How much time does the GOP have left (demographically)?

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ I believe that the assimilated members of the Asian community are usually millennials and they vote more Democratic than their parents and grandparents. I think Asians and Hispanics likely vote more Democratic in part because they're over represented among millennials compared to whites. Median age for each group in the United States: Asian (36), Hispanic (28), and White (42). Pew 2013 numbers.

[Heisenberg]

I predict the GOP will win 80-90% of the white vote 20 years from now.

LOL no way. Whites are by far the least monolithic race group, and there's way too much diversity in their political views for that to ever happen.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

More to the point, assimilation doesn't mean turning Republican. Asians have proven this.

Do they really assimilate though? They mostly either live in Hawaii or concentrate together with others of their ethnic group in places like Hackensack or Edison in New Jersey or Buffalo Grove or Arlington Heights in Illinois. I suppose they're kind of everywhere in California, but even then, there are definitely areas of Asian concentration. I'm not sure I'd call that assimilation in the same way I wouldn't describe Italians as assimilated either, since 80% of them are still concentrated within 500 miles of NYC.

Having lived in the northwest suburbs in the past, I'm calling BS on the Arlington Heights piece as well as the idea that Asians mostly live in Asian enclaves. Arlington Heights, Illinois, is just another (somewhat diverse) mostly white suburb, and most Americans with Asian heritage live in areas that are either very diverse or mostly white (like Arlington Heights!).

[Annatar]

Based off current voting patterns the GOP will likely not be able to win at the presidential level from 2032 onwards, however voting patterns change and as the nation economically, demographically and culturally changes I expect both parties, including the GOP to continue to evolve to stay competitive, the two parties have managed to survive more then 150 years of change, hence why I think it is unlikely that either the GOP or Democratic party is going to cease to exist as a viable political force anytime soon.

[Virginiá]

hence why I think it is unlikely that either the GOP or Democratic party is going to cease to exist as a viable political force anytime soon.

I don't think it is so much as cease to be rather than taking a backseat for a couple decades (-/+), and then throw in another couple decades (-/+) where they slowly make a comeback, though still remain a distinct minority party. It's happened a number of times before. One party rises as the other falls, and the dominant party slowly stops being effective at solving the country's problems because they refuse to change with the times, and this creates an opening that slowly erodes their standing until a power switch occurs.

At least, that is a very abstract description of how I see American politics.

[Technocracy Timmy]

hence why I think it is unlikely that either the GOP or Democratic party is going to cease to exist as a viable political force anytime soon.

I don't think it is so much as cease to be rather than taking a backseat for a couple decades (-/+), and then throw in another couple decades (-/+) where they slowly make a comeback, though still remain a distinct minority party. It's happened a number of times before. One party rises as the other falls, and the dominant party slowly stops being effective at solving the country's problems because they refuse to change with the times, and this creates an opening that slowly erodes their standing until a power switch occurs.

At least, that is a very abstract description of how I see American politics.

The recent ideological alignment might be an exception to this. The GOP in 1980 formed an ideological alliance with the southern Democrats to get most of Reagan's agenda through. It's also fitting that the man to finish the House Ronnie built in many respects was a southern Democrat (Clinton). In fact 1968-2008 has seen the White House occcupied solely by either Republicans or southern Democrats. That's what has made Obama such an aberration in this era and why I think he's a foreshadowing figure.

[Technocracy Timmy]

hence why I think it is unlikely that either the GOP or Democratic party is going to cease to exist as a viable political force anytime soon.

I don't think it is so much as cease to be rather than taking a backseat for a couple decades (-/+), and then throw in another couple decades (-/+) where they slowly make a comeback, though still remain a distinct minority party. It's happened a number of times before. One party rises as the other falls, and the dominant party slowly stops being effective at solving the country's problems because they refuse to change with the times, and this creates an opening that slowly erodes their standing until a power switch occurs.

At least, that is a very abstract description of how I see American politics.

We are due for a period of dominance by one party anway. It's weird that we've been closely divided for the past 30 years as it is.

That's because folks like Tip O'Neill and Bill Clinton were damn geniuses at triangulation, co-opting popular GOP ideas, and centering the Party in the 90's.

[Technocracy Timmy]

There's a lot of hooplah over the fact that the GOP have lost the popular vote in the last 6/7 presidential elections but this is overlooking something that I think is even more important.

In American history there have been only 3 (if you include Thomas Jefferson as a Democrat, then 4) Democratic presidents who have won consecutive popular vote majorities. Andrew Jackson in 1828 and 1832, Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and 1936 (along with 40' and 44'), and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Bill Clinton did not win a popular vote majority either time. Carter was a one term President. LBJ was too unpopular to run for reelection in 68'. John Kennedy garnered 49.7% in 1960. Truman was a one termer and received 49.6% in 1948. Barack Obama achieved a majority twice (53% in 2008 and 51% in 2012). That's important to bear in mind.

