Is the Republican party doomed on presidential level?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

No, not unless another party comes around and replaces the GOP. Americans will always want change once and a while, and the GOP is still the government in waiting.

[tallguy23]

Not at all. They just need a strong candidate who can grow the party and turn out the base.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

These aren't the results Democrats wanted are they?  I just thought I'd rub it in. 

[sg0508]

If the Republicans continue to lose VA, CO and FL in presidential years, then in reality, there isn't much viability in the electoral map.  The Midwest was where they were supposed to start making dents, but it hasn't happened.  Now, they've also lost OH twice in a row too, and the Republicans have never won without it.

Getting to 270 seems to become harder and harder for Republicans with each cycle.  Their margin of error is smaller. 

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

If the Republicans continue to lose VA, CO and FL in presidential years, then in reality, there isn't much viability in the electoral map.  The Midwest was where they were supposed to start making dents, but it hasn't happened.  Now, they've also lost OH twice in a row too, and the Republicans have never won without it.

Getting to 270 seems to become harder and harder for Republicans with each cycle.  Their margin of error is smaller. 

As in 2 in a row? There you go again!  Anyone in 2008 could've said, "well now if the Democrats can't win OH, FL, or CO, they're doomed.  No kidding!  The truth is that things run in 8 year cycles. 

[hopper]

No, but a Trump or Cruz nomination could signal that we are in the middle of a 1932-1952/1896-1912/1860-1884 scenario for the Dems.  But in all but the former of those streaks, there was extensive opposition control of congress after the first few years.  So I don't think it would be that bad for R's even if it happened, since a Republican House would basically be assured through 2022 under a 2 term Dem president.  They had better hold onto the Senate for SCOTUS purposes, though.

The core of the problem is that the congressional GOP can win both chambers without having to appeal to anyone who doesn't live in an single family home.  So the rural/exurban base tolerates no compromise, because why would they need to?  But that doesn't work in a presidential election.  Imagine the economy was a bit worse and Romney had made it through in 2012.  Do any of us doubt the Tea Party would be at his throat right now with a Cruz primary challenge because he didn't cut the government in half and basically repeal the New Deal?     

ObamaCare you mean. The GOP was never going to touch the New Deal.

[hopper]

At this point I think so. I don't see Trump, Cruz, or even Rubio beating Clinton in 2016, and she'll probably have a strong enough first term to win again in 2020. Then the GOP would have to get its act together and nominate someone who could beat her VP, which isn't guaranteed to happen. Letting Bush into the White House was a terrible mistake on the GOP's part. It will haunt them for ages.

I don't think its entirely Bush W.'s fault although it started with him. I think Romney ran to much to the right for Latino's and especially the "self deport" rhetoric hurt him a lot with Latino Voters. Romney didn't make inroads with Black Voters in Ohio and Virginia like Bush W. did in 2004 either and Romney lost both states because of the Black Vote. I think Republican Politicians and Conservative Talk Radio with their rhetoric hurts the party as well. I have to say just look at the electorate and demographics of  a Presidential Election and why on earth would Conservative Talk Radio endorse Cruz or Trump? I don't get it.

[hopper]

Of course not. Even if Democrats influx of hispanic immigrants helps them for the first few elections, the second generation of hispanic immigrants will definitely not be as kind to the Democrats.

IIRC, polls have shown that 2nd generation Hispanics are even more Democratic than 1st generation ones

Republicans don't have much hope for getting above 35-40% amongst Hispanics except in rare occassions. That said they do need to shut their mouths on all the gaffes and such, because that is the difference between winning or losing Colorado and Florida.

Asians are generally a far more malleable group. Their support had the biggest shift from 2012 to 2014 going from the 20s to 51%. Granted, a big portion of that was turnout, but same dynamic applies to Hispanics and they maxed out at 37% I think. Which means that the GOP has a much larger number of winnable Asian voters than winnable Hispanics.

Jeb or Kasich would have won Colorado. But, that's not the case anymore, since Cuz is gonna be nominee.

Well Rubio could win Colorado but you are right with Cruz I don't think he would win the state.

[hopper]

Of course not. Even if Democrats influx of hispanic immigrants helps them for the first few elections, the second generation of hispanic immigrants will definitely not be as kind to the Democrats.

IIRC, polls have shown that 2nd generation Hispanics are even more Democratic than 1st generation ones

Ah, 1st generation Hispanics became more Republican as they got older I think.

[hopper]

For the record I voted "yes".  But by "doomed" I think that the GOP is just in for a bit of a rough patch, like they were from 1932-1968, or the Democrats were from 1968-2008.[/s]  The next few cycles will be fairly even, since the Democrats still have a bit more room to fall among white millennials and in the South/Greater Appalachia.  But ultimately the influx of Hispanic and Asian voters + the dying off of the Silent Generation will hurt the GOP at the Presidential level, though maybe not as much as some would think.  Mexico is already taking back more immigrants than it's sending, and Hispanic birthrates are declining while white ones are increasing.  And Asian immigration is probably going to taper off a bit too.
[/b]
Plus, barring a total collapse of the current political system, the GOP is not doing to disappear.  Even if the most extreme demographic projections turn out true, they'll still have a white Southern base to fall back on, just like the Democrats did during the 1920's, and will be in the best position to take advantage of any crises/screw ups on the part of the Democrat Party.

