Is Trump hurting Republicans' long time prospect?

[uti2]

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

-Most youths in Kerry states are Bernie-supporting Democrats; this is not the case nationwide. White liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by more fertile non-Whites and Trump/Cruz conservatives.

Bernie won millennials of all ethnicities.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

-Most youths in Kerry states are Bernie-supporting Democrats; this is not the case nationwide. White liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by more fertile non-Whites and Trump/Cruz conservatives.

[Citation needed] You also surely realize that plenty of liberals are the kids of conservative parents, right? And the fact that Yuppies tend to have kids later than normal, like in their late 20's and early 30's. Yuppie Millennials are the bulk of our generation's white liberals.

-Check the total fertility rate of Whites in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts sometime. Compare with Arkansas, Utah, North Dakota.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

-Most youths in Kerry states are Bernie-supporting Democrats; this is not the case nationwide. White liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by more fertile non-Whites and Trump/Cruz conservatives.

Bernie won millennials of all ethnicities.

-I am 100% certain Bernie got fewer millennial votes than Lyin' Ted Cruz in the great state of Utah.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.



It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

A fairly substantial amount of the previously self-identified Republicans I knew on campus ended up voting for Hillary. I wonder if part of the swing among counties containing colleges to Hillary this election is attributable to that... It's kinda alarming in a forward-looking sense for the party, since most of the future donors and candidates for higher office will come primarily from this very group, and if they are turned off by Trumpism, that's not exactly healthy for the party.

-And I say unto you; the GOP must confront establishment hackery, not be ruled by it.

[uti2]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.



It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

A fairly substantial amount of the previously self-identified Republicans I knew on campus ended up voting for Hillary. I wonder if part of the swing among counties containing colleges to Hillary this election is attributable to that... It's kinda alarming in a forward-looking sense for the party, since most of the future donors and candidates for higher office will come primarily from this very group, and if they are turned off by Trumpism, that's not exactly healthy for the party.

My point is that very few college republicans exist in the first place, because very few people are republicans when they're young, they're mostly bernie supporting democrats. So running after a group of people who are of statistical irrelevance and whose future republican peers are currently bernie supporting democrats is not statistically representative of where the party will be in the future. If anything, given that the current democratic youth is more populistic than it ever has been since FDR, the Future GOP is more likely to be populist also as a consequence.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

-Most youths in Kerry states are Bernie-supporting Democrats; this is not the case nationwide. White liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by more fertile non-Whites and Trump/Cruz conservatives.

[Citation needed] You also surely realize that plenty of liberals are the kids of conservative parents, right? And the fact that Yuppies tend to have kids later than normal, like in their late 20's and early 30's. Yuppie Millennials are the bulk of our generation's white liberals.

-Check the total fertility rate of Whites in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts sometime. Compare with Arkansas, Utah, North Dakota.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3984874/More-whites-die-born-states-New-research-reveals-changing-demographics-amidst-soaring-Caucasian-death-rates.html

Well, Arkansas is actually in decline while NY and VT are actually at a slight increase. And this isn't particularly good for your argument either because the only states where whites are being born at higher rates are in already red, largely irrelevant-in-the-Electoral College states. The New South is actually pretty ominous for the GOP if these numbers are accurate, particularly FL, NC, GA, and AZ (Southwest). Even the whole "MISSISSIPPI IS TRENDING DEMOCRATIC" thing might not be a complete fantasy (blacks are projected to be a majority there by 2040).

-You are pretending people don't move between the states. Again, look at White total fertility rates. Death rates are completely irrelevant here.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.



It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

A fairly substantial amount of the previously self-identified Republicans I knew on campus ended up voting for Hillary. I wonder if part of the swing among counties containing colleges to Hillary this election is attributable to that... It's kinda alarming in a forward-looking sense for the party, since most of the future donors and candidates for higher office will come primarily from this very group, and if they are turned off by Trumpism, that's not exactly healthy for the party.

