2024 will be the realigning election of our lifetimes

[Vosem]

Protectionism and closed-borders is going to be a ridiculously losing message once Millennials are a sufficiently large proportion of the electorate (I would argue that this has already happened by 2016 and the Electoral College is simply delaying the inevitable), but some of the other issues I'm uncertain of. There is no generational gap that I've seen in abortion issue polling. Most of the GOP has already moderated on gay marriage and the issue is already a massively downplayed one.

Eharding: the second map you post is unlikely to still be a Republican victory after the 2020 redistribution. Much less 2030.

Obama, NAFTA: Protectionism versus free-trade wasn't particularly an issue in 2008, and certainly decided very few votes. The election was fought on other topics.

Fertility rate: New England has the lowest and the Mountain West has the highest, as of 2015. This is  a little immaterial because people born in 2015 aren't going to be eligible to vote until 2033; we're discussing the changes that are more immediate.

Anyway, the idea that the GOP is doomed to die is a ridiculous one (mainly because the US system, as I've brought up numerous times, constantly adjusts so that the two parties are about 50/50), but the idea that a lot of the ideas that the GOP is currently advocating are doomed to die is basically unambiguously true. In a lot of cases (most obviously gay marriage), the process is already clearly underway.

[Vosem]

Protectionism and closed-borders is going to be a ridiculously losing message once Millennials are a sufficiently large proportion of the electorate (I would argue that this has already happened by 2016 and the Electoral College is simply delaying the inevitable), but some of the other issues I'm uncertain of. There is no generational gap that I've seen in abortion issue polling. Most of the GOP has already moderated on gay marriage and the issue is already a massively downplayed one.

Eharding: the second map you post is unlikely to still be a Republican victory after the 2020 redistribution. Much less 2030.

Obama, NAFTA: Protectionism versus free-trade wasn't particularly an issue in 2008, and certainly decided very few votes. The election was fought on other topics.

Fertility rate: New England has the lowest and the Mountain West has the highest, as of 2015. This is  a little immaterial because people born in 2015 aren't going to be eligible to vote until 2033; we're discussing the changes that are more immediate.

Anyway, the idea that the GOP is doomed to die is a ridiculous one (mainly because the US system, as I've brought up numerous times, constantly adjusts so that the two parties are about 50/50), but the idea that a lot of the ideas that the GOP is currently advocating are doomed to die is basically unambiguously true. In a lot of cases (most obviously gay marriage), the process is already clearly underway.

-One curious point about McCain's convention speech is its notable anti-protectionism. McCain would surely have won OH had he went full protectionist.

Protectionism will be a good EC strategy for the next decade, closed borders forever.

Party control is random; 50-50 tendencies have only really existed since 2000.

Obergefell might be overturned, but I doubt any state is banning SSM again.

-One curious point about Millennials, especially in Anglophone countries, is basically their staunch support for free-trade, open-borders, and what can be boiled down to "globalism" as such, and their frequent willingness to prioritize these issues. The Brexit referendum in the UK, and perhaps more especially the leadership fight between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith, really demonstrates this (where Smith was able to get young voters on his side by pointing out Corbyn's insufficient opposition to Brexit); so does the extent of the anti-Trump reaction among voters under 45 in the Republican primary, even though they were voting for candidates similar to Mitt Romney, who they had rejected four years earlier. I am fairly confident that Britain will be voting to reenter the EU in 15 years or so, and that there will be a political majority to do so inside the next decade.

-Ohio is not such a protectionist state. Our junior Senator is basically the man responsible for building CAFTA. We responded by giving him two massive, double-digit victories over credible opponents. McCain could not have won Ohio in 2008, because no Republican could've won Ohio in 2008, against Obama or Clinton. Edwards could've lost it, otoh, but the reasons would've been entirely unrelated to free trade/protectionism.

-Protectionism is a platform that cannot win the popular vote in 2016, and can't win the popular vote in either presidential primary. Note that one of Clinton's attacks on Sanders' that really stuck was his support in the 1990s for strong immigration restrictions.