1968-1988 you mean.

Yes Immigration from Mexico has tailed off big time since 2005 but immigration from East Asia doesn't show any signs of decreasing per Pew Research Data in the future.

Yes Hispanic Births have decreased since 2000 but the average Hispanic Woman in the US I think has 2-3 kids in her lifetime where as a non-Hispanic white woman averages has around 2 kids in her lifetime currently.

Yes the Republicans can take advantage of screw-ups of the Dems but until Republicans can win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and make some inroads in the Northeast on the Presidential Level the Dems have little to be scared about.

[hopper]

2007 was the D day for GOP, when immigration reform didnt happened under Dubya.

As long as earned pathway for citizenship is an issue, and GOP block collective bargaining like minimum wage increase, then the GOP are gonna continue to do poorly in NM, CO & NV, pathway to presidency

GOP didn't lose in 2008 and 2012 because of immigration reform they lost in 2008 because Obama looked like the future and McCain looked like the past. I already wrote why they lost in 2012 in this thread.

Minimum Wage won't be the key factor of the Presidential Election.

[hopper]

Of course not. Even if Democrats influx of hispanic immigrants helps them for the first few elections, the second generation of hispanic immigrants will definitely not be as kind to the Democrats.

IIRC, polls have shown that 2nd generation Hispanics are even more Democratic than 1st generation ones

Republicans don't have much hope for getting above 35-40% amongst Hispanics except in rare occassions. That said they do need to shut their mouths on all the gaffes and such, because that is the difference between winning or losing Colorado and Florida.

Asians are generally a far more malleable group. Their support had the biggest shift from 2012 to 2014 going from the 20s to 51%. Granted, a big portion of that was turnout, but same dynamic applies to Hispanics and they maxed out at 37% I think. Which means that the GOP has a much larger number of winnable Asian voters than winnable Hispanics.

I do think you have a point about losing Colorado because of improper immigration rhetoric but Florida Romney got 39% of the Latino Vote compared to his 27% take of the Hispanic Vote overall so immigration is not why he lost Florida.

Asians are only important in 2 states: Nevada and Virginia although those are 2 swing states!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2007 was the D day for GOP, when immigration reform didnt happened under Dubya.

As long as earned pathway for citizenship is an issue, and GOP block collective bargaining like minimum wage increase, then the GOP are gonna continue to do poorly in NM, CO & NV, pathway to presidency

GOP didn't lose in 2008 and 2012 because of immigration reform they lost in 2008 because Obama looked like the future and McCain looked like the past. I already wrote why they lost in 2012 in this thread.

Minimum Wage won't be the key factor of the Presidential Election.

Yes, it will, as Labor Unions are blue collar work as factories are the real work replacing some the old jobs like Postal work.  Trumka has no qualms over Castro as Veep, but dont want Kaine, about Fast Track

Unions want increase in minimum wages.

Dems will win Colorado, Nevada & Pa

[sg0508]

If the Republicans continue to lose VA, CO and FL in presidential years, then in reality, there isn't much viability in the electoral map.  The Midwest was where they were supposed to start making dents, but it hasn't happened.  Now, they've also lost OH twice in a row too, and the Republicans have never won without it.

Getting to 270 seems to become harder and harder for Republicans with each cycle.  Their margin of error is smaller. 

As in 2 in a row? There you go again!  Anyone in 2008 could've said, "well now if the Democrats can't win OH, FL, or CO, they're doomed.  No kidding!  The truth is that things run in 8 year cycles. 

Not when the GOP has a demographic problem.  That is an issue that is haunting them and really became apparent in the '12 cycle.  They have no claim to fame with: 1) Young voters 2) Aging voters who are more and more concerned about healthcare with each passing day 3) Minorities.

Romney lost FL (for example) due to the Puerto Rican vote and far weaker than expected support amongst Cuban voters, particularly YOUNG Cubans. 

[hopper]

2007 was the D day for GOP, when immigration reform didnt happened under Dubya.

As long as earned pathway for citizenship is an issue, and GOP block collective bargaining like minimum wage increase, then the GOP are gonna continue to do poorly in NM, CO & NV, pathway to presidency

GOP didn't lose in 2008 and 2012 because of immigration reform they lost in 2008 because Obama looked like the future and McCain looked like the past. I already wrote why they lost in 2012 in this thread.

Minimum Wage won't be the key factor of the Presidential Election.

Yes, it will, as Labor Unions are blue collar work as factories are the real work replacing some the old jobs like Postal work.  Trumka has no qualms over Castro as Veep, but dont want Kaine, about Fast Track

Unions want increase in minimum wages.

Dems will win Colorado, Nevada & Pa

I just disagree Labor Unions are not on the upswing. The Labor Union Vote only
 matters in Michigan because of the UAW in the Detroit Burbs.

