White progressives' race problem

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article.

[Blair]

Well Warren makes a good case for a bigger federal government, that is able to tackle these problems by government lead schemes-civil rights wasn't solved by a limited small government approach.

Tbh I don't think most progressives would argue the 1950's or 60's were perfect, especially Kennedy Progressives like myself. We simply see it as a time of more government intervention which had a much greater impact on society.

I do agree that Warren's analysis is too economic focused, when social issues in the 50's where what crippled the disposed, and still do

[Del Tachi]

Yeah, the collapse of the current winning coalition that the Democrats are building now comes in the 2040s or 2050s when racial minorities realize that a massive economic gulf separates them from from the White progressive liberals who now run the Democratic Party.  

White, Southern working class voters and racial minorities will make a cute couple for the GOP of the 2060s and 2070s.

[bedstuy]

I don't understand the point of this article. 

Sanders and Warren can't retroactively fix racism in America.  They can only propose policies for the future.  What are they not proposing that black people generally support?  I can't think of anything.

And, why are we identifying "black lives matter" protesters with all black people?  That's really not true.  Black Americans tend to always vote Democrat, but not because they're far to the left politically.  The vast majority of black voters will support Hillary Clinton over Sanders and O'Malley in the 2016 primary. 

[RFayette]

Yeah, the collapse of the current winning coalition that the Democrats are building now comes in the 2040s or 2050s when racial minorities realize that a massive economic gulf separates them from from the White progressive liberals who now run the Democratic Party.  

White, Southern working class voters and racial minorities will make a cute couple for the GOP of the 2060s and 2070s.

Blacks will vote for the further left party for the foreseeable future; I don't really see this changing unless the GOP shifts hard to the left or the Dems tack hard to the right.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah, the collapse of the current winning coalition that the Democrats are building now comes in the 2040s or 2050s when racial minorities realize that a massive economic gulf separates them from from the White progressive liberals who now run the Democratic Party.  

White, Southern working class voters and racial minorities will make a cute couple for the GOP of the 2060s and 2070s.

Meh, I say keep dreaming.

Black voters ditched the GOP after ONE economic downturn (it really doesn't matter how bad it was) and failed to ever return despite Republicans being able to campaign on having a better civil rights record and being able to (truthfully) warn that electing Democratic majorities in Congress gave Southern Democrats more powerful committee positions.

The only way the GOP was ever going to win back the Black vote was once Black Americans were on equal economic footing with White Americans.  That still hasn't happened, but by the time the gap had closed, the GOP had already attained some new image problems that kept Blacks from voting Republican that had nothing to do with fiscal issues.

Honestly, Blacks and the GOP always was an awkward marriage, and it was bound to end in divorce as soon as enough Democrats were pro-civil rights.

[Dazey]

Yeah, the collapse of the current winning coalition that the Democrats are building now comes in the 2040s or 2050s when racial minorities realize that a massive economic gulf separates them from from the White progressive liberals who now run the Democratic Party.  

White, Southern working class voters and racial minorities will make a cute couple for the GOP of the 2060s and 2070s.

Meh, I say keep dreaming.

Black voters ditched the GOP after ONE economic downturn (it really doesn't matter how bad it was) and failed to ever return despite Republicans being able to campaign on having a better civil rights record and being able to (truthfully) warn that electing Democratic majorities in Congress gave Southern Democrats more powerful committee positions.

The only way the GOP was ever going to win back the Black vote was once Black Americans were on equal economic footing with White Americans.  That still hasn't happened, but by the time the gap had closed, the GOP had already attained some new image problems that kept Blacks from voting Republican that had nothing to do with fiscal issues.

Honestly, Blacks and the GOP always was an awkward marriage, and it was bound to end in divorce as soon as enough Democrats were pro-civil rights.

Black voters ditched the GOP after the Democratic Party became the party of civil rights in the '60s and the GOP nominated a guy named Barry who openly voted against civil rights, and then nominated a guys in 1968 and 1980 who campaigned using thinly veiled racist rhetoric.

[RFayette]

Yeah, the collapse of the current winning coalition that the Democrats are building now comes in the 2040s or 2050s when racial minorities realize that a massive economic gulf separates them from from the White progressive liberals who now run the Democratic Party.  

White, Southern working class voters and racial minorities will make a cute couple for the GOP of the 2060s and 2070s.

Meh, I say keep dreaming.

Black voters ditched the GOP after ONE economic downturn (it really doesn't matter how bad it was) and failed to ever return despite Republicans being able to campaign on having a better civil rights record and being able to (truthfully) warn that electing Democratic majorities in Congress gave Southern Democrats more powerful committee positions.

