Ceilings

[Virginiá]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher)

I can't exactly guesstimate the ceiling for either right now, but I can tell you that the Democratic ceiling is growing significantly as the non-white share of the electorate expands and the white voter share contracts (by about 2% every 4 years, actually). Further, Millennials and pro-Democratic groups (single men/women, secular people, minorities, etc) are rapidly expanding their share of the electorate, and by 2020, Millennials will constitute just under half of the electorate. For a group of voters that went 66% Democratic in 2008 and 60% in 2012, that should say all that needs to be said about ceilings 4-8 years from now.

With all those things in mind, I think either party breaking past 53/47 in 2016 will be difficult, but more so for Republicans.

[Virginiá]

You just don't like that I subscribe to the view that we are entering a major Republican era.  By the way, John Judis of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" recanted that in 2015 with "The Coming Republican Dominance".

The article was titled, "The Emerging Republican Advantage", and it quite literally said this in it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What he's basically saying here is that Republicans have an advantage in midterms and Democrats in presidential years, which has always been sort of the case since 1992 but now it is becoming overwhelming in presidential years due to the massive losses Republicans are experiencing from the exploding non-white population, non-married voters and Millennials. He also states part of the advantage the GOP has here is basically reliable voters - Grassroots from churches and such, which is interesting because a lot less people are attending church regularly and the secular portion of the population has been rising relatively steeply (compared to decades ago) among Millennials. This is a long way of saying their church-based outreach efforts will begin to be a lot less relevant into the future, like unions are becoming to Democrats.

Further, when doing statistical justifications, he mostly just uses the comparison of 2006 to 2014 to show this advantage. 2006 was a wave year for Democrats in the 6th year (6-year itch!) of the very unpopular Bush's tenure. Then he compares that to 2014, where Republicans had a wave when Obama was doing badly in polls as well (not as bad as Bush in 2006, though). This seems like a bad selection of election years to base a trend on. Both had the results they had because of specific reasons and the mood was based on the incumbent president. If we had compared, say, 2000 to 2006, we could just as easily conclude a "emerging Democratic advantage". Consider this: By similar metrics, he could have said Democrats were doomed with white voters because in 1984, they only won 36% of the white vote, and in 1988, just barely reaching 40%. However, their numbers ended up stabilizing at a higher percentage for most elections going into the future, instead of going further down like some postulate will happen now.

It's funny, because he has basically split with Ruy Teixeira on this issue since their 2002 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority". Judis is completely basing his opinion on the shift in working-class and "office-job" white voters, improperly using just a handful of issue/incumbent-based midterms, while Stanley Greenberg, and to a lesser extent, Teixeira, base future projections on the voting patterns and issue preferences of Millennials and non-white voters. There is good research that shows people mostly keep their voting habits that were formed early in life, with only major events changing them. This shows that once Millennials take up the bulk of the electorate - By 2020 - 2030, Democratic prospects will begin to change in the state legislatures and Congress, while a shift towards the GOP at the presidential level could occur, as it has in the past.

You just don't like that I subscribe to the view that we are entering a major Republican era

So as you said here, we've already been in a Republican-dominated era since the 70s, at the presidential level. Their dominance shifted to the Congressional/state level by the 90s. Many agree that Clinton/Bush changed the voting habits of the younger generation towards Democrats and Obama was the result of this (in addition to the massive and continuing expansion of non-white voters). To say this shift is already changing (or rather, continuing) towards Republicans seems ill-informed. The only favorable trends for Republicans are in specific groups of white voters, who continue to decline in their share of the electorate nationally and in key states the GOP needs to win the White House and reliably hold the Senate. The only advantage they have now is due to their share of the white vote, which is much more evenly distributed across the country and thus best for district-based elections. Gubernatorial advantage bodes well for a party that represents a large amount of rural, conservative states whereas Democrats undoubtedly govern a much larger amount of people in a smaller number of states. Democrats will continue to have an advantage in presidential elections until Republicans find a way to get more of the non-white vote.