People in Unions make over the minimum wage. So "Where's the Beef" on that issue?

Yes the Dems will win Colorado, Nevada, and Pennsylvania with Cruz or Trump as the Republican Nominee.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Not yet, but if they don't expand their base, they will be.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Unions paying 10.10 an hour are Teachers Assistant Unions, Bus Driver Jobs & some Postal Unions. Most Unions paying above that are government unions like Auto Unions that pay 16-20 an hour.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Unions paying 10.10 an hour are Teachers Assistant Unions, Bus Driver Jobs & some Postal Unions. Most Unions paying above that are government unions like Auto Unions that pay 16-20 an hour.

There's people who would love to have those wages, however, you can do plenty making less if you don't have any kids.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The point that I was making is Auto Unions is really the only union job, that outside of professional work, such as Doctor, Lawyer or Oil Rigger or even a teacher professional,  make sure their workers can afford one thing, a car, making 30 K a year.

Really, Doctors and Lawyers sue and do surgeries, alot of their load which is handled by nursing homes or paralegals. More lower skilled labor.

[hopper]

For the record I voted "yes".  But by "doomed" I think that the GOP is just in for a bit of a rough patch, like they were from 1932-1968, or the Democrats were from 1968-2008.[/s]  The next few cycles will be fairly even, since the Democrats still have a bit more room to fall among white millennials and in the South/Greater Appalachia.  But ultimately the influx of Hispanic and Asian voters + the dying off of the Silent Generation will hurt the GOP at the Presidential level, though maybe not as much as some would think.  Mexico is already taking back more immigrants than it's sending, and Hispanic birthrates are declining while white ones are increasing.  And Asian immigration is probably going to taper off a bit too.
[/b]
Plus, barring a total collapse of the current political system, the GOP is not doing to disappear.  Even if the most extreme demographic projections turn out true, they'll still have a white Southern base to fall back on, just like the Democrats did during the 1920's, and will be in the best position to take advantage of any crises/screw ups on the part of the Democrat Party.

1968-1988 you mean.

Yes Immigration from Mexico has tailed off big time since 2005 but immigration from East Asia doesn't show any signs of decreasing per Pew Research Data in the future.

Yes Hispanic Births have decreased since 2000 but the average Hispanic Woman in the US I think has 2-3 kids in her lifetime where as a non-Hispanic white woman averages has around 2 kids in her lifetime currently.

Yes the Republicans can take advantage of screw-ups of the Dems but until Republicans can win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and make some inroads in the Northeast on the Presidential Level the Dems have little to be scared about.

Wow I got that figure from Wikipedia that a Hispanic Woman had 2.45 kids in her lifetime currently but that was an old figure from maybe 2010. Hispanic Women are now down to having 2.21 kids in their lifetime and that figure is from 2014 or 2015. I just didn't think the Hispanic Birth Rate was gonna decline like that so fast. One article I looked at said Hispanic Births declined because a lot of Hispanics worked in contruction in 2007(1 in 7 Hispanics) but those construction jobs declined because of the Housing Crisis in 2008. A lot of Hispanics were starting families early because they were making good money from their construction job but those jobs disappeared.

[ElectionsGuy]

Of course not. Even if Democrats influx of hispanic immigrants helps them for the first few elections, the second generation of hispanic immigrants will definitely not be as kind to the Democrats.

IIRC, polls have shown that 2nd generation Hispanics are even more Democratic than 1st generation ones

Republicans don't have much hope for getting above 35-40% amongst Hispanics except in rare occassions. That said they do need to shut their mouths on all the gaffes and such, because that is the difference between winning or losing Colorado and Florida.

Asians are generally a far more malleable group. Their support had the biggest shift from 2012 to 2014 going from the 20s to 51%. Granted, a big portion of that was turnout, but same dynamic applies to Hispanics and they maxed out at 37% I think. Which means that the GOP has a much larger number of winnable Asian voters than winnable Hispanics.

Problem - the only two states with sizable Asian populations (California and Hawaii) are not winnable anyway.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Cali & HI have Filipinos that have a sizeable Generation X population. Due to the climate in those states. Others like Wa, OR & IL have Chinese, who have still alot of older adults.

[sg0508]

At some point, the Republicans will have to "reach" Gen Y and other minorities.  The older populations, the white population is thinning and many older voters are starting to, or have started voting Democratic concerning healthcare.

The 2012 race was a microcosm of everything wrong with the Republican Party outside of the "too far right" social platform, which Romney actually did a decent job of avoiding.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Christie, who is Gov of another Latino state like NJ and co-opted the immigration reform, like Bloomberg did, moved towards Obama after Hurricane Sandy. As his constituents gravitated towards Obama. In a state like CO, which is the purple state of this election, plus Iowa, that is telling.

[Mr. Smith]

If only, nah...play the cards right, and they could beat Clinton, they've already got the fake scandal thing going on which seems to work too well as is.

And if Hillary does survive and win, she'll probably get booted in 2020