The only way the GOP was ever going to win back the Black vote was once Black Americans were on equal economic footing with White Americans.  That still hasn't happened, but by the time the gap had closed, the GOP had already attained some new image problems that kept Blacks from voting Republican that had nothing to do with fiscal issues.

Honestly, Blacks and the GOP always was an awkward marriage, and it was bound to end in divorce as soon as enough Democrats were pro-civil rights.

Black voters ditched the GOP after the Democratic Party became the party of civil rights in the '60s and the GOP nominated a guy named Barry who openly voted against civil rights, and then nominated a guys in 1968 and 1980 who campaigned using thinly veiled racist rhetoric.

Blacks were voting Dem long before the CRA; Goldwater  just intensified the trend.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/

[Del Tachi]

Yeah, the collapse of the current winning coalition that the Democrats are building now comes in the 2040s or 2050s when racial minorities realize that a massive economic gulf separates them from from the White progressive liberals who now run the Democratic Party. 

White, Southern working class voters and racial minorities will make a cute couple for the GOP of the 2060s and 2070s.

Meh, I say keep dreaming.

Black voters ditched the GOP after ONE economic downturn (it really doesn't matter how bad it was) and failed to ever return despite Republicans being able to campaign on having a better civil rights record and being able to (truthfully) warn that electing Democratic majorities in Congress gave Southern Democrats more powerful committee positions.

The only way the GOP was ever going to win back the Black vote was once Black Americans were on equal economic footing with White Americans.  That still hasn't happened, but by the time the gap had closed, the GOP had already attained some new image problems that kept Blacks from voting Republican that had nothing to do with fiscal issues.

Honestly, Blacks and the GOP always was an awkward marriage, and it was bound to end in divorce as soon as enough Democrats were pro-civil rights.

Black voters ditched the GOP after the Democratic Party became the party of civil rights in the '60s and the GOP nominated a guy named Barry who openly voted against civil rights, and then nominated a guys in 1968 and 1980 who campaigned using thinly veiled racist rhetoric.

Blacks were voting Dem long before the CRA; Goldwater  just intensified the trend.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/

By mid-century a shift in Hispanic voting would be enough to tip the balance in the favor of the GOP, Blacks will struggle to compromise 10% of the electorate by the 2050s.

And dreaming is the person who thinks that African-Americans and Hispanics would have a problem voting for the GOP in the 2060s and 2070s because of its racial shenanigans today; haha, the antics of Civil War Democrats gave Blacks no serious reservations about the party when they defected en masse during the 1930s.  Time truly does heal all wounds.

A GOP in the 2050s that favors trade protectionism, faith-based initiatives and the rolling-back of the security state does have a lot more to offer to marginalized, working class minorities in the 2050s than a Democratic Party whose top brass is comprised entirely of Millennial, tech-savvy, upper-middle class latte liberals.

The marriage between the American white liberal and the working class minority has always been an awkward one, and by mid-century the divorce will make perfect sense.

[Ebsy]

In St. Louis at least, I suspect many other parts of the country, african american voters switched from republicans to democrats in 1932 and have never looked back. The first black aldermen in St. Louis were Republicans on the North Side, but that didn't save the Republican party from dying here.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Yeah, the collapse of the current winning coalition that the Democrats are building now comes in the 2040s or 2050s when racial minorities realize that a massive economic gulf separates them from from the White progressive liberals who now run the Democratic Party.  

White, Southern working class voters and racial minorities will make a cute couple for the GOP of the 2060s and 2070s.

Meh, I say keep dreaming.

Black voters ditched the GOP after ONE economic downturn (it really doesn't matter how bad it was) and failed to ever return despite Republicans being able to campaign on having a better civil rights record and being able to (truthfully) warn that electing Democratic majorities in Congress gave Southern Democrats more powerful committee positions.

The only way the GOP was ever going to win back the Black vote was once Black Americans were on equal economic footing with White Americans.  That still hasn't happened, but by the time the gap had closed, the GOP had already attained some new image problems that kept Blacks from voting Republican that had nothing to do with fiscal issues.

Honestly, Blacks and the GOP always was an awkward marriage, and it was bound to end in divorce as soon as enough Democrats were pro-civil rights.

Black voters ditched the GOP after the Democratic Party became the party of civil rights in the '60s and the GOP nominated a guy named Barry who openly voted against civil rights, and then nominated a guys in 1968 and 1980 who campaigned using thinly veiled racist rhetoric.

Oh yeah?  Is that why the last Republican to win the Black vote was Herbert Hoover??

[RINO Tom]

Yeah, the collapse of the current winning coalition that the Democrats are building now comes in the 2040s or 2050s when racial minorities realize that a massive economic gulf separates them from from the White progressive liberals who now run the Democratic Party. 

