How long can the republicans not make plays to minorities before they can't win?

[TDAS04]

A lot will depend on the distribution of minorities among the states.  It's already difficult for a Republican presidential candidate to win the PV, but as long as whites maintain a majority in so many small states, the GOP can hold on to an Electoral College majority, not to mention majorities in Congress--Especially the Senate, but also the House thanks to gerrymandering.

[MasterJedi]

If Trump forced enough Puerto Ricans to move to Florida you'll have your answer right there.

[Fight for Trump]

It'd be dishonorable to do so. There are still plenty of whites out there who just need the right candidate to bring them out of the shadows. Trump was too soft for them.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It'd be dishonorable to do so. There are still plenty of whites out there who just need the right candidate to bring them out of the shadows. Trump was too soft for them.

So run David Duke in 2024?

[Ban my account ffs!]

It'd be dishonorable to do so. There are still plenty of whites out there who just need the right candidate to bring them out of the shadows. Trump was too soft for them.

You have to have a tight ship bound together by blind, absolute tribalism for that to work.  And with Trump you already saw a lot of Republicans jump ship for Hillary Clinton of all people.

A harder Republican will cause just as many to move to the Democrats as it will draw in new voters at this point.  You're essentially just feeding the Democrats voters while maintaining your numbers.

[All Along The Watchtower]

For as long as the Democratic and Republican Parties go down their respective contemporary paths.

The Whitelash is a winning strategy for the Republicans; it gives them a demographic firewall among most white Southerners and the droves of racially and culturally resentful middle-income (broadly) white voters elsewhere in the country (particularly but by no means exclusively white men), it encourages Republican-controlled governments to enact the American Right's policy goals of slashing the social welfare state, cutting off aid to poor people (especially minorities ofc), harassing immigrants, shamelessly disenfranchising Democratic or likely Democratic voters through all sorts of tactics, all-but-criminalizing black people, etc. - all of which serves not just to reinforce the Right's beloved social hierarchies, but also flatters the prejudices and resentments of the "Whitelash" voters, giving Republican politicians a quasi-credible claim to saying that they're just doing what their constituents want them to do; and it polarizes politics on never-ending Culture War sh*t that Democrats inevitably lose on when it comes to courting what is still very clearly the single largest and most electorally significant regular voting bloc: working-class and/or "non-college" white voters in competitive states.

So many of these people may not love the Republican Party (indeed, a lot of them actively hate the Republican Party, its politicians and donors, and everything it stands for), but the more important thing is that an alarmingly large number of them (and a quite socially, economically, and politically diverse number, I might add!) really hate the Democratic Party, especially at the national level - where Democrats naturally bet the farm on during the Obama era - but Hillary Clinton isn't Barack Obama, so...

As long as Paul Ryan doesn't destroy Social Security and Medicare and the Republican Congress doesn't destroy the suburban middle and upper-middle home-owning class in solidly Republican or competitive states; and as long as the Democrats continue to be perceived not as the party of the Working Man (and Working Woman, to a lesser extent) who doesn't have entry to many high-paying jobs because they didn't get that piece of paper (and even then, what increasingly matters more is having said piece of paper from muh Ivies, Stanford, University of Chicago...); but rather, are seen as the party of effete limp-wristed liberals, intellectual snobs, insular weirdos who insist on redefining social norms via language ("SJWs), "Cultural Marxist" academia, high-earning professionals in the wealthy, neo-colonial core urban centers of the US - and of course, the party of blacks, Latinos, immigrants, Muslims, criminals, terrorists,and the "undeserving poor" (most of these categories being interchangeable); as long as the Democratic Party's leaders continue to be aging incompetents and Democratic activists continue to believe that politics is about #Woke purity; as long as all of the above remains the case, I don't see the Republican Party being in that serious trouble, electorally speaking.

I really hope I'm wrong, though...

[darklordoftech]

This assumes that in, say, 2035, we will consider the same people to be "minorities" as now. That's a big assumption. In the past, groups "became" white. I don't see why this is not going to happen now.

The fact that Catholics have been considered "white" since 1945 at the latest didn't stop them from continuing to be reliably Democratic until the second half of the 1960s nor did it stop the Republicans from trying to make inroads with them by opposing abortion.

[HisGrace]

This assumes that in, say, 2035, we will consider the same people to be "minorities" as now. That's a big assumption. In the past, groups "became" white. I don't see why this is not going to happen now.