The Obama coalition is largely growing when it comes to Hispanics, millennials, single women, etc. The coalition faltered in the Midwest since about 6.7-9.2 million Obama 2012 voters broke for Trump nationally but were concentrated in large part in this region of the country. They still only garnered Trump a paltry 46% of the electorate. This coalition didn't show up in 2010 and 2014 and we'll see where they're at in 2018, but rest assured that many will show up in 2020 if the Democratic nominee is inspiring and has a progressive agenda. The GOP has to make at least some inroads with minorities and younger voters to hold onto the White House in 2020. The other crucial component here is if anti-Trump educated Republicans come home in 2020 particularly if Pence is on the top of the ticket. All of these factors have the potential to make or break elections in crucial swing states.

This should be a warning sign (along with the popular vote tallies of the last 6/7 elections) that the GOP needs to take seriously moving forward. Maybe Obama was just aberration, maybe not. I don't think he was when you look at the candidacy of Bernie Sanders or you take into account how much of a populist campaign Trump ran in 2016; bucking GOP orthodoxy constantly and reaping the rewards of it in one of the most competitive Republican primaries in history.

[Alabama_Indy10]

I thought 2012 was the last chance Republicans had because muh demographics

[Greedo punched first]

I thought 2012 was the last chance Republicans had because muh demographics

Who said anything about last chance? I certainly don't think that. But I do think there's a decent chance that one party will go through a period where they're at a distinct disadvantage in the EC. Despite the 2016 election, I still think that advantage is more likely to belong with Dems than the GOP. Particularly if Michigan, WI, and PA (where Hillary was a terrible fit and Trump had to pull an inside straight just to barely win those states) revert back and/or Georgia and Arizona go the way of Virginia.

Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania will likely lose electoral votes after 2020. Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and North Carolina are projected to gain one electoral vote. AZ and NC are trending D. Florida will likely gain two electoral votes. Texas (trending D) will likely gain three electoral votes. It will take quite some time for Republicans to hit rock bottom, but it will probably happen when they lose Texas (which might happen in 2024 or 2028). When Republicans finally fail to win the presidency due to demographics (which they eventually will, but it will take longer than many think), they will adapt by abandoning the Southern Strategy to pick up minority voters.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I thought 2012 2004 was the last chance Republicans had because muh demographics

[JA]

There are too many factors involved in this to make any reasonable prediction. Demographic changes have undeniably rattled the GOP; that's the real motivation behind their unsubstantiated accusations of massive voter fraud, which they're using to justify disenfranchisement of the disadvantaged (which skews low-income, i.e. predominantly minority and young). White Americans have shown disproportionate electoral power - particularly those who're upper income and older, which are the GOP's base. Democrats underperform in elections when voter turnout is low; thus, to extend their electoral chances, the GOP has engaged in gerrymandering, implemented voter ID laws, and attempted to stifle early voting and same-day registration.

However, we cannot only fault Republicans for this, nor will these tactics save them in the long-term. Democrats are at least equally responsible for the lack of voter enthusiasm due to uninspiring policies (despite Clinton's emphasis on social justice issues, she won fewer African American and Hispanic votes than Obama, and turnout was lower) and the party's disconnect from working class voters of all races. Minorities are disproportionately lower and working class, as are Millennials; the party must focus on issues that resonate with their lived experiences and daily struggles. There is also the absurd notion adopted by many on the left today that somehow a college degree translates into class; there is a growing number of working class persons with college degrees, just as there are tens of millions of upper-class Americans without a degree. Equally important as class is the issues of financial and employment insecurity, chronic low wages, difficulty entering the job market, and the high cost of living (particularly in the locations where the most jobs are located).

Unless Democrats can both reverse the disenfranchisement motivated gerrymandering and voter suppression policies of the GOP, and reconnect with the working class of all races, the Republicans will continue to wield increasingly disproportionate control over local, state, and national government. So, even with significant demographic changes, they can reduce the impacts of those changes and buy themselves more time. Of course, that will be nothing more than an interim period before the Republicans are forced to shift towards incorporating affluent and assimilated members of minority groups into their coalition. In the meantime, Democrats will need to focus on turning out working class, Millennial, minority, and urban voters.

[Tancred]

The GOP will be fine. The Republicans will just do more outreach to non-whites, specifically targeting non-whites who otherwise fit the Republican profile. Non-white small business owners, for example, are tailor-made for Republican outreach.