[Virginiá]

I have presented the evidence numerous times.  Y'all just don't like that Mitt won the 18-20 vote in 2012!

Romney did win 18-20 year olds from between 54% - 59% in 2012 and those age groups, adjusted +2yr, did skew slightly more Republican in 2014, but the thing here is you're trying to declare a pattern/predict the future based on 2 data points. Millennials overall were less Democratic in 2010, and more in 2012, so just like youth support can flip in a span of 4 years one way, it can the other way. I'm not saying 18-20 year olds will vote in 2016 as they did in 2008 (far from it), but what you're saying is it'll be a swing group and there is no actual way to know that.

During the 2 years prior to when those 18-20 year olds voted in 2012, they both watched their parents worry about finances and bitch about ObamaCare day-in, day-out, so the swing in that election is understandable. Obama started his presidency with the worst recession since the GD, and a great deal of voters tend to blame the president in office for this stuff. There was no way around it, they blamed Bush for the wars (rightfully so), and they blamed Obama for the economic mess.

The problem here is, the GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues for the majority of young voters. Now that the bulk of the economic woes are out of the way, whether or not those young voters who broke for Republicans back then stick with them, and whether new younger voters follow the same path is largely dependent on whether Republicans represent what they want from their leaders.

There won't always be a massive recession and a Democratic president to blame it on.

[Virginiá]

All you're suggesting is that they're swing voters who will continue to vote based on the nature of the times.?

No, I stated that there were particular reasons they went for Romney over Obama. We won't have a constant recession or a new, massive social program unliked by these kids parents happening in the 1-2 years prior to every election. A lot of people turned on Democrats in 2010 and white voters in particular in 2012. Voters turning on parties en masse like that doesn't tend to happen frequently.

He's saying they will be swing voters in the near future, when there is nothing to suggest they will be perpetually bouncing around. The Republican party's platform is more geared towards older religious white people, not a heavily diverse Millennial generation who actually believes in things such as gay marriage, climate change, education funding, no constant tax breaks for the wealthy, amnesty and so on.

Further, he suggested we are entering a period of Republican dominance, which is highly unlikely. The Republican party, as I stated, doesn't share the same position on issues as the younger generation, is far more disliked than the Democratic party (32% favorable to 48% favorable for Democratic party), and is fighting a massively growing non-white voting population that goes heavy Democrat. A party doesn't gain influence into the future by going against most issues the newer generation(s) care about.

[Virginiá]

You're right about that, but I must say that people tend to become more conservative as the get older.  If these Romney voters had conservative parents, but as you suggest are liberal on social issues, then they're more likely to be socially conservative as well in 10 years.

Read this: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

This is why he suggested the GOP was coming into dominance - Because young people tend to keep their voting preferences after voting that way a few times as a young adult. There isn't really any reliable data to suggest people get more conservative as they age, but even if they did, there is plenty of data to suggest it doesn't actually make a difference in regards to how they vote.

But I would ask then, if people's views changed as they aged, for kids who grew up hating gay marriage, wouldn't they then approve of gay marriage when they get older, and vice versa?

edited- It's worth noting too that peoples attitudes and views on issues do change as they age (sometimes), but it doesn't always mean they would become conservative. A young adult who had money troubles in their 20s may become fiscally conservative later on, while a young adult who came from a fiscally conservative household may land a career job, well-paid, and become fiscally liberal. It can go either way.

[Virginiá]

Again, you shouldn't make these conclusions based on such small sample sizes. It's like all the people who think that the Republicans won the Asian vote in 2014.

Then wouldn't I have to ignore/minimize all the other polls of how age groups voted? As I understand it, this poll obviously targeted a narrow age range but was as statistically significant as the others. I can't just willfully doubt all polls that go against my party. I suppose I could/should say, "polls suggest Romney won x, y, z...". At the very least though, I think we can conclude that in 2012, Obama did worse with 18-20 year olds than he did with the Millennial generation as a whole.

