Politico: The GOP’s Suburban Nightmare

[Nyvin]

It'll be interesting to see if the Twin Cities suburbs in MN trend Dem fast enough to offset the rural trend in the rest of the state to the GOP.   It's kind of like two counteracting forces pushing against each other there.

[Nyvin]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

Feel free to believe this, but Rubio, Pence, or Cruz would win this district by double digits.

Then why didn't Handel?

[Nyvin]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

[Nyvin]

Pundits keep going on and on about the GOP's demographic problems.. They aren't wrong on some of these issues but the GOP is certainly not having a "nightmare." They control the presidency, both houses of congress, and 34 governorships. Not too shabby.

It's political news - dramatization should be expected.

But for the record, going by political power in the moment probably isn't the best way to judge the long-term viability of a political party. Democrats were riding high in 2009 and even more so in 1993, yet a year later they were swept out in quick succession. You can find lots of examples of that happening to Republicans in the past as well. For that reason, it's good to keep an eye on these kinds of trends.

Democrats were not flying higher in 1993 than 2009, their president only won with 43% of the vote and they lost seats in congress. Also the GOP was much more popular in 1993 than 2009 as the Reagan/Bush years were much more popular than the Bush Jr years

1992 was a three way race and he won 43% to 37%,   which is actually a pretty high marin (5.56%).   

[Nyvin]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

Don't forget "Trump was just a bad fit for that area, it'll go back to normal after he's gone"

[Nyvin]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

How is that an excuse!? Trump is literally the only Republican who did bad in the state! They lost no power at all in Texas. Coalitions are constantly pushing some people out when they try to maximize another group. Trump's whole strategy was to capture the Rust Belt and Texas does not have a Rust Belt economy.

Honestly your comment "Trump was a bad fit is becoming an increasing common excuse" is very assinine and dismissive in my opinion. Explain exactly why you think it's just an excuse? I have explained why I think he was a bad fit.

The rest of the country follows the presidential vote, not the other way around.   It's been this way in every modern election since Clinton, at least.   I wouldn't be surprised at all to see single digit margins become the norm in Texas for Republicans in the next few cycles.   It will be a while before it's competitive statewide though.

[Nyvin]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

How is that an excuse!? Trump is literally the only Republican who did bad in the state! They lost no power at all in Texas. Coalitions are constantly pushing some people out when they try to maximize another group. Trump's whole strategy was to capture the Rust Belt and Texas does not have a Rust Belt economy.

Honestly your comment "Trump was a bad fit is becoming an increasing common excuse" is very assinine and dismissive in my opinion. Explain exactly why you think it's just an excuse? I have explained why I think he was a bad fit.

The rest of the country follows the presidential vote, not the other way around.   It's been this way in every modern election since Clinton, at least.   I wouldn't be surprised at all to see single digit margins become the norm in Texas for Republicans in the next few cycles.   It will be a while before it's competitive statewide though.

Things always happen like they have happened in the past ... until they don't.  Just because we have one random and unique historical example or two (e.g., the South starting to support Presidential Republicans before downballot ones) does not automatically mean that we are about to see some shift in downballot support for Republicans of a similar nature in places like suburban Texas.

We already were seeing those shifts....Trump just accelerated them.

[Nyvin]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future.  

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.  

How is that an excuse!? Trump is literally the only Republican who did bad in the state! They lost no power at all in Texas. Coalitions are constantly pushing some people out when they try to maximize another group. Trump's whole strategy was to capture the Rust Belt and Texas does not have a Rust Belt economy.

Honestly your comment "Trump was a bad fit is becoming an increasing common excuse" is very assinine and dismissive in my opinion. Explain exactly why you think it's just an excuse? I have explained why I think he was a bad fit.

The rest of the country follows the presidential vote, not the other way around.   It's been this way in every modern election since Clinton, at least.   I wouldn't be surprised at all to see single digit margins become the norm in Texas for Republicans in the next few cycles.   It will be a while before it's competitive statewide though.

Yeah I don't buy it at all. Like Did Indiana become any Bluer at all after Obama actually WON it? What about North Carolina? Obama actually Won (As opposed to lost it by like 9 Points like Clinton lost Texas) it as well and it's gotten Redder. Pennsylvania and almost all the other Rust Belt States were won by Democrats for 30+ years at the Presidential Level yet were getting more and more Republican. So right now it looks like your theory is very inaccurate.

Those are areas that were already trending away from Democrats.    It's not a hard concept here, old white states moved toward the Republicans, mainly in the midwest, while younger, more diverse states moved toward the Democrats, mostly along the Atlantic coast and in the southwest.  

Florida seems to be in a weird place due to retirees, but other than that it mostly holds up.  