White, Southern working class voters and racial minorities will make a cute couple for the GOP of the 2060s and 2070s.

Meh, I say keep dreaming.

Black voters ditched the GOP after ONE economic downturn (it really doesn't matter how bad it was) and failed to ever return despite Republicans being able to campaign on having a better civil rights record and being able to (truthfully) warn that electing Democratic majorities in Congress gave Southern Democrats more powerful committee positions.

The only way the GOP was ever going to win back the Black vote was once Black Americans were on equal economic footing with White Americans.  That still hasn't happened, but by the time the gap had closed, the GOP had already attained some new image problems that kept Blacks from voting Republican that had nothing to do with fiscal issues.

Honestly, Blacks and the GOP always was an awkward marriage, and it was bound to end in divorce as soon as enough Democrats were pro-civil rights.

Black voters ditched the GOP after the Democratic Party became the party of civil rights in the '60s and the GOP nominated a guy named Barry who openly voted against civil rights, and then nominated a guys in 1968 and 1980 who campaigned using thinly veiled racist rhetoric.

Blacks were voting Dem long before the CRA; Goldwater  just intensified the trend.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/

By mid-century a shift in Hispanic voting would be enough to tip the balance in the favor of the GOP, Blacks will struggle to compromise 10% of the electorate by the 2050s.

And dreaming is the person who thinks that African-Americans and Hispanics would have a problem voting for the GOP in the 2060s and 2070s because of its racial shenanigans today; haha, the antics of Civil War Democrats gave Blacks no serious reservations about the party when they defected en masse during the 1930s.  Time truly does heal all wounds.

A GOP in the 2050s that favors trade protectionism, faith-based initiatives and the rolling-back of the security state does have a lot more to offer to marginalized, working class minorities in the 2050s than a Democratic Party whose top brass is comprised entirely of Millennial, tech-savvy, upper-middle class latte liberals.

The marriage between the American white liberal and the working class minority has always been an awkward one, and by mid-century the divorce will make perfect sense.

I know at least a very vague summary of your politics, and I can see it's rather opposite of mine - at least in general attitude.  So, maybe we're both thinking of where we'd LIKE the GOP to go.  However, I have a few reservations about your predictions.

1) I think you SEVERELY underestimate the "folksiness" of the GOP in 2015.  You act like most Republicans are these hard working factory workers who just happen to be more traditional and patriotic (drawing them to the GOP); Republicans continue to win a healthy majority of America's richest voters, and they continue to lose a healthy majority of America's poorest.  While those with postgraduate degrees vote Democratic, a majority of "regular" college graduates (bachelor's) still vote Republican.  The GOP also loses those without a high school degree (the least educated) by massive margins.  The fact is, despite your apparent desire and the narrative delusional liberal Atlas users studying to get their law degree push, the Republican Party is still largely made up of affluent (albeit traditional and socially conservative) married people from exurban communities and outer suburbs ... Even if we completely ignore the INCREDIBLY relevant fact that business interests and Wall Street remain the main driving force in GOP policy and by far the most influential when it comes to the Republican Establishment, the type of voters I just described aren't going to allow the GOP to become this fiscally populist "workers' party" you seem to describe any more than social conservatives are going to allow the GOP to become socially liberal.

2) That brings me to my next point, which AGREES with your point about Blacks not caring about the distant past when getting into the voting booth: the Black community voted on economics for decades before having yet another reason to when Democrats (finally) embraced civil rights and Republicans distanced themselves from it.  They aren't going to vote for a pro-business, fiscally conservative party as long as they see themselves as at a disadvantage in the American economic scene, and I don't see a shred of evidence that the GOP will EVER - let alone in the coming decades - abandon fiscal conservatism and pro-business policies.

Fiscal conservatives and the business community have made as comfortable of a home in the GOP as social conservatives have and much more comfortable of a home than socially conservative fiscal populists ever will.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Somethings were better about the 1950s and some were worse. That shouldn't be too much nuance to handle.

[RFayette]

So long as blacks remain economically worse-off than whites by a significant margin, I just don't see them voting for the GOP.

"Millennial, tech-savvy, upper-middle class latte liberals" are nowhere near big enough to form a party and still won't be in 2050; also, what the heck will these liberals campaign on?  I'm going to fight for the lower-class, all of whom are voting against me but are too stupid because they don't?  A Democratic Party would have to lurch way to the right on economics in Del Tachi's world, because it basically requires the poor to vote solidly GOP


Also, plenty of tech-savvy upper-middle class millenials will vote for the GOP in the future.  By 2030, I highly doubt the two parties would be such that I would be a Democratic voter and I am a "tech-savvy upper-middle class millenial."  I know some truly conservative people in all these categories too.