However, my conclusion was that Republicans winning a majority of that very narrow age range's vote in 2012 means little in terms of future Republican party strength because how one votes in one presidential election doesn't necessarily reflect how they vote in the future, especially when that vote was heavily influenced by both a recession and a new social program some of their parents hated. So whether or not this poll is entirely reliable or not doesn't actually affect my conclusion.

[Virginiá]

I can agree it means little if we know the turnout for 18-20. Is your name Virginia or are you from there?

My name is Virginia.

[Virginiá]

I can agree it means little if we know the turnout for 18-20. Is your name Virginia or are you from there?

My name is Virginia.

Do we have the turnout for 18-20 year olds?

Sort of. In addition to all other parts of the youth vote, this has 18-24 statistics:

http://civicyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fs_gender_13_final.pdf

And in case it interests you, here is a slew of information on Millennial issue positions / preferences / party identification and other data:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/

[Virginiá]

More like exploding Mexican(Hispanic) Population because Hispanics have been the fastest growing ethnic minority group for the past 3.5 decades and Mexicans are like 2/3 of the Hispanic Population in the United States. On the negative side for Dems on the demographic side immigration from Mexico hasn't been booming and has bottomed out totally from the way it was from 1977-2005 and Mexicans aren't having kids like they were during the housing boom.

Yes, but only negative in terms of Democrats not getting a never-ending exploding population of Democratic voters. Right now, so, so many Hispanics are aging into the electorate and is driving whites into minority status rather quickly. If Republicans don't find a way to snatch away a large portion of these voters from Democrats, they will be essentially locked out of the White House for a long time due to these voters influence in key states. This doesn't even factor in immigration reform / pathway to citizenship, which will bring a lot of Democratic-leaning voters into the fold one day.

Gay Marriage-Ok yeah Millenials is sticking point with them.

Climate Change-They said we were going to have an "ice age" under Carter now they say we are "burning" as in the outside weather being too hot. In my opinion its just one cycle after another. The Climate goes through different weather cycles.

Education Funding-Do you know how much the US spends on education? We spend more than any developed country I think on education.

Constant Tax Breaks for the Wealthy-Well most of the "Bush Tax Cuts" were ended in real late 2012 except for the ones in which people and/or households make 250,000 dollars a year or less I think.

Amnesty-Are you serious? The people that came here illegally they have to go back to the back of the line and apply for citizenship the way it was supposed to be done the first time. If they don't apply they have to go back to their respective country.

Look, I was only pointing out that Millennials, by a very comfortable majority, support these things. It's irrelevant if you or anyone is against them, because it's still a favored policy position among them. But I'll go over a few:

1. 'Education funding' may have been the wrong term, but rather young kids want affordable college without crippling debt. Republicans have been overtly indifferent or even hostile to higher education in a lot of places. In North Carolina, they gained power after a century in minority status and almost immediately slashed funding for the university system - That pesky school system that has brought so much growth and students to North Carolina. Walker cut funding in Wisconsin, yet had no problem spending many millions on a *@#(#@ing sports stadium. They need to reevaluate their position on this issue, because it's not really popular with many people.

2. Tax breaks - Yes, those expired, but giving tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy/corporations is not popular and yet they cling to it. Inequality and the rich gaming the system has become "the issue" of our time, just like "big government" and anti-social programs was during Reagan's era. This time around, it is Republicans who are on the wrong side of it. Look what happened to Democrats a decade later? If Republicans don't also reevaluate their position on this, they will be in a rude awakening one of these days.

3. Amnesty - Once again, I was just pointing it out. Whatever your position on this is, Millennials by a comfortable majority approve of this.

I'm inclined to say that 90% of first time young voters vote for the same candidate as their parents.

