By that time they will have won their favored issues. A social-liberal agenda is always easier to achieve than an economic one, the latter being resisted not merely by the force of tradition but by vested and powerful interests.
It’s a pretty sound one. No contrary trend is visible. If the Dems lose white voters in significant numbers in the future, they’re going to lose them to some third party of the left.
That depends on how viable that third party is. I agree that white liberals won’t flee to the GOP, that would make no sense. But they’ll be where African-Americans are now: ignored within the Democratic Party, unless their interests coincide with the larger coalition. Where they do not, such as on school vouchers, they’ll be ignored. That’s what will happen to white liberals on environmental issues. It’s mainly white collar whites who don’t like the Keystone pipeline. Minorities see jobs. As the Democratic Party represents minority interests more than white interests, jobs will take precedence over the environment.
That’s how it went in our own history already: The party of FDR did little on the environment because most Democrats were poor and didn’t have a concern for such highfalutin’ ideals. The growth of the American middle class created a constituency for priorities other than purely economic. Import 30 million low skill immigrants and give them the franchise, and the environment falls way down the list of issues important to the Democratic coalition.
Perhaps Adaher is thinking that disaffected whites who leave the Democratic party would be a gain for the GOP even if those voters don’t actually vote Republican.
You start out with a teaser about a “third party”, then swing into environmental issues, then hint that minorities are totally into the Keystone pipeline, and then go flying off into immigration to end up telling us that the environmental issues will not be so important to the Dems.
What in blazes are you actually talking about?
It is, it’s just not a double gain. Not voting means net loss for one party that would have otherwise won that vote. Voting for the other party is a net gain of two: you gain one vote, other party loses one vote.
Now I’m pretty confident that the GOP will win enough minority support to be viable in the future, simply because income is a better predictor of voting habits than race, with the exception of black voters, who have a strong brand loyalty to the GOP. The Latino gap is only about 10-15 points after you adjust for income. So make Latinos richer, they support the GOP a lot more.
Simply that if this future demographic change comes about, that the Democratic Party be nothing like it is today. The exact changes I predict may or may not come about. But you can be assured that there will be changes. I only highlighted the environmental issue because it’s the greatest example of a gap in priorities between wealthy white liberals and the working class.
Bold stuff there, adaher. You dare to say there will be change. Gasp! And said change may not necessarily favor the Dems. Whoa, dude! You are a wild and crazy guy!
But it’s really not as simple as that. Blacks and Hispanics, with the exception of Cubans, are convinced the GOP hates and would love to destroy them. It is going to take a lot more than the promise of financial gain for those groups to consider siding with an entity they perceive as not much better than the devil himself.
I don’t think that’s right. If it was that bad, we’d see African-American levels of support for the Democrats among Latinos. Now granted, 2012 went pretty badly, but let’s see how things go in 2014.
BTW, watching the NJ race this year, if Chris Christie wins 45% or more of the Latino vote, wouldn’t that mean that a party that is ideologically in that Christie/Giuliani area would be sufficient to win over Latino voters?
Apples and oranges. There are not many people who believe the Democrats will do well in the midterms. The Democratic voter base as a whole is simply not as interested nor invested as they should be; Democrats also don’t have the fearmonger machine the Republicans use to great GOTV effect.
Now, if you’re saying there will be a higher non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Republicans in the midterms, then I’d like some of that dope you’re smoking.
Those are in nobody’s interests but the private schools’.
Christie’s an outlier. He has great name recognition because folks here in NJ hear about him and his exploits every day. Whether its a laudable accomplishment or more of his despicable almost Don-like bullying attitude, everyone knows who he is. All Christie needs is for voters to say “Who’s the other guy?”
Also, Giuliani is no Christie.
I think they’ll do better than they did in 2012 among Hispanic voters. If I’m wrong, then that would indicate a big problem.
And elections aren’t about expectations. The fact that Democrats aren’t expected to do well doesn’t get them bonus seats if they exceed expectations. If they only win say, 55% of the Latino vote in 2014, that’s a problem for Democrats. It says that without Barack Obama at the top of the ticket, they have serious problems turning out their minority supporters.
Perhaps, if there were such a party. Do you honestly believe you’ll live to see the GOP become that party at the national level? It shows no signs so far. That will happen when . . . when the Republicans figure out why they lost. Probably not even then.
Since Presidential elections are only once every four years, that’s the time when outlier candidates run and win. Which is why no matter which party is ascendant, the White House always changes hands frequently, with 12 years being about the maximum that one party can hold it.
But Christie should be losing as well then. Christie is not substantially different than national Republicans except on social issues. On economic issues, there is very little daylight between Christie and someone like Rick Perry.
Are you talking about 2014 or 2016?
- 2016 will tell us even more, but 2014 is closer.