What exactly is your theory?  Everything everywhere is getting more and more Republican forever?  Lol

[Nyvin]

Well actually if you look the average Republican Voter is 50 and the Average Democrat Voter is 47.1 so there isn't much difference in age. And with the exception of a few states like California most of the most diverse states are actually Republican. And States like Colorado and Nevada have become more Blue because of White People fleeing from California not because they became more ethnically diverse.

My theory is that as long as the Democrats keep focusing on identity politcs the GOP will keep the South and the Midwest will keep getting more Republican. I think certain states like California and Massachusetts will continue to get more Blue though.

Well, to each his own, but as the older generations move on and the country gets more Urban, the party that has lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes certainly doesn't have a bright future ahead of it in the long term.

[Nyvin]

Well actually if you look the average Republican Voter is 50 and the Average Democrat Voter is 47.1 so there isn't much difference in age. And with the exception of a few states like California most of the most diverse states are actually Republican. And States like Colorado and Nevada have become more Blue because of White People fleeing from California not because they became more ethnically diverse.

My theory is that as long as the Democrats keep focusing on identity politcs the GOP will keep the South and the Midwest will keep getting more Republican. I think certain states like California and Massachusetts will continue to get more Blue though.

Heavily black states tend to be republican, but broadly speaking democrats do better in more diverse states.

Look at a map of the Blue States (States where all 3 Branches of the Legislature  are run by Democrats) and compare that with a map of the states where all 3 branches are controlled by Republcians and then get back with me on that.

Look back at the same map in 2009...it was the exact opposite.  That's completely normal for the end of an 8 year president's party.

[Nyvin]

Also what exactly do you think the Presidential Popular Vote means exactly? I feel like that is your Particpation Trophy.

His point is that Republicans are weak on the presidential level, and he isn't wrong. It's not like they can't win, but it means their wins require clawing together a coalition just big enough to secure a small victory. You can say what you want about GOP success downballot, but Republicans have not really been successful at the presidential level for an abnormal length of time. Trump barely won in WI/MI/PA/FL. Of course, some people may say, "if he just won the popular vote, this margins in those states would be bigger," and that's the point - Republicans have a lot of difficulty winning the PV because their presidential coalition is weak.

Coalitions are always changing. The Democrats keep getting clobbered they will change their platform to attract a better Coalition.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "coalitions are always changing," but that is not really true unless you're talking over a period of decades. Certain generations have almost always leaned towards a certain party, usually identifying with the party they supported in their youth. Studies have shown as much. Partisan loyalties get harder to change as people age, taking bigger and bigger major events to shake them up.

As for "demographics is destiny" - African Americans and Hispanic voters have long been strong Democratic groups, for generations. If a state's minority population is constantly growing, basic math would suggest Democrats would do better there. In this context, "coalitions are always changing" as argument for continued Republican success in such a state would mean "Republicans winning more white voters," which is kind of hard when the GOP is already about tapped out in states like Georgia and Texas. Unless you think every state has the potential to see Mississippi-like Republican support from whites, it doesn't add up. If you think Republicans would *finally* make inroads with minorities after literally half a century, I'd imagine the onus is on you to articulate why.

Well it's true that Republicans will probably never win Blacks again and Democrats will probably never win Whites again the fact is that neither Party has to do this. All they have to do is make slight gains in the other Party's Coalition.

Coalitions don't take decades to change either. Like in 2004 Bush won like 40% of Hispanics and I believe he won Asians. And in 2008 Democrats were still winning Whites without a Bachelors Degree.

As far as Demographics is Destiny I would look up the theory of "Racial Antrophy" in Politcs. It would explain why the Hispanic Voter Turnout is so low compared to their Census Numbers and why Republicans continue to make huge gains as the nation according to the Census becomes more "Diverse".

I know that the whole "Generational Party Preference Theory" is extremely popular on this Sub but the fact is that life events change your Politcal views. That is why so many women become Republican after they are no longer single. It's also why hundreds of thousands of people in states like Pennsylvania have changed their party affiliation to Republican and turned the State red for the first time in 30 years.

Wow, listening to you...you'd think the Republican Party would've managed to win the popular vote more than once in the past 20 years, lol.   Everybody everywhere is just LOVING the Republican Party I guess!

[Nyvin]

Why exactly do you feel compelled to write "LOL" in every single one of your responses? Pot meet kettle. Why don't you go back and look at your responses. You are going out of your way to paint Republicans as "Old White People" who are going to die any second and everyone else as Democrats

Because your posts contain so much hyperbole and sometimes it's humorous.

Trump won by appealing to every shrinking demographic in the country,  it's not entirely accurate to say Republicans are just "Old White People" but it is accurate to say their agenda is definitely not the country's future...they're just trying to hold the line more than anything.

Married Couples? Shrinking

Religious people?  Shrinking

White Working Class?  Shrinking

White people overall?  Shrinking

Silent Generation?   Shrinking

People without college degrees?  Shrinking

People who believe in Science?  I dearly hope Shrinking