[RFayette]

Also, Del Tachi, in your scenario you say the GOP favors pulling back the security state.  Are you saying the Dems will become in favor of it?  Of everything you listed, this seems the most far-fetched.  I could see both in favor of pulling it back, but not the switcharoo you suggest.

I could easily see the GOP trending protectionist, which would really put the Rust Belt in play but hurt the GOP among the business community, so I agree there.

[Del Tachi]

So long as blacks remain economically worse-off than whites by a significant margin, I just don't see them voting for the GOP.

"Millennial, tech-savvy, upper-middle class latte liberals" are nowhere near big enough to form a party and still won't be in 2050; also, what the heck will these liberals campaign on?  I'm going to fight for the lower-class, all of whom are voting against me but are too stupid because they don't?  A Democratic Party would have to lurch way to the right on economics in Del Tachi's world, because it basically requires the poor to vote solidly GOP

Except the Democrats have already lurched right, the Democratic Establishment has already given-up on opposing free trade or even standing up for unionized labor.  President Obama passed a Republican healthcare plan when his party enjoyed super-majorities in the House and Senate and refused to allow for an expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts when it had the votes to do so.

What makes the Democratic Party acceptable to White, urban, educated, liberal voters is that they have all the "cool" positions on race, reproductive rights, religion, and gay marriage.  Its thanks to issues like these that the Democrats now play so well in places like Northern Virginia, Southern California and the Research Triangle - despite these places being more educated and wealthier than the country as a whole. 

Like it or not, the Democratic Party is the party of Millennial-inspired faux-liberalism.  Its never been a centre-left party and it relies on Culture War-based issues to win national elections. 

[wildfood]

If free education, food, housing, money, and job preference have not solved the problem, I see no solution on the horizon that any politician can implement.

Taking this into account, I don't think Hillary is going too worry much about it.

[Del Tachi]

Also, Del Tachi, in your scenario you say the GOP favors pulling back the security state.  Are you saying the Dems will become in favor of it?  Of everything you listed, this seems the most far-fetched.  I could see both in favor of pulling it back, but not the switcharoo you suggest.

I could easily see the GOP trending protectionist, which would really put the Rust Belt in play but hurt the GOP among the business community, so I agree there.

I think so.  Already the noise on the right criticizing NSA overreach has resonated much better than left-wing noise about NSA overreach, and I don't see any prominent Democratic politicians making as big of a deal about it as, say, Rand Paul.  

I think its an issue that the GOP could co-opt quite nicely into its overreaching "government is bad for you" theme, which is where it seems to be going.  

[RFayette]

So long as blacks remain economically worse-off than whites by a significant margin, I just don't see them voting for the GOP.

"Millennial, tech-savvy, upper-middle class latte liberals" are nowhere near big enough to form a party and still won't be in 2050; also, what the heck will these liberals campaign on?  I'm going to fight for the lower-class, all of whom are voting against me but are too stupid because they don't?  A Democratic Party would have to lurch way to the right on economics in Del Tachi's world, because it basically requires the poor to vote solidly GOP

Except the Democrats have already lurched right, the Democratic Establishment has already given-up on opposing free trade or even standing up for unionized labor.  President Obama passed a Republican healthcare plan when his party enjoyed super-majorities in the House and Senate and refused to allow for an expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts when it had the votes to do so.

What makes the Democratic Party acceptable to White, urban, educated, liberal voters is that they have all the "cool" positions on race, reproductive rights, religion, and gay marriage.  Its thanks to issues like these that the Democrats now play so well in places like Northern Virginia, Southern California and the Research Triangle - despite these places being more educated and wealthier than the country as a whole.  

Like it or not, the Democratic Party is the party of Millennial-inspired faux-liberalism.  Its never been a centre-left party and it relies on Culture War-based issues to win national elections.  

Many of those areas are populated by universities relying heavily on gov't grants; social issues play a role, but I think that effect was already seen by the '90s, and the recent shift is more due to grants + immigration.  Still, what you're saying implies that the Dems must move to the right of the GOP on economic issues, which as you pointed out, is moving more anti-government.  So this would require the dems to be mega rightwingers on economic issues. 

I am going to analyze 2014 exit polls tmrw to talk about elite white voting (hint:  the well educated are ultra liberal in Oregon) but rocky is mostly correct here

[Rockefeller GOP]

So long as blacks remain economically worse-off than whites by a significant margin, I just don't see them voting for the GOP.

