Around what year did talk first start about the GOP demographic disaster?

[Matty]

Was it known in the late 80s/early 90s that the GOP was going to have a problem on its hands in the future? Even back then the GOP performed terrible among minority groups, and there was also knowledge that those groups had an increasing share of the vote, while white vote % was dropping. Were there people who dismissed such talk? If so, why? And also, if there WAS knowledge that thee would be demographic challenges for republicans, why did they do NOTHING about it until after the 2012 election?

[Mr. Morden]

As I said here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=188900.msg4086941#msg4086941

in 1988, E.J. Dionne wrote about the Democrat's demographic crisis, since the GOP had an advantage among the young at that time.  By ~1990/1991, when the GOP had won three consecutive presidential elections and Bush was riding high on Gulf War glory, people were talking about the GOP's insurmountable lock on the presidency.

Then after Clinton won two presidential elections, it was all doom and gloom for the GOP, and then the CW switched again after Bush's 2004 win, when Dems half joked about secession of Democratic states from the USA, and many here on Atlas insisted that the Dems would need to nominate an Evan Bayh or a Mark Warner if they wanted any hope of winning a presidential election soon.

Basically, every time a party wins two or more presidential elections in a row, there's a lot of talk about that party's enormous structural advantage, and how the opposition party is doomed.

[Heimdal]

Around 1884 I think, when Cleveland added the previously Republican states of New Jersey, New York. Delaware and Connecticut to the Democratic states in the South, and won the presidency.

Of course, this time it’s different.

[ElectionsGuy]

As I said here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=188900.msg4086941#msg4086941

in 1988, E.J. Dionne wrote about the Democrat's demographic crisis, since the GOP had an advantage among the young at that time.  By ~1990/1991, when the GOP had won three consecutive presidential elections and Bush was riding high on Gulf War glory, people were talking about the GOP's insurmountable lock on the presidency.

Then after Clinton won two presidential elections, it was all doom and gloom for the GOP, and then the CW switched again after Bush's 2004 win, when Dems half joked about secession of Democratic states from the USA, and many here on Atlas insisted that the Dems would need to nominate an Evan Bayh or a Mark Warner if they wanted any hope of winning a presidential election soon.

Basically, every time a party wins two or more presidential elections in a row, there's a lot of talk about that party's enormous structural advantage, and how the opposition party is doomed.

Well said.

[Orser67]

By ~1990/1991, when the GOP had won three consecutive presidential elections and Bush was riding high on Gulf War glory, people were talking about the GOP's insurmountable lock on the presidency.

Then again, the GOP would take back the House in 1994, and I would argue they were the more powerful party from 1994 to 2006. Clearly there are people who are going overboard on the demographics-is-destiny argument, but I do think there's some truth to the idea that the GOP is currently at a long-term disadvantage.

Anyway, responding to the OP, The Emerging Democratic Majority (2002) was, as far as I know, the first prominent book predicting the current long-term GOP demographic issues. I think the general GOP response today is: a)the GOP can continue to increase its share of the white vote, b)GOP troubles with Hispanics are overstated, and c)minority turnout will decline after Obama leaves office. Sean Trende is the most prominent conservative-leaning political demographics analyst that I know of. As for the 2012 election itself, I think many Republicans/conservatives were somewhat blinded by their dislike of Obama; they thought he was doing so poorly in office that they didn't understand how he could win re-election, polls and demographics be damned.

[Mr. Morden]

By ~1990/1991, when the GOP had won three consecutive presidential elections and Bush was riding high on Gulf War glory, people were talking about the GOP's insurmountable lock on the presidency.

Then again, the GOP would take back the House in 1994, and I would argue they were the more powerful party from 1994 to 2006.

That's the thing.  Back in 1990/1991, people simultaneously believed that the GOP had a lock on the presidency and that the Dems had a lock on the House (which they had of course controlled since 1954).  Both would be proved wrong within a few years.

[old timey villain]

I agree that the talk of a "demographic disaster" is premature and exaggerated, but the party still has big problems that stem from demographics.

Since 1992 they've only been able to scrape together enough states to win two times. But Clinton and Obama both won handily in the electoral college. It just seems easier for Democrats to get to 270 because they have a higher floor. Bush 04 and Obama 12 both had similar approval ratings but Bush barely got over the finish line with 286 while Obama got 332, even though Obama did about one point better than Bush. I think this all stems from the Demographics.