My point is that very few college republicans exist in the first place, because very few people are republicans when they're young, they're mostly bernie supporting democrats. So running after a group of people who are of statistical irrelevance and whose future republican peers are currently bernie supporting democrats is not statistically representative of where the party will be in the future. If anything, given that the current democratic youth is more populistic than it ever has been since FDR, the Future GOP is more likely to be populist also as a consequence.

-Again, not true. A majority of young White voters who voted in a 2016 presidential primary voted in the Republican primary.

[uti2]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.



It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

A fairly substantial amount of the previously self-identified Republicans I knew on campus ended up voting for Hillary. I wonder if part of the swing among counties containing colleges to Hillary this election is attributable to that... It's kinda alarming in a forward-looking sense for the party, since most of the future donors and candidates for higher office will come primarily from this very group, and if they are turned off by Trumpism, that's not exactly healthy for the party.

My point is that very few college republicans exist in the first place, because very few people are republicans when they're young, they're mostly bernie supporting democrats. So running after a group of people who are of statistical irrelevance and whose future republican peers are currently bernie supporting democrats is not statistically representative of where the party will be in the future. If anything, given that the current democratic youth is more populistic than it ever has been since FDR, the Future GOP is more likely to be populist also as a consequence.

-Again, not true. A majority of young White voters who voted in a 2016 presidential primary voted in the Republican primary.

I was talking about millenials overall, but Vosem seems to have this idea in his head that no millenials at all voted for Trump in the primary.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/03/16/trump-beat-rubio-among-florida-millennials/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/2/republican-millennials-make-record-turnout-reject-/

[DPKdebator]

1. Many people my age love Donald Trump (really the only exception are the feminists and LGBTs for the most part) although have reservations about expressing it (I'm somewhat open about this, so I have to deal with ignorant arguments while the liberal kids automatically dismiss my opinion as fake since it didn't come from CNN and/or agree with theirs); this belief that children are permanently put off from Trump is a total lie. A lot of schools, including my neighborhood's elementary, didn't talk about the election (unlike 2012); plus they're too young to remember all the things MSM made up about the Donald (and teenagers are too young to remember Dubya and early days of Obama) and are more likely to be influenced by their parents saying "Trump's plan for money means we can go on a vacation!" I'd hardly call it the redpilling of a generation, but younger voters will be nothing like Millennials (a lot of Gen Zers view Millennials as a bunch of selfish latte liberals and wackjob SJWs).

2. Trump's most likely going to fire up an investigation into voter fraud, and considering what happened with Detroit I wouldn't be surprised seeing it elsewhere (in fact, I'd be surprised if nothing came up) and regardless, by the time I can vote in 2020 I'll probably need a voter ID, which I'd 100% support- when I went with my dad when he voted in November, literally all they do is ask for your name and street and then give you a form.

3. Trump has been president for five days, let's give it some time before trash-talking his job as president. (there's plenty Trump has planned for his first 100 days

4. Not every immigrant hates Trump. In fact, several I know (including my dad, plus my family in Ireland) love him.

[publicunofficial]

"Kids are apolitical and don't pay attention to the news. Also they HATE SJW SCUM and know what "millennial" and "latte liberal" mean"

[Figueira]

Well obviously both parties will continue to exist as the major parties, but I think Trump is indeed causing problems for future Republicans.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Well obviously both parties will continue to exist as the major parties, but I think Trump is indeed causing problems for future Republicans.

-I think he's solving big league ones caused by Reagan/Bush.

[publicunofficial]

Well obviously both parties will continue to exist as the major parties, but I think Trump is indeed causing problems for future Republicans.

-I think he's solving big league ones caused by Reagan/Bush.

By proving Democrats long-standing accusations of racism and bigotry, he is certainly not. He might appeal to alt-right young whites, many of whom I've noticed are actually pretty prominent in that age