"Millennial, tech-savvy, upper-middle class latte liberals" are nowhere near big enough to form a party and still won't be in 2050; also, what the heck will these liberals campaign on?  I'm going to fight for the lower-class, all of whom are voting against me but are too stupid because they don't?  A Democratic Party would have to lurch way to the right on economics in Del Tachi's world, because it basically requires the poor to vote solidly GOP

Except the Democrats have already lurched right, the Democratic Establishment has already given-up on opposing free trade or even standing up for unionized labor.  President Obama passed a Republican healthcare plan when his party enjoyed super-majorities in the House and Senate and refused to allow for an expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts when it had the votes to do so.

What makes the Democratic Party acceptable to White, urban, educated, liberal voters is that they have all the "cool" positions on race, reproductive rights, religion, and gay marriage.  Its thanks to issues like these that the Democrats now play so well in places like Northern Virginia, Southern California and the Research Triangle - despite these places being more educated and wealthier than the country as a whole. 

Like it or not, the Democratic Party is the party of Millennial-inspired faux-liberalism.  Its never been a centre-left party and it relies on Culture War-based issues to win national elections. 

That's just not entirely true.  As has been discussed a ton, these semi-mythical liberal elites you despise certainly weren't voting for George W. Bush in 2004, yet he was winning NOVA, San Diego County, etc.  These areas are getting more diverse, and whites make up a smaller percentage of the electorate each year.  And it's not like places like Orange County, the wealthy Houston suburbs, affluent suburban Cincinnati, the upper-middle class suburbs of Milwaukee and Minneapolis, etc. aren't still voting GOP; they are.

And I personally think the narrative that Democrats have lurched right to be ridiculously exaggerated, but even if it's true, so have Republicans, and they show no sign of even kind of tolerating fiscal liberalism.

Your average Democrat simply isn't this affluent person you speak of, let alone more affluent than your average Republican ... And that'd hold true for your average White Democrat, too.  It's a party that's won a nice streak of popular votes with over 50% - if you think a huge chunk of that 50% is entirely minorities or these affluent, urban liberals, well sorry those groups are simply not that big.

[Adam Griffin]

Let's get one thing straight: the GOP isn't on the cusp of some awe-inspiring reinvention of itself, the country isn't on the precipice of a realignment, and the traditional elements of the Democratic Party aren't in any danger of abandoning it within the next generation.

The Republican realignment beginning in the 1980s happened because three elements were present:

1) A generation of prosperity. We obviously haven't had that for ages, and it's not just around the riverbend. Even if it were, it would need to be consistently present for a decade or two before it could affect the political discourse enough to upend the key players in each party. People make stupid decisions, politically-speaking, when there is unbounding prosperity (like voting to eliminate surpluses, and pissing in their pants whenever a moderate downturn occurs because they have no idea what a supply-side depression really looks like).

2) A bunch of dumb kids unaware of Republicans. The dominance of Democrats for decades finally gave away to enough (young) people growing up in said prosperity and not personally experiencing Republican policies to actually be stupid enough to vote for them. Everyone with a politically-aware mind these days - or even just a basic understanding of cultural norms - knows that the GOP is a bigoted group of old, white farts that hate gays, minorities, women and just about anyone else. Economically, most almost remember or know who was responsible for the latest recession.

3) Persistent Republican moderation. When you're a poor, poor perpetual political minority for decades, what do you do? You act as if you agree with the majority more often than not, soften your rhetoric and pretend to be in it for the people. The Republicans have literally never done that since the 1980s, and they're not about to start now. Further ensuring this will continue is the fact that their hyped-up extremist Baby Boomer crowd is going to live substantially longer than any other American generation; expect the bulk of them to continue voting well into their 80s.

[Del Tachi]

So long as blacks remain economically worse-off than whites by a significant margin, I just don't see them voting for the GOP.

"Millennial, tech-savvy, upper-middle class latte liberals" are nowhere near big enough to form a party and still won't be in 2050; also, what the heck will these liberals campaign on?  I'm going to fight for the lower-class, all of whom are voting against me but are too stupid because they don't?  A Democratic Party would have to lurch way to the right on economics in Del Tachi's world, because it basically requires the poor to vote solidly GOP

Except the Democrats have already lurched right, the Democratic Establishment has already given-up on opposing free trade or even standing up for unionized labor.  President Obama passed a Republican healthcare plan when his party enjoyed super-majorities in the House and Senate and refused to allow for an expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts when it had the votes to do so.

What makes the Democratic Party acceptable to White, urban, educated, liberal voters is that they have all the "cool" positions on race, reproductive rights, religion, and gay marriage.  Its thanks to issues like these that the Democrats now play so well in places like Northern Virginia, Southern California and the Research Triangle - despite these places being more educated and wealthier than the country as a whole. 

Like it or not, the Democratic Party is the party of Millennial-inspired faux-liberalism.  Its never been a centre-left party and it relies on Culture War-based issues to win national elections. 

