And, there is no guarantee that the current 30-44 will not turn to Trump. For example, in 1984, Reagan won across all demographic groups, except African Americans. He didn't will all in 1980.
If you had said 18-29, that would be an easier sell. 30-44 year old people have already begun to cement worldviews and opinions of the parties. It would take a substantial event to shake that, and you'll have to forgive me but Trump, holding dear so much that Millennials/some genx'ers despise, I really, highly doubt they are going to flock to him. The fact that Trump is so widely known and opinions of him so thoroughly baked in based on numerous scandals, including sexual assault claims, bigotry and awful treatment of women makes it very difficult to see this demographic ever warming to him, hence his really, really bad favorables among the group. It's not like Reagan, who could charm an audience and wasn't embroiled in so many personal scandals and lacking any sort of integrity. Reagan wasn't viewed as a bigoted sexual predator, either. It'll basically be impossible for Trump to outgrow that image.
But, if you believe it could happen, then I won't argue. I just think you're wrong, but I can't see the future.
Reagan did win across many groups, but they didn't all stick to Republicans after that. Winning over a group in one election is not the same as changing their voting habits long-term.
Well, yes. Michigan is definitely a candidate for a flip had she invested heavily there. Wisconsin as well. Given how close it was without serious investment, there is an argument to be had that it could have been flipped and that without much investment, Pennsylvania might have been a somewhat larger Trump win. The only one here that I feel very safe about saying this for is Michigan, though, ftr.
Of course, but there is a reason I didn't even want to debate it really. Trump supporters can't seem to see the massive problems with their own candidate that are clear as day, similar to how Hillary supporters rationalized and downplayed her problems
(I was good at that over the summer myself until becoming filled with anxiety in the fall)It's the same phenomena meant when a person is said to be "too close" to a person/situation to see it clearly. They look right past vulnerabilities or problems that should be obvious to them. Law enforcement has certain regulations in part to prevent things like this.
So beginning to win 70%+ whites? Because that is what it is going to take going into the future. Every 4 years it's going to take more and more until white birthrates significantly pick up and others slow down.
In this case it's worth noting that Trump didn't even win more white voters than Romney. He made up for that when Clinton won less slightly than Obama '12.
If you believe realignments to be an event taking place over a period of time and not one election, large GOP gains in 2018 would make more sense. The traditional idea of a realignment "election" would have suggested GOP gains downballot (Senate/House)
this year and then in 2018 as well.
How would you define a realignment exactly? It's not just about national elections. Realignments are like glaciers in other respects. In the South, it took decades for Democrats to be ousted from various levels of government. They slowly lost House seats over years, and over similar periods of time - often longer, slowly got bled out in state legislatures. It took Republicans so long to oust Democrats from the Virginia legislature despite VA going Rep. since Eisenhower
(LBJ is hard to factor into this given his large win), that by the time the GOP took over, the state was already beginning to trend Democratic again and is now manifesting itself in statewide elections.
There probably is no default period of time for a realignment. It all depends on what voter groups the rising party is making inroads with, and how fast, and what events happen along the way that help speed up or slow down the transition
(eg, Nixon slowing down Republicans vs my idea that Trump will speed up Democrats')*edit: added to #1