Republicans Only: Will Shifting Demographics ACTUALLY Make One Party Dem Rule?

[RINO Tom]

There will never be one party rule, that is obvious.  Eventually, even if the GOP dies off (LOL, we made it through being blamed for the Great Depression at a time when we couldn't get a single Senator out of an entire region of the country due to historical allegiance ... we're here to stay!), another party would emerge to absorb anyone and everyone uncomfortable with Democratic rule.  Now, the GOP would certainly lose its current advantage eventually if it can't 1) appeal to more minority voters or 2) get Romney levels of support among White college grads (in combination with current turnout and margins with non-college grads).  In the longer term, with millenials being more diverse and more educated, they will eventually have to do both.  However, if they don't, it won't be the blood bath that Dems predict, and even a slow adaptation to changing demographics will keep the GOP from truly dying.

[RINO Tom]

The less power the GOP has as demographics push them out...the more extremist they'll get IMO

US could end up with GOP states routinely threatening succession or refusing to send federal funds...just plain being antagonistic due to natural tendency in powerless groups to become extremely reactionary when the are no longer dominant in society

Conservatives have always preferred order, I guess.

[RINO Tom]

Not necessarily. Demographic shift is not a one-way street; present trends are the result of government policy and can be halted or even reversed.

With Trumpism, the GOP has an opportunity to build a new and unbeatable electoral coalition. If the GOP regresses to the tired and stale movement conservatism that defined the party for decades, then yes, I would agree that their fate is sealed.

This is just flat out ignorance of wishful thinking.  Just as movement conservatism was failing because it didn't have a large enough group, the GOP can't fully embrace Trumpism, or it will use very large factions of the GOP that did, in fact, stay loyal to Trump in the GE.  Sorry, but you can't win without Country Club Republicans and the movement types.

[RINO Tom]

Not necessarily. Demographic shift is not a one-way street; present trends are the result of government policy and can be halted or even reversed.

With Trumpism, the GOP has an opportunity to build a new and unbeatable electoral coalition. If the GOP regresses to the tired and stale movement conservatism that defined the party for decades, then yes, I would agree that their fate is sealed.

This is just flat out ignorance of wishful thinking.  Just as movement conservatism was failing because it didn't have a large enough group, the GOP can't fully embrace Trumpism, or it will use very large factions of the GOP that did, in fact, stay loyal to Trump in the GE.  Sorry, but you can't win without Country Club Republicans and the movement types.

You and I largely share the same neoliberal viewpoints, but idk how you don't see that the GOP will not revert back to neoliberalism (in terms of rhetoric, at least) post-Trump. Trumpism was what finally gave them the wins that they desperately needed in states they hadn't won since Reagan '84 or HW '88.  The neoliberalism of Romney, Bush, and McCain didn't do them any favors in any of those areas. Sure, it might've won them places like Orange County, CA; Cobb and Gwinnett in Georgia; and higher numbers in other inner-ring suburbs, but what good is that for outside of a handful of House seats (setting aside it obviously portending long-term trouble if the GOP can't keep the  Atlanta suburbs)? The success of Trump's WWC coalition is not lost on the RNC and party strategists. Republicans still have a lot of ground to gain in places like eastern Iowa, western Wisconsin, outstate Minnesota, and outstate Michigan, even off of Trump's already great numbers in all of those regions. They just need a less flawed version of Trumpism to do it. But country club Republicanism sure as hell isn't going to do it.

This election made it perfectly obvious that neither of those approaches, by themselves, is going to yield longterm success for the GOP.  That should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain now.  The GOP needed to moderate and have a more populist bent (let's just throw the blatant fact out there that Trump's economic views were still less populist than Hillary's, and all the GOP was doing was moving toward the center on economic issues so as to draw a less extreme comparison with an already economically "liberal" Democratic Party ... Hillary ran closer to Sanders than she'd EVER be to a Romney), but they were still running on lowering taxes, slashing regulation and helping out American business.  They maintained KEY components of Reaganism, and the combination clearly worked (well enough) for them.  I made a map at work the other day of the county results for the 2016 election in only counties that were part of a metropolitan area of 150,000 or bigger (I think, an appropriate cutoff for "living somewhere relevant," to the geographically elitist), and Trump was hardly relying on these rural areas to override affluent suburbs; he won a lot of suburban areas.  If I were smart enough to post it, I would.

The GOP has a "WCW" segment.  They also have an affluent/business-minded segment.  If they're going to win, they'll appease both, as - despite Atlas' narrative - they largely did in 2016.  Any more Trumpist, and they'll bleed VERY important suburban voters, who are just as vidal to their victories in those states as rural ones.  They won't allow that to happen.