That's just not entirely true.  As has been discussed a ton, these semi-mythical liberal elites you despise certainly weren't voting for George W. Bush in 2004, yet he was winning NOVA, San Diego County, etc.  These areas are getting more diverse, and whites make up a smaller percentage of the electorate each year.  And it's not like places like Orange County, the wealthy Houston suburbs, affluent suburban Cincinnati, the upper-middle class suburbs of Milwaukee and Minneapolis, etc. aren't still voting GOP; they are.

And I personally think the narrative that Democrats have lurched right to be ridiculously exaggerated, but even if it's true, so have Republicans, and they show no sign of even kind of tolerating fiscal liberalism.

Your average Democrat simply isn't this affluent person you speak of, let alone more affluent than your average Republican ... And that'd hold true for your average White Democrat, too.  It's a party that's won a nice streak of popular votes with over 50% - if you think a huge chunk of that 50% is entirely minorities or these affluent, urban liberals, well sorry those groups are simply not that big.

A couple things:

1) Minority voting alone cannot explain the 2008/12 Democratic victories.  Democrats were able to win by solid margins on both occasions because they successfully cut-into the GOP's traditional base in affluent suburbia in places like NOVA and Jeff County, CO.  Republican economic policy actually makes sense in these areas, but the Democrats have moderated their economic positions over the past 20 years to make them palatable to the upper-middle class and Republicans' insistence on hanging-on to the 1990s-era Culture War issues have made them toxic among educated voters. 

2) There is certainly a strong Democratic trend in places like Orange County, Cincinnati suburbs, and even DFW/Houston.  The GOP might still be stronger there, but the Democrats are gaining ground as these places continue to change and become more urban in character.     

3) With the rise of the Tea Party and the continued Southernization of the GOP, the average Republican voter is trending poorer, less educated and less urban.  The problem for the GOP is that the country is trending in the opposite direction as their base is.  If we assume that American politics is perfectly competitive, then it makes sense that as the GOP gains ground among rural, Southern Whites than it stands to lose support on the opposite end of that spectrum.     

4) Its not about the money, money, money.  There is a more nuanced divide occurring in American politics than rich/poor.  Increasingly over the past few decades, Democrats have increasing appeal to more "cosmopolitan" voters.   This makes them increasingly competitive in places it was previously shut-out (like urban North Carolina) because of the GOP's identity problem as a "rural, Southern-only party".  The GOP doesn't have an image problem in Forsyth County, GA because rich people there still identify more with rural Southerners than Northeastern suburbanites, but I don't see that lasting for much longer as the Tea Party (now driving the GOP) lurches further and further to the right.         

5) The changes are at the margin.  Sure, urban white hipsters weren't voting for GWB in 2004.  But the run-of-the-mill government employee in McLean, Virginia or the typical lawyer on Long Island might have been.  I don' think the same can be said post-2008.  The changes come from the middle, not the extreme and the American, white, connected, upper-middle class has certainly trended Democrat stronger than the nation as a whole in recent election cycles.           

[aktheden]

[/quote]

Except the Democrats have already lurched right, the Democratic Establishment has already given-up on opposing free trade or even standing up for unionized labor.  President Obama passed a Republican healthcare plan when his party enjoyed super-majorities in the House and Senate and refused to allow for an expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts when it had the votes to do so.

What makes the Democratic Party acceptable to White, urban, educated, liberal voters is that they have all the "cool" positions on race, reproductive rights, religion, and gay marriage.  Its thanks to issues like these that the Democrats now play so well in places like Northern Virginia, Southern California and the Research Triangle - despite these places being more educated and wealthier than the country as a whole. 

Like it or not, the Democratic Party is the party of Millennial-inspired faux-liberalism.  Its never been a centre-left party and it relies on Culture War-based issues to win national elections. 
[/quote]

That's just not entirely true.  As has been discussed a ton, these semi-mythical liberal elites you despise certainly weren't voting for George W. Bush in 2004, yet he was winning NOVA, San Diego County, etc.  These areas are getting more diverse, and whites make up a smaller percentage of the electorate each year.  And it's not like places like Orange County, the wealthy Houston suburbs, affluent suburban Cincinnati, the upper-middle class suburbs of Milwaukee and Minneapolis, etc. aren't still voting GOP; they are.

And I personally think the narrative that Democrats have lurched right to be ridiculously exaggerated, but even if it's true, so have Republicans, and they show no sign of even kind of tolerating fiscal liberalism.

