Have there been other times in history where a party had a demographic crisis?

[hopper]

Well I think in the early 1900's Italians voted Heavily Democratic. It said in Wikipedia that in the 1930's Italians were heavily Dem but by 1968 Nixon won them.

[hopper]

Yes.  Democrats faced a demographic crisis in 1988, when the youth vote was growing increasingly Republican, and older Democratic voters were dying off, creating an apparent Republican lock on the presidency.  So explained E.J. Dionne on the pages of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/31/us/political-memo-gop-makes-reagan-lure-of-young-a-long-term-asset.html

Well Clinton or no Clinton, the country basically kept moving right up from 1980 up until 2006.  So he has a point.  When you consider which presidents were moderates relative to their party, generational voting realignments look a lot more believable.  Think of it this way:

Greatest Generation = FDR = Dem realignment from 1932-64
Baby Boomers = close competition from 1966-80 (congress heavily D but not heavily liberal)
Gen X/Late Boomers = GOP realignment from 1980-2006 (congress generally conservative)
Millenials = Dem realignment 2006-203X or close competition? Do newest voters swing back?

The fact that one party has to nominate a Clinton or an Eisenhower to win might tell us about the nature of the times.  Whether or not the next winning GOP candidate has to accept Obamacare/gay marriage/climate regs as the status quo tells us whether there has been a true realignment IMO. 

Well you think the 90's were more Conservative than the 80's in terms of policy? I sort of agree with you with Reagan in the 80's and Bush W. in the 2000's that policy was conservative. Clinton was a Centrist Democrat in the 90's.

[hopper]

Yes.  Democrats faced a demographic crisis in 1988, when the youth vote was growing increasingly Republican, and older Democratic voters were dying off, creating an apparent Republican lock on the presidency.  So explained E.J. Dionne on the pages of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/31/us/political-memo-gop-makes-reagan-lure-of-young-a-long-term-asset.html

Well Clinton or no Clinton, the country basically kept moving right up from 1980 up until 2006.  So he has a point.  When you consider which presidents were moderates relative to their party, generational voting realignments look a lot more believable.  Think of it this way:

Greatest Generation = FDR = Dem realignment from 1932-64
Baby Boomers = close competition from 1966-80 (congress heavily D but not heavily liberal)
Gen X/Late Boomers = GOP realignment from 1980-2006 (congress generally conservative)
Millenials = Dem realignment 2006-203X or close competition? Do newest voters swing back?

The fact that one party has to nominate a Clinton or an Eisenhower to win might tell us about the nature of the times.  Whether or not the next winning GOP candidate has to accept Obamacare/gay marriage/climate regs as the status quo tells us whether there has been a true realignment IMO. 

Well you think the 90's were more Conservative than the 80's in terms of policy? I sort of agree with you with Reagan in the 80's and Bush W. in the 2000's that policy was conservative. Clinton was a Centrist Democrat in the 90's.

To some degree yes, because the 1994-2000 congress was much more conservative than the 1982-1990 congress.  And Clinton came to the table.  The right's narrative largely won.  The conservative policies of the 80's stuck and Clinton signed things like DOMA and financial deregulation.  The influence of religious fundamentalists on politics also increased throughout the decade.  The parallels with Eisenhower making peace with the New Deal are strong.

1995.

[hopper]

If trends continue, then Democrats will be in a crisis regarding the white vote.

Well yes and no. If the Dems moved the hard-left yes but also it depends on geography  where more whites are moving back to the cities where its mostly Dem but it does depend on where in these cities that they move to. Like Southern Brooklyn is not as as Dem as the rest of New York City.

Also  more whites are moving away from the evangelical religion which doesn't favor the GOP or whites are identifying as "no religion". More college educated white women are more Dem than the white vote as a whole. McCain and Obama spilt the college educated white women vote in 2008 and Romney won the college educated white women vote in 2012 by 6 points. Also the 18-29 White Demographic did vote for Romney by 7 points in 2012 but the white vote was won by Romney as a whole by 21 points(60-39%) so white youth aren't as loyal to voting GOP as older whites.

[hopper]

If trends continue, then Democrats will be in a crisis regarding the white vote.

Well yes and no. If the Dems moved the hard-left yes but also it depends on geography  where more whites are moving back to the cities where its mostly Dem but it does depend on where in these cities that they move to. Like Southern Brooklyn is not as as Dem as the rest of New York City.

Also  more whites are moving away from the evangelical religion which doesn't favor the GOP or whites are identifying as "no religion". More college educated white women are more Dem than the white vote as a whole. McCain and Obama spilt the college educated white women vote in 2008 and Romney won the college educated white women vote in 2012 by 6 points. Also the 18-29 White Demographic did vote for Romney by 7 points in 2012 but the white vote was won by Romney as a whole by 21 points(60-39%) so white youth aren't as loyal to voting GOP as older whites.

No, he won the votes of white women as a whole. And anyway, I think the more important difference re: voting patterns for white women is not level of education, but marital status.

Yes Romney won the white women vote was won by Romney by 14 points I think but college educated white women he won by half that margin of 6 points.