The midterm demographic is definitely not the norm (Presidential elections are never nearly that low in turnout), but 2012 and 2008 might not be either. We shall see.
The Democratic majority is happening and is indeed inevitable. Between changing demographics and past Republican policies, that majority is assured.
Demographics- The country is becoming less white and less rural every year. Once the percentage of the electorate that is white gun loving Bible thumping hayseeds falls below a critical threshold, it will not be possible to elect a Republican president. New England, New York, and the West Coast are the great wasteland for Republicans. The Great Lakes nearly as much so. As Texas and Florida become browner, they also become bluer. Winning Nebraska, Kansas, and Alaska every year simply isn’t enough.
Women’s issues- Sure, some women, like some men, are anti-abortion. But for those who favor it or are indifferent to it, the notion of having the shaming ultrasound wand shoved up your vagina for no medical reason is abhorrent. Likewise the Republican tendency to want to resurrect the contraception debate.
Race- Between voter ID laws and restrictive voting hours, the Republicans have made it clear that they would rather prevent blacks from voting than trying to win their votes. Sure, there are a few Oreos like Allen West and Ben Carson, but when you look at the faces in the Republican convention in 2016, it’s going to look like it always does, as white as Sarah Palin’s thighs. Every time an unarmed black teen gets shot by police and the right wingers dance for joy, it’s just another nail in the coffin for getting black GOP votes.
Immigration- It’s hard to imagine the Republicans doing worse on immigration issues. Sure, they’ll nominate Jeb Bush, who shows some humanity about this. But the party as a whole continually paints the picture of the great unwashed Mexican horde sneaking over the border to take away American jobs and get freebies from the government. The predictable revulsion to Obama’s overture to Cuba amplifies this.
Wealth Inequality- When you are perpetually trying to sell the idea of cutting taxes for the rich and telling the rest of us that we may get a crumb or two falling from the chins of the fat cats, it’s hard to see Republicans winning votes from the poor or middle classes.
In short, the Republican majority in Congress is to be short-lived. When the 2020 elections result in more Democratic state legislatures and governors, the gerrymandering will be mitigated somewhat and Democrats will once again control all the branches of government.
If Democrats lose 70% of the white vote, it’ll take a lot longer than 2020.
Indeed! And if they lose 95% of the white vote, it will get even harder! And if pigs fly, the man who owns ten thousand umbrellas will be very, very rich!
They lost 60% in 2014. And it’s getting worse. I’m not trying to say that demographic dominance won’t happen, just that there’s no way to know, because coalitions shuffle all the time due to changing circumstances. The white vote continues to go more GOP, the Latino vote bounces back and forth, and the youth vote has also been trending more GOP. This thread just explains why it’s not happening RIGHT NOW. And also why it won’t “just happen”. Democrats will actually have to persuade to win votes. waiting to get bailed out by a changing electorate won’t get them very far.
Then he will probably vote Republican.
The fact prominent Republicans are even using that as a sort of a revised Southern Strategy of sorts to stay relevant shows you exactly that the only appeal they have is to scared white people.
How about they simply continue to be more rationale and propose the best ideas?
Republicans haven’t even really been doing anything. Democrats have alienated white voters on their own.
Complete nonsense. One or two elections is not a trend.
I’d rather be the dude selling shotguns and rifles . . .
Please adaher, tell us more about these “economic issues”. Not the “less taxes smaller government or something” abstractions either. Tell us the nitty gritty details of what a successful Republican party would cut from the budget without being repulsive to whoever you think a HENRY is.
THat’s the beauty of budget cutting. You don’t have to cut, you just have to let the economy grow faster than the budget. THe Republicans have successfully done that every year since 2011 and their support among HENRYs has risen.
There are some things that can be cut, namely duplicate programs of which the GAO identified:
There’s also federal health care programs, which Democrats are cutting while lying about it. Oh yeah, when Democrats do it, it’s “savings”.
And if you do it, without damaging our healthcare, it will be a “miracle”.
That’s an overly simplistic view that is not supported when you look within the numbers:
Obama did a lot worse than Democrats usually did in the South but did well in states that were very white elsewhere. As Business Insider says, “Barack Obama Never Had A Problem With White Voters.”
My impression is that at least some measurable amount of the white votes that went against Obama in the south might have been attributable to his melanin which, barring an unlikely Cory Booker run, doesn’t seem like it’ll be a problem this time out for the Democrats. I hope Ben Carson runs for the shits and giggles, however.
Regarding which Michael Lind writes:
Of course – all of the above disregards the effects of immigration as a polarizing political issue. I daresay the Pubs will continue to alienate even assimilated Southern Latinos if they don’t change any on that point.
This is true as long as it’s an open sore. Which is why Republicans have often accused Democrats of wanting the issue more than they want a solution. When it’s not an open sore, Latinos tend to be more of a swing group than overwhelmingly Democrat. When a Republican President actually embraces a liberal immigration policy, as Bush did, Republicans do more than well enough. If Democrats lose whites by 20 points and Republicans only lose Latinos by 10, Republicans win. Not enough African-Americans to make up the difference.
. . . his own party’s base goes ballistic.
Republicans could make the issue go away by actually cooperating with a sane immigration policy. I’ll agree that this (sane policy by the Republicans) might actually be bad for the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do.
Fortunately for the Democrats (but unfortunately for America and for most immigrants who are decent folks) Republicans in congress do not seem inclined in the least to cooperate with a sane immigration policy.
What would a sane immigration policy look like? Are you saying that the immigration policy agreed upon by huge bipartisan majorities, affirmed several times in every administration, is an insane policy?
If so, then the immigration reform bill is also an insane policy, since the only change to our system of any significance is to amnesty illegals.