[Person Man]

As I said here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=188900.msg4086941#msg4086941

in 1988, E.J. Dionne wrote about the Democrat's demographic crisis, since the GOP had an advantage among the young at that time.  By ~1990/1991, when the GOP had won three consecutive presidential elections and Bush was riding high on Gulf War glory, people were talking about the GOP's insurmountable lock on the presidency.

Then after Clinton won two presidential elections, it was all doom and gloom for the GOP, and then the CW switched again after Bush's 2004 win, when Dems half joked about secession of Democratic states from the USA, and many here on Atlas insisted that the Dems would need to nominate an Evan Bayh or a Mark Warner if they wanted any hope of winning a presidential election soon.

Basically, every time a party wins two or more presidential elections in a row, there's a lot of talk about that party's enormous structural advantage, and how the opposition party is doomed.

Well said.

I remember in late 2005 when I saw a article about how there are more couples with dogs than kids in Seattle and how many kids people had in Salt Lake.

[sg0508]

It probably started with Buchanan's "Culture Wars" speech at the '92 convention.  That's when the GOP moderates started to abandon the party....from that moment onward.  Then couple that with the growth of the Hispanic population, a more socially liberal youth vote and countless GOP candidates who just sound "out of touch" with reality or the average person/family and there you have it.

[kcguy]

My impression is that the Bush 2000 "compassionate conservative" campaign did reasonably well with Hispanics and the young.  (The Republicans didn't win either group, but they performed at or above historic norms.)  I also specifically remember a news article about the campaign's outreach to Michigan's entrepreneurial Arab community.

By 2004, my impression is that both groups had moved sharply away from Bush, while Bush picked up support from the elderly "The ragheads hate us for our freedom" crowd.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

My impression is that the Bush 2000 "compassionate conservative" campaign did reasonably well with Hispanics and the young.  (The Republicans didn't win either group, but they performed at or above historic norms.)  I also specifically remember a news article about the campaign's outreach to Michigan's entrepreneurial Arab community.

By 2004, my impression is that both groups had moved sharply away from Bush, while Bush picked up support from the elderly "The ragheads hate us for our freedom" crowd.

And 2006-08, was the climax when Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman and Lincoln Chafee, moderate males were def in the Senate. And two more bolted in 2010 Judd Gregg and Vonovich. It was only then when moderate independent voters were firmly in the Dem camp.

[buritobr]

As I said here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=188900.msg4086941#msg4086941

in 1988, E.J. Dionne wrote about the Democrat's demographic crisis, since the GOP had an advantage among the young at that time.  By ~1990/1991, when the GOP had won three consecutive presidential elections and Bush was riding high on Gulf War glory, people were talking about the GOP's insurmountable lock on the presidency.

Then after Clinton won two presidential elections, it was all doom and gloom for the GOP, and then the CW switched again after Bush's 2004 win, when Dems half joked about secession of Democratic states from the USA, and many here on Atlas insisted that the Dems would need to nominate an Evan Bayh or a Mark Warner if they wanted any hope of winning a presidential election soon.

Basically, every time a party wins two or more presidential elections in a row, there's a lot of talk about that party's enormous structural advantage, and how the opposition party is doomed.

Sure. Before the 2008 presidential election, I read a columm saying that we were living an era of Republican structural advantage in presidential elections since 1968, because between 1968 and 2004, the republicans won 7 of the 10 presidential elections and 2 of them had more than 10 points margin, and that Clinton won only because Perot splited the conservative vote (maybe not true).

Now I read sometimes that we live an era of Democratic structural advantage since 1992, and this theory considers not the Clinton percentage, but the difference between Clinton and his Republican opponents.

We can build many theories of structural advantages. It is necessary only to select the fruits.

Someone can say that we live an era of Republican structural advantage since the civil war. This period was interrupted only between 1932 and 1952. Except Roosevelt/Truman, 1964 and 2008, the Democrats won only close elections (Cleveland, Wilson 1916, Kennedy, Carter) or when there were strong third party candidates (Wilson 1912, Clinton). On the other side, there were many Republican landslides.

[Smash255]

I feel like I started hearing this around 2004 or so...  But it really got attention around 2008.

I  would agree with this.  It didn't get much attention until 2008, but the signs were certainly there in 2004.

[sg0508]

I feel like I started hearing this around 2004 or so...  But it really got attention around 2008.

I  would agree with this.  It didn't get much attention until 2008, but the signs were certainly there in 2004.

Karl Rove's strategy was to bring conservatives out to the polls by way of the Anti-Gay Marriage campaign and the "moral values" rhetoric.  It proved to be just effective enough.  Don't forget, however, that Bush did decently with Hispanics back in '04 and that may have been enough to be the difference in FL and in his NM win.