had bought all our factories.
A major caveat needs to be made here about the Latino vote. Latinos are not a block. There are big differences, for instance, between Cuban-Americans and Mexican-Americans. Cubans have been far friendlier to Republicans and that skews the overall Latino vote. Furthermore, the groups tend to live in different places.
If you wish to argue that working class whites may go 2:1 for Republicans, you need to show some sort of trend towards that happening. That’s how this works. We’re looking at the trends and making predictions based on where they are now.
Of course, there may be other trends that start up in the mean time. Hell, that’s the point of the GOP saying this sort of thing. They’re saying “we need to do something to offset this trend.”
People neglect that this isn’t about “my side winning.” If these trends force the Republicans to court voters they previously have sold out, that’s a good thing. Because, to court them, they will have to change their opinions on issues, which is what needs to happen.
Yes, there is the fear that they will double down on the bad things to get more of their core base, but that is a losing proposition in the long run, just because of their base shrinking. So hopefully they will choose otherwise.
And we can get back to actually have a decent choice in our country.
The problem is that we need a western wall, not just a southern wall. Libs are flooding into Texas from California, and they’re gonna vote in Texas with the same stupidity that screwed California up.
I don’t buy the demographic tide argument. If the other side can see it coming, they can prepare for it. Most movement conservatives have not in fact chosen to appeal to latino voters. That doesn’t mean they’ll take defeat lying down. Apparently what’s important to many conservatives is to exclude, to disenfranchise, and to remove latinos; that is a doable thing. War is the continuation of politics by other means.
Thing is that I expected that Texas would become blue eventually, but in a couple of decades. Unfortunately, for the Republicans, they decided to go full Pete Wilson and one should remember that while Wilson did win with a hateful agenda it was only a temporary gain. In less than a generation the Republicans lost California thanks in big part to that hate.
What I see is that a lot of Hispanics in Texas were like Californians, willing to vote for republicans in very significant numbers. But, Republicans in power can not help but to use hate to win in the short term. Regardless if the long term is deadly to them thanks to the way they are winning in the short run.
It is like with an issue like climate change. The dumb “victories” the Republicans in power are claiming with their inaction on climate change will affect many in a generation of two. The difference with that is that the Republicans are actively now accelerating the change. What the Republicans in Texas are particularly doing now will turn Texas blue in less than a generation based on the dick moves that the Republican leaders made in California and the reaction they got, and not only from the Hispanics.
Wait: it’s the California libs that almost pushed Dallas and Houston into bankruptcy? Is that why Houston’s problems dated back to 2001? And that they got out of this jam by a move that would be illegal in California?
It’s true that Californians used to move to Texas. It wasn’t a flood, of course, but a trickle. But leave that aside. The important point is that the out-migration rate abruptly slowed after the libs took over. It made sense to leave California when the right was in charge; when Jerry Brown became governor the economic picture suddenly became bright. Out-migration was cut in half from 2012 to 2016. So don’t worry about those libs. They aren’t coming for you. I suspect that the migrants from California to Texas never were predominantly libs in the first place, but I don’t live in your reality and I don’t know what you consider libs. Our definitions are probably worlds apart.
These are both very good points, but the other important consideration is that Latino fertility rates (as well as fertility rates in Latin America) are much lower than they used to be. The least fertile US jurisdiction, for example, isn’t Rhode Island or Massachusetts, it’s Puerto Rico, and Puerto Ricans in the mainland US are now less fertile than white people. Mexico now has a fertility rate just around replacement, and the estimates are that it will drop below the US fertility rate within a couple decades. All that means that the Latino share of the US population by, say, 2030 or 2040 is probably going to be smaller than we expected a decade ago.
I think 2020 is too early, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Texas go Democratic in 2024, especially if Trump wins in 2020. By that time I think enough Texans will be tired of the way Republicans govern now, and will be ready for a change. Unfortunately that would mean that we won’t get rid of our gerrymandered districts until after the 2030 census at the earliest. By that time I think Texas swinging blue would mean that the Republicans would have to fundamentally change their platform, because the party as is would never win national elections with a blue Texas.