I used to think that, but Trump's campaign and the new racial attitudes of the GOP are creating far more race consciousness in regards to Hispanics, both in terms of how they're viewed and how they view themselves. It's really a self-defeating tactic in the long term.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This assumes that in, say, 2035, we will consider the same people to be "minorities" as now. That's a big assumption. In the past, groups "became" white. I don't see why this is not going to happen now.

True. Once miscegenation becomes even further mainstream, this country will be 95-100% white again. The GOP will be in good shape once that happens, but it may be a while.

You forget the way the American conception of race works.

If this were Latin America, you'd have a point, because there, the "white" part is seen as canceling out or "elevating" the other parts.

Whereas here, if a white person and a black person have a child, that child will inevitably be regarded as black. Same story for mixed-race "Eurasian" children.

With Latinos, it depends. Theoretically, if the child's father is white and they have a "white" surname as a result, and they have "passable" features, they won't regard themselves as nonwhite. But it's worth remembering that part of the reason this happens in Texas is that there are just so many Hispanic people to begin with. A half-Hispanic person in Boston or Pennsylvania is going to be perceived as a lot more "different" than they would in San Antonio.

I know a few people like that. One is a cousin and IDK if she identifies as white or not. The other is a friend who definitely regards themself as non-white.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In 2000, the Democrat got 48.4% of the PV; in 2016, 48.0%.

For all the talk of demographic shifts, Democrats nationally have lost one white vote for every non-white vote gained over the past 20 years - and white voters are much more reliable where it often counts (midterms, low-turnout affairs, etc) and more ideally distributed for state legislative, congressional and presidential elections. Not a damn bit of net gain for Democrats over two decades, and in fact, arguably the Democrats have lost a lot in terms of electoral prowess.

The real question is "how low can the white vote go for Democrats/how long can Democrats continue to lose white voters?". As long as there is an equal and opposite reaction/1:1 ratio in terms of gains and losses, the side of the coin that is more reliable and optimally-spread throughout the country is the more important factor from an electoral standpoint - especially in a nation where more than two-thirds of the voters are on one side of that coin to boot.

So this question really should be framed with focus on the Democrats rather than the Republicans.

Of course this shift in the white vote was thanks to New Dealers mostly dying off.

Now its mostly Boomers dying off, and they're being replaced by Millennials who are becoming more politically engaged and likely to vote as we age. Are Millennials more likely to vote Republican than Boomers? Its pretty hard to see the white vote shift Republican as Millennials become the dominant group of voters.

[Famous Mortimer]

What does "making a play to minorities" mean? GOP isn't anti-minority. Do you mean GOP candidates need to constantly name drop every ethnicity whenever they make a speech? A lot of them already do this. In fact, even Trump does it. Do you mean supporting open borders? This is not something minorities inherently support.

[Adam Griffin]

In 2000, the Democrat got 48.4% of the PV; in 2016, 48.0%.

For all the talk of demographic shifts, Democrats nationally have lost one white vote for every non-white vote gained over the past 20 years - and white voters are much more reliable where it often counts (midterms, low-turnout affairs, etc) and more ideally distributed for state legislative, congressional and presidential elections. Not a damn bit of net gain for Democrats over two decades, and in fact, arguably the Democrats have lost a lot in terms of electoral prowess.

The real question is "how low can the white vote go for Democrats/how long can Democrats continue to lose white voters?". As long as there is an equal and opposite reaction/1:1 ratio in terms of gains and losses, the side of the coin that is more reliable and optimally-spread throughout the country is the more important factor from an electoral standpoint - especially in a nation where more than two-thirds of the voters are on one side of that coin to boot.

So this question really should be framed with focus on the Democrats rather than the Republicans.

Of course this shift in the white vote was thanks to New Dealers mostly dying off.

Now its mostly Boomers dying off, and they're being replaced by Millennials who are becoming more politically engaged and likely to vote as we age. Are Millennials more likely to vote Republican than Boomers? Its pretty hard to see the white vote shift Republican as Millennials become the dominant group of voters.

That may be the trend of a generation at some point, but it has yet to manifest to the extent that some people seem to think. I don't think we can reasonably ask the GOP "why are you losing so badly?" when they've yet to really experience that on a structural level.

Ultimately, two decades is a long time in politics and we all know that there was a huge drop-off in Democratic support between 2012 and 2016 specifically, and not just because of third parties; virtually no New Dealers were alive for either of those elections. Banking on things always being an exclusively two-party support affair is not a viable strategy for Democratic victory; besides, both times that substantial third-party support has emerged in the 21st century in presidential elections, Democrats got screwed.