Your average Democrat simply isn't this affluent person you speak of, let alone more affluent than your average Republican ... And that'd hold true for your average White Democrat, too.  It's a party that's won a nice streak of popular votes with over 50% - if you think a huge chunk of that 50% is entirely minorities or these affluent, urban liberals, well sorry those groups are simply not that big.
[/quote]

A couple things:

1) Minority voting alone cannot explain the 2008/12 Democratic victories.  Democrats were able to win by solid margins on both occasions because they successfully cut-into the GOP's traditional base in affluent suburbia in places like NOVA and Jeff County, CO.  Republican economic policy actually makes sense in these areas, but the Democrats have moderated their economic positions over the past 20 years to make them palatable to the upper-middle class and Republicans' insistence on hanging-on to the 1990s-era Culture War issues have made them toxic among educated voters. 

2) There is certainly a strong Democratic trend in places like Orange County, Cincinnati suburbs, and even DFW/Houston.  The GOP might still be stronger there, but the Democrats are gaining ground as these places continue to change and become more urban in character.     

3) With the rise of the Tea Party and the continued Southernization of the GOP, the average Republican voter is trending poorer, less educated and less urban.  The problem for the GOP is that the country is trending in the opposite direction as their base is.  If we assume that American politics is perfectly competitive, then it makes sense that as the GOP gains ground among rural, Southern Whites than it stands to lose support on the opposite end of that spectrum.     

4) Its not about the money, money, money.  There is a more nuanced divide occurring in American politics than rich/poor.  Increasingly over the past few decades, Democrats have increasing appeal to more "cosmopolitan" voters.   This makes them increasingly competitive in places it was previously shut-out (like urban North Carolina) because of the GOP's identity problem as a "rural, Southern-only party".  The GOP doesn't have an image problem in Forsyth County, GA because rich people there still identify more with rural Southerners than Northeastern suburbanites, but I don't see that lasting for much longer as the Tea Party (now driving the GOP) lurches further and further to the right.         

5) The changes are at the margin.  Sure, urban white hipsters weren't voting for GWB in 2004.  But the run-of-the-mill government employee in McLean, Virginia or the typical lawyer on Long Island might have been.  I don' think the same can be said post-2008.  The changes come from the middle, not the extreme and the American, white, connected, upper-middle class has certainly trended Democrat stronger than the nation as a whole in recent election cycles.           
[/quote]

But the majority of GOP voters are still middle to upper middle class whites; and the majority of Dem voters are still lower income people......@ heart, there is still a big class difference btw the average Repub and average Dem

[Ban my account ffs!]

FDR began the change.  

But this speech should not be discounted as it was an early warning of a tidal wave of change in the Democratic party that ultimately drove the southern whites out.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/huberthumphey1948dnc.html

Pertinent parts

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That man could have been our president.  But noooooo...we got tricky Dick instead.  

[RFayette]

So long as blacks remain economically worse-off than whites by a significant margin, I just don't see them voting for the GOP.

"Millennial, tech-savvy, upper-middle class latte liberals" are nowhere near big enough to form a party and still won't be in 2050; also, what the heck will these liberals campaign on?  I'm going to fight for the lower-class, all of whom are voting against me but are too stupid because they don't?  A Democratic Party would have to lurch way to the right on economics in Del Tachi's world, because it basically requires the poor to vote solidly GOP

Except the Democrats have already lurched right, the Democratic Establishment has already given-up on opposing free trade or even standing up for unionized labor.  President Obama passed a Republican healthcare plan when his party enjoyed super-majorities in the House and Senate and refused to allow for an expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts when it had the votes to do so.

What makes the Democratic Party acceptable to White, urban, educated, liberal voters is that they have all the "cool" positions on race, reproductive rights, religion, and gay marriage.  Its thanks to issues like these that the Democrats now play so well in places like Northern Virginia, Southern California and the Research Triangle - despite these places being more educated and wealthier than the country as a whole.  

Like it or not, the Democratic Party is the party of Millennial-inspired faux-liberalism.  Its never been a centre-left party and it relies on Culture War-based issues to win national elections.  

That's just not entirely true.  As has been discussed a ton, these semi-mythical liberal elites you despise certainly weren't voting for George W. Bush in 2004, yet he was winning NOVA, San Diego County, etc.  These areas are getting more diverse, and whites make up a smaller percentage of the electorate each year.  And it's not like places like Orange County, the wealthy Houston suburbs, affluent suburban Cincinnati, the upper-middle class suburbs of Milwaukee and Minneapolis, etc. aren't still voting GOP; they are.

And I personally think the narrative that Democrats have lurched right to be ridiculously exaggerated, but even if it's true, so have Republicans, and they show no sign of even kind of tolerating fiscal liberalism.

