General Election-Clinton vs. Cruz

[Virginiá]

In fact if the Republicans get zero votes from minorities with no change to turnout, they can win every election with just 64 percent of white college educated people and 66 percent of those without a degree. That's with 78 percent turnout.

Do you understand how big of a jump that would be? Romney got 59% in 2012. As I understand it, the only candidate ever to get what you're saying is Reagan in 1984, and after that the Republican share of the white vote immediately began returning to normal levels. Massive changes to voting patterns like that only happen in landslides and are always election-specific and not new baselines. The lone exception for this would be major events like the Great Depression, which are extremely rare and unpredictable.

The reality is, white Millennials aren't as Republican/conservative as their elders. By all measure, they look to remain roughly 44% - 46% Democratic on average with a higher ceiling of possibly 50%-ish. Because Millennials are set to make up almost 1/3rd of the electorate this year, and almost half in 2020, that makes it pretty much impossible for Republicans to get close to 65% - 66% of the white vote.

[Virginiá]

I have to agree with the poster "Virginia." To attain somewhere between 64-66% of the Caucasian vote would be a monolithic achievement in that only once since 1976 has the Republican Party received that type of margin in the Presidential election. Reagan took approximately 66% of the Caucasian vote (self identified as Caucasian or "white") vs. Mondale's 34% of the Caucasian vote in the 1984 election, but in both Reagan's landslide victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980 and H.W.'s decisive victory over Dukakis in 1988 the Republican candidate took the Caucasian vote by 20% points, the same margin that Romney took it by in 2012. Obviously in 1980 and 1988 the results were massive electoral victories, while in 2012 Romney went down 332-206 in the Electoral College. Taking 64-66% of the Caucasian vote seems virtually unattainable to me, which means that unless that the Caucasian turnout is significantly higher that it has been in recent elections and/or the African American turnout is much lower, then the Republican Party must make inroads with the African American voter. It must be after 100% of the vote.

Good post Nathan. I wanted to add a few things:

1. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Republicans will not be expanding their coalition this cycle, and would be very lucky if they could keep it the same as in 2012. Over a year's worth of wall-to-wall coverage of Trump, the Republican frontrunner, spewing nonsense and hate is going to shift opinions on the GOP, as it already has according to recent polls. Further, if he's denied the nomination, his most ardent supporters will likely stay home or vote against the party at least this year, if not into the future as well. So any strategy involving expanding the white vote needs to recognize that there is no going up without going down first. With that in mind...

2. Trying to base electoral success on expanding one's share of the dominant-but-shrinking portion of the electorate is a cynical and doomed strategy. Every 4 years, non-white voters gain roughly 2% of the electorate while whites lose about 2%. Whites now compromise 69% - 70% of the electorate, and in 2020, 67% - 68%, and so on. This pattern has been stable for decades now and will likely speed up into the future. Trying to win elections by upping your vote share with this group is pointless because while you may need 65% - 66% this year, it'll keep getting higher every 4 years. By 2024 - 2028 they will end up needing 70% - 72% of the white vote or more. Given how much more liberal the Millennial generation is, that's simply impossible without significant changes to the GOP.

3. Voters are not as elastic as one may think. If the GOP refuses to engage an exploding non-white population now, they risk losing out for decades. Hispanic Millennials will make up almost a majority of Hispanic voters this year and political affiliations tend to be set early in adulthood, with the person being less receptive to changes as the years go on. Studies have shown this, so for the GOP to just alienate them now and try to win them over a decade from now would be a failure waiting to happen.

Honestly, for a lack of a better phrase, white votes are simply getting less valuable. On top of that, it's not good for the country when the parties align themselves along racial lines. Both parties need to diversify as best they can. Democrats have, Republicans have not.

[Virginiá]

As to your point about millennials, while I think that it is a valid one, I do hold out some hope in that these are people who will ultimately enter the workforce and try to start their own businesses and attain success in the coming years and will soon find the modern social democratic party to be quite hostile to free enterprise, individual responsibility, entrepreneurial activity, low tax regime e.t.c. e.t.c.

Some Millennials will switch parties or grow more conservative in some areas as they age, while possibly liberal in others. Likewise, some Republican Millennials might also switch.

What I think you're hoping for is a sea change among the broader Millennial electorate - Something significant enough to actually change election results, which unfortunately at this point I think is not possible without a major realigning event. Party loyalty runs deep after young adulthood. It's not impossible, but it will take either a terrible Democratic president, like our own GWB, or a major recession that Republicans can effectively blame Democrats for, or a very drawn-out, bloody war under say, Hillary. Ironically both of these things happened under GWB, which I suppose you could say is the reason he is viewed so negatively.

If you want an example, then consider how badly GWB's presidency was - He presidency enabled the rise of the Democratic Millennial coalition, but despite how bad he was, he never managed to turn major amounts of older Republicans into Democrats. In fact, after Obama, more older voters turned Republican for various reasons.

That's how deep party loyalties can run after young adulthood. It takes a lot to change it.

Finally, it has to be mentioned, that the George W. administration has made it harder still to formulate a winning coalition. The shadow of his administration continues to hurt the party.

The social conservatism bit has really hurt the GOP. They picked a fight they were destined to lose, and it has essentially cost them the Millennial generation. If they hope to reach out more effectively, they absolutely have to stop with the social issues. Like, completely. On top of that, they need to stop demonizing government and give the tax breaks a rest for a little while.

I think part of the problem, aside from other obvious issues, is Republicans refuse to adapt. They've been running the same agenda for years and years now and more and more voters aren't buying into it. Being pro-business doesn't mean you have to be anti-social safety net or anti-infrastructure investment, for instance. Yet, Congressional Republicans seem to think that right now.

[Virginiá]

I think people seem to forget that Trump would likely run third party (by getting the nomination of a random third party like the constitution party) if Cruz manages to steal him the nomination. With both splitting the republican vote, Hillary would win.

Maybe I'm wrong but Trump isn't going to do nothing if Cruz steals him the nomination.

Even if he could get on the ballot after the nomination is taken from him (highly unlikely), it wouldn't make sense from a businessman's perspective to run 3rd party. Even Trump himself must know he won't win and it would be a giant waste of his money.

Rather, all he needs to do is tour the country and spend a little money on advertising telling his supporters to ditch the Republican party and stay home or vote for someone else. This is something I'm sure he will do in some form or another if they take the nomination from him. Trump doesn't seem like the guy to take such an insult quietly. He will retaliate and given his mastering of the media, I am sure he can make a big deal out of it.

[Virginiá]

He's not winninf nomination anyways, his tax cut policy favors the wealthy.

All the Republican tax plans favor the wealthy. The only difference between them is how obscene the debt/deficit increase will be and just how much they favor the wealthy.

The way things are looking now and based on what's happening with the delegates, I'd say Cruz is looking better and better for getting the nomination. If Trump can't secure it on the 1st ballot, then I'd say it's likely to be Cruz.