-50/50 tendencies in presidential elections are rare, but for the system as a whole they are common. Before the Clinton/Gingrich Revolution in the early '90s, Republicans had a systemic advantage in presidential elections and Democrats had a systemic advantage in congressional elections. The Clinton/Gingrich Revolution flipped this, and it doesn't seem the paradigm is going away anytime soon.

-Why would Obergefell get overturned? We've had decades of conservative court control without Roe getting overturned, and Roe is a far more controversial decision with far more motivated opponents than Obergefell. Even Trump said in 2016 that he didn't want to see it overturned, and when Cruz tried to emphasize gay marriage as an issue in the presidential primary, there was a backlash (or at least it utterly failed to help). I don't see where the will is coming from to overturn Obergefell.

[Vosem]

Trump would have won Ohio by one to three points in 2008. He might also have lost GA.

Trump's first win was in NH; younger voters there tended to favor Trump and Cruz over Kasich and Bush.

Protectionism is far more an EC strategy than a PV one.

If Trump appoints three Scalia equivalents, Roe and Obergefell are gone.

-GA was much whiter in 2008 than 2016, and Ohio was still in the midst of the backlash to Governor Taft, our Republican Governor who hit single-digit approval ratings in 2005-2006. Trump could maybe have pulled out Indiana, but otherwise the map would've been the same. (He might've lost AZ, but I think he would've pulled it out).

-This is true in NH, where under-30s were a stronger Trump demographic than the electorate as a whole, and some other New England states (I'd have to check to make sure; I think it was also true in Vermont, and perhaps RI), but broadly it was untrue. It was untrue in the Midwest and South, where the youth were weaker for Trump than average, and it was massively true in the West, where Trump sometimes ran double-digits weaker among younger voters (for instance, Rubio won under-30s in Nevada). They also tended to simply vote for whoever the strongest anti-Trump was rather than for anyone specific (sometimes breaking for Cruz/Kasich/Rubio depending on the state), which suggests that opposition to Trump rather than a liking for any one candidate was the main motivator. I'm a bit worried that if I continue to write about patterns in the Republican primary I'll summon uti, who loves to litigate this with me over and over again...

-This is true, but even there it isn't one that's going to work in the long-term. Ohio Republicans, who love Rob Portman, don't care about protectionism -- if anything, they mildly disfavor it, but they don't really care. There is a segment of Democrats who do, who Trump was able to convince to switch sides, while Republicans mostly stood by him. Any actual success in enacting protectionist policy will cause both agricultural areas and suburbs to bolt, fast.

-This is true but it seems unlikely. Nobody on the conservative side seems close to retirement (there are rumors about Thomas, but it seems unlikely given his increased activity on the Court of late), and nobody on the liberal side will go willingly. Breyer and Ginsburg are old (and Breyer was so obviously waiting for Hillary to replace Obama so he could retire...), but neither is in such bad health that they'll drop dead tomorrow. On the other hand, Scalia seemed to be doing OK, too. So we'll see.

I think 2024 or 2028 after an economic crisis would look like this with a tied PV.  That would be the realignment.  There's an outside chance it happens in 2020, but I think Trump will be reelected.

AK and NC are trending Democratic over the long-term.

[Vosem]

Another good point to make is that trends are not forever. Trump's famous win in staunchly Democratic Trumbull County was not predicted by 2012 trends; indeed, the county trended Democratic in 2012. Reversion to the mean is a strong force, and most trends immediately reverse. Here is a map of which states trended the same way across Barack Obama's two elections:

Most states trended in opposite directions over the two elections. I expect Trump to have a similar pattern.

EDIT: Note that these actual strong trends for the most part were repeated in 2016, with the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont.

[Vosem]

Eh, small consistent trends can end up mattering a lot. By far the strongest trend we've seen recently is in WV, of course, which has gone from being among the safest Democratic states to among the safest Republican in less than 20 years. It last trended Democratic in 1988; since then it has trended Republican at every election, 1992-1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016. MO/KY/AR have done so starting 1996; CA/VA/WA have all trended Democratic starting 2000. There are some pretty long-standing trends out there.

[Vosem]

Anyone who thinks the GOP will just die (both in Congress and in presidential races) because of how millennials vote has learned nothing from this election.