Your average Democrat simply isn't this affluent person you speak of, let alone more affluent than your average Republican ... And that'd hold true for your average White Democrat, too.  It's a party that's won a nice streak of popular votes with over 50% - if you think a huge chunk of that 50% is entirely minorities or these affluent, urban liberals, well sorry those groups are simply not that big.

A couple things:

1) Minority voting alone cannot explain the 2008/12 Democratic victories.  Democrats were able to win by solid margins on both occasions because they successfully cut-into the GOP's traditional base in affluent suburbia in places like NOVA and Jeff County, CO.  Republican economic policy actually makes sense in these areas, but the Democrats have moderated their economic positions over the past 20 years to make them palatable to the upper-middle class and Republicans' insistence on hanging-on to the 1990s-era Culture War issues have made them toxic among educated voters.  

2) There is certainly a strong Democratic trend in places like Orange County, Cincinnati suburbs, and even DFW/Houston.  The GOP might still be stronger there, but the Democrats are gaining ground as these places continue to change and become more urban in character.    

3) With the rise of the Tea Party and the continued Southernization of the GOP, the average Republican voter is trending poorer, less educated and less urban.  The problem for the GOP is that the country is trending in the opposite direction as their base is.  If we assume that American politics is perfectly competitive, then it makes sense that as the GOP gains ground among rural, Southern Whites than it stands to lose support on the opposite end of that spectrum.      

4) Its not about the money, money, money.  There is a more nuanced divide occurring in American politics than rich/poor.  Increasingly over the past few decades, Democrats have increasing appeal to more "cosmopolitan" voters.   This makes them increasingly competitive in places it was previously shut-out (like urban North Carolina) because of the GOP's identity problem as a "rural, Southern-only party".  The GOP doesn't have an image problem in Forsyth County, GA because rich people there still identify more with rural Southerners than Northeastern suburbanites, but I don't see that lasting for much longer as the Tea Party (now driving the GOP) lurches further and further to the right.          

5) The changes are at the margin.  Sure, urban white hipsters weren't voting for GWB in 2004.  But the run-of-the-mill government employee in McLean, Virginia or the typical lawyer on Long Island might have been.  I don' think the same can be said post-2008.  The changes come from the middle, not the extreme and the American, white, connected, upper-middle class has certainly trended Democrat stronger than the nation as a whole in recent election cycles.            

1) 2008 did shift a good # of suburban whites to the Dems, and some but certainly not all returned to the GOP in 2012.  A lot of suburban counties trended GOP in 2012, suggesting that these counties will return to a somewhat-but-not-extremely higher-D voting equilibrium, but not 2008 levels (see 2).  To say they will keep trending away from the GOP is presumptuous.  

2) In 2012, Orange County actually trended GOP, though it trended strongly Dem in 2008.  If anything, Orange County appears static.  The inner suburbs of Houston and Dallas may have trended Dem, but all of the "outer ring" suburban counties trended GOP in Texas.  2008 may have realigned some upper-class whites, but I don't think that this trend will continue ad infinitum, and things will remain with 2012-like trends for the foreseeable future.  So well-educated whites in university areas will likely continue to trend Dem due to grant money concerns and immigration, while well-educated whites in other suburbs will stay about where they were relative to the national margin.  


Milwaukee 'burbs have been trending Republican in 2008 and 2012.  Bucks County trended GOP both years.  Indy suburbs trended very sharply to the right in 2012.  There are other examples, but those are just a few contradicting your hypothesis.

3) Tea partiers are often in poor areas, but they tend not to be the really poor ones.  In fact, they're less likely to be poor and more likely to be wealthy than the average American.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/04/are_the_tea_party_backers_really_wealthy_and_highly_educated.html

Your claim is that the GOP will become the party of the poor and the Democrats will become the party of the rich.  This would require the GOP to become left-wing on economics.  Sure, poor, Southern whites are often fiscal conservatives, but poor whites in most other parts of the country are very much Democratic-voters, especially very poor ones.
4)  Agreed, except if the GOP keeps moving further right, they will lose support among the rich, but they also will among the poor.  My main point of disagreement is that if the GOP keeps lurching further and further right, it won't suddenly attract more poor voters, who are historically left-wing economically.  Instead, it will just lose among all Americans by bigger and bigger margins, until Democratic administrations are so unpopular that it can eke out a win.  So I think equilibrium will be re-established with the death of a lot of Baby Boomers, moving the GOP in a more socially and foreign policy centrist direction and being less reflexively opposed to government in general.  Of course, this is what I want to happen, and I sense you don't want this to happen, so perhaps our sparring is really just a competition of where we want to see the two parties in the future.
5) The biggest trend, IMO, occured in 2008.  Since then, the GOP's problem has been getting not enough total votes; a 6% shift in margin would make a lot of these trends