Honestly, as per resources I've posted numerous times, this isn't really true. If it was true, then we'd still be in a flourishing Republican era because all those Reagan/Nixon parents would have had children that voted Republican. Instead, those children developed positions on many issues that directly contradicted their parents. More so, they grew up under relatively successful Democratic presidents and highly unsuccessful Republicans (Bush). This caused them to lean Democratic for most years except very early 2000s and 2010-2012.

[Virginiá]

I do agree with you that Republicans have to find a way to reach minority voters but if you look at it the Hispanic Population boomed from being 4% of the US population in 1980 to being 16% in the 2010 US Census and being 17% of the US Population in 2014. No other minority group had that kind of population growth in that time frame. Maybe Dems will add new voters to the rolls when Immigration Reform happens whenever that is because of the Levin's, Hannity's, and Coulters will be protesting it just like Limbaugh did in 2007 the next time the immigration debate comes again.

In regards to the other part of the post, like before, I was just saying that those issues are important to Millennials and Republicans are really on the wrong side of them, which makes reaching out to Millennials so much harder. If they don't want to, then fine, but they can't expect Millennials to just waltz into their arms when the GOP is, in some cases, fighting the issues Millennials want resolved.

As for Hispanic growth - I agree with you that they are a very large force now and growing rapidly. They still aren't nearly as large though, and influence is centered in specific areas. Anyway, yes, path to citizenship will fatten the Democratic voter rolls for sure and with GOP support among Hispanics being what it is, they should be afraid of that. Especially considering the number of Hispanics in Texas, Florida and California.

They have a lot of work to do, unless they hope to just stick to their guns and wait years for voters to change their views to something that fits with their agenda, which will probably never happen.

[Virginiá]

The evidence is strong that very few people people change their political views to the point of switching parties (some people will always be swing voters) after age 25.  The young = liberal, old = conservative narrative doesn't hold up.  Note that the baby boomers were never reliably liberal even in the 60's/70's.  2016 is the last chance for the GOP to bring the Millennial vote to near 50/50, or risk getting swamped for a long period in the 2020's/early 2030's when they reach peak voting years.  If Democrats post one more >60% performance with the youth vote, it does mean long term trouble.  

I was wondering, in your opinion, let's say for arguments sake that a Democrat won the next two presidential elections with anywhere from 58% - 62% of the 18-29 vote (and anywhere from 52% - 58% for the two midterms), what would be the long-term effect on Congress, when would it begin to manifest in Congress, and how long would it last (assuming 18-29yr olds support for Democrats dropped off <= 50% in 2024+), assuming that their voting habits stick?

[Virginiá]

How is appealing to Hispanics through amnesty going to get GOP votes? There's more to just that issue. You know, a lot of them also want freebies from the government like SNAP, housing, college tuition, drivers license, automatic voter registration, etc. Those are things the GOP cannot sway them over to unless they make serious changes in their policies. Hard working people who play by the rules don't want to see that happening.

I'm getting the vibe that these hard working people don't want to see that happening because they think they will be footing the bill? All these undocumented immigrants would also be paying taxes - Back taxes as well, so let's not act like they won't be contributing just like all those other peoples. They are as hard working as anyone else. That's really not fair at all.

Also, what exactly does automatic voter registration have to do with it? That idea is meant to make sure as many people as possible do not get blocked from voting because they missed some arbitrary, outdated registration deadline that serves absolutely no purpose anymore except to block potential voters. There's no good reason for anyone to be against it.

[Virginiá]

People who don't vote shouldn't be automatically registered. They're not getting blocked, they're simply not doing their part and being passive about registration. 

Should people who own drones be required to register through the FAA? No. Again, it's more government coercion and meddling.

They would have the chance to opt-out. In addition, it would reduce the money spent on voter registration efforts and instead allow more to be spend on turnout operations and thus more participation. It's not just about being passive - A lot of people forget to register until it's too late or possibly don't even realize they weren't registered. If people move and do not update their information, that can also cause issues. Most people don't really think about elections much and these things happen a lot.

But fine, if auto-registration is an issue, then same-day registration with non-provisional ballots should be OK then?

[Virginiá]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.