Why do you need to make an absurd straw man argument that is not what is actually being debated here?

This idea that there will be a realignment election that will lead to a >20-year long Democratic rule  (at minimum) at the presidential level is exactly what you are debating, though? So no, not really a strawman. Demographics aren't destiny, which is something your party had to learn the hard way last year. And no, I'm obviously not denying that the GOP needs to fix their demographic problems, or else they'll be in trouble, especially in states like TX and FL. I'd expect most presidential elections in the future to be quite competitive and I don't believe that there is an impenetrable blue or red wall. 

What poster said the GOP would simply die? 

It is very reasonable to argue that the GOP will find itself on the bad side of a realignment despite the 2016 results.  Lets not forget that Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.  I believe this is unprecedented in the last 100 years.

So if we look at past elections as an indicator, we see that Democrats have a general advantage when turnout is high (e.g., Presidential years)... that's the baseline...

Then we look at trendlines... we know the following:

1) Minorities have been a stable voting bloc for Democrats over the last 30 years... this is indisputable.

2) Republicans have made no serious inroads with minority voters.

3) The minority population has steadily grown in each and every Presidential election.

4) Republicans consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those 65+

5) Democrats consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those under 30.

6) Those voters over 65 are more likely to not be alive in 8 years than those under 30. 

7) Despite the adage that people get more conservative as they get older, most studies show that party alignment stays with people as they age.

Looking at all these factors it is entirely reasonable to summarize that a realigning election is on the near horizon given that the party in power is not the party that a) a majority of voters consistently choose on the Presidential level and b) the will likely benefit from demographic changes. 

-Tell that to John Kerry and George McGovern. 2004 was not a low-turnout election. And McGovern winning the under-20 vote foretold exactly nothing. Republicans have made very serious gains with minority voters since 20 years ago (losses with Asians offset by gains with Hispanics).

A realigning election will, of course, come, but not in 2024 (unless this party system's unusually short for some reason).

Tell the Democrats how to put their own house in order. They're the ones out of power.

On the contrary, McGovern winning the under-20 vote was a quite significant event. Barack Obama won twice with what can fairly be said to have basically been an updated, modern version of McGovern's platform.

[Vosem]

Another good point to make is that trends are not forever. Trump's famous win in staunchly Democratic Trumbull County was not predicted by 2012 trends; indeed, the county trended Democratic in 2012. Reversion to the mean is a strong force, and most trends immediately reverse. Here is a map of which states trended the same way across Barack Obama's two elections:

Most states trended in opposite directions over the two elections. I expect Trump to have a similar pattern.

EDIT: Note that these actual strong trends for the most part were repeated in 2016, with the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont.

Here's the same map, but for the two Trump elections rather than the two Obama elections:

I was very nearly wrong. In Obama's two elections, 34 states trended in different directions, and I expected this number to remain basically the same for Trump; instead, it plunged to 26. My prediction I thought was totally correct just barely came true.

4 states trended towards Democrats at the last four consecutive elections: Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington. Just 2 states trended towards Republicans at the last four consecutive elections: Arkansas and Pennsylvania.

[Vosem]

Another good point to make is that trends are not forever. Trump's famous win in staunchly Democratic Trumbull County was not predicted by 2012 trends; indeed, the county trended Democratic in 2012. Reversion to the mean is a strong force, and most trends immediately reverse. Here is a map of which states trended the same way across Barack Obama's two elections:

Most states trended in opposite directions over the two elections. I expect Trump to have a similar pattern.

EDIT: Note that these actual strong trends for the most part were repeated in 2016, with the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont.

Here's the same map, but for the two Trump elections rather than the two Obama elections:

I was very nearly wrong. In Obama's two elections, 34 states trended in different directions, and I expected this number to remain basically the same for Trump; instead, it plunged to 26. My prediction I thought was totally correct just barely came true.

4 states trended towards Democrats at the last four consecutive elections: Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington. Just 2 states trended towards Republicans at the last four consecutive elections: Arkansas and Pennsylvania.

PA? I guess you mean FL

No, FL trended Democratic in 2012. The only states that trended Republican in 2008/2012/2016/2020 are Arkansas and Pennsylvania.