I suspect that we will see a revival of something like George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism. Forward-thinking Republicans realize that white identity politics is not the way to go in the future when the country will be much more diverse. Something like compassionate conservatism provides a broad ideological vision that can include people from any racial, religious or ethnic background. The Democrats should take note and do the same since I think racial identity-based politics will become increasingly hard to maintain as racial identities blur in the future.

[pbrower2a]

The Republicans can win indefinitely if they can do what the Nationalist party of South Africa did -- cull the vote until it is predictably for its agenda.

Otherwise it will need to change its message.

[Beet]

The Democrats really need to stop sucking and move off the "demographics make us inevitable" narrative.

Exactly. What happened to politics based off ideas, not identity? I would rather the GOP rule for the next 100 years and return us to 1890, than for politics to be reduced to a White Party and a Minority Party. Of course, I would never be in such Minority Party and would probably vote for the White Party.

[TheSaint250]

The Democrats really need to stop sucking and move off the "demographics make us inevitable" narrative.

Exactly. What happened to politics based off ideas, not identity? I would rather the GOP rule for the next 100 years and return us to 1890, than for politics to be reduced to a White Party and a Minority Party. Of course, I would never be in such Minority Party and would probably vote for the White Party.

America can't afford another era based on racial politics, especially with parties representing only certain geographic groups

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It's the "demographics are destiny!!! in a few cycles democrats will win every single election thanks to hispanic immigration!!!!!" rhetoric that was in large part responsible for the success of Trump in the Republican primary. If your party's political strategy is openly based on ethnic headcounting delivering an unstoppable majority, why would your opponents hesitate to turn to a strongman figure and burn down political norms to prevent becoming a permanent minority?

[hopper]

There are too many factors involved in this to make any reasonable prediction. Demographic changes have undeniably rattled the GOP; that's the real motivation behind their unsubstantiated accusations of massive voter fraud, which they're using to justify disenfranchisement of the disadvantaged (which skews low-income, i.e. predominantly minority and young). White Americans have shown disproportionate electoral power - particularly those who're upper income and older, which are the GOP's base. Democrats underperform in elections when voter turnout is low; thus, to extend their electoral chances, the GOP has engaged in gerrymandering, implemented voter ID laws, and attempted to stifle early voting and same-day registration.

However, we cannot only fault Republicans for this, nor will these tactics save them in the long-term. Democrats are at least equally responsible for the lack of voter enthusiasm due to uninspiring policies (despite Clinton's emphasis on social justice issues, she won fewer African American and Hispanic votes than Obama, and turnout was lower) and the party's disconnect from working class voters of all races. Minorities are disproportionately lower and working class, as are Millennials; the party must focus on issues that resonate with their lived experiences and daily struggles. There is also the absurd notion adopted by many on the left today that somehow a college degree translates into class; there is a growing number of working class persons with college degrees, just as there are tens of millions of upper-class Americans without a degree. Equally important as class is the issues of financial and employment insecurity, chronic low wages, difficulty entering the job market, and the high cost of living (particularly in the locations where the most jobs are located).

Unless Democrats can both reverse the disenfranchisement motivated gerrymandering and voter suppression policies of the GOP, and reconnect with the working class of all races, the Republicans will continue to wield increasingly disproportionate control over local, state, and national government. So, even with significant demographic changes, they can reduce the impacts of those changes and buy themselves more time. Of course, that will be nothing more than an interim period before the Republicans are forced to shift towards incorporating affluent and assimilated members of minority groups into their coalition. In the meantime, Democrats will need to focus on turning out working class, Millennial, minority, and urban voters.

Democrats did gerrymander in the 1970's and 1980's too. I am for redistricting reform but neither party will do it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Silly as most of this type of talk is, I will note that New Dealers dying off did definitely cause some noticeable hurt to Democrats. Well Boomers dying off and Millennials becoming the largest generation in the voting pool is obviously not going to help Republicans.

[Badger]

The Democrats really need to stop sucking and move off the "demographics make us inevitable" narrative.

For once I have to agree with jfern. Democrats have been saying this since the 80s, and relying on it as gospel for over a decade. Trump was dead in the water because of it if I recall

[Virginiá]

I think most of the perception problem of "demographics is destiny" is that too many people assumed it would happen much faster than it actually is, and some on both sides have a habit of declaring "permanent majorities" or "dawn of a new era" after just about every election. So if you look at it from that perspective, of course the whole thing seems silly.

Personally I think the future electorate is undeniably not favorable towards Republicans, but for Democrats to secure a dominant coalition that delivers majorities and big wins beyond one or two elections in a row will require peeling away people who currently vote for Republicans, and that won't happen until Democrats find someone inspiring and charismatic to deliver a new vision for the party that actually sticks. This of course won't be a permanent period of dominance but will likely last at least as long as the average party systems.

The whole demographics/Millennials/RAE stuff will then serve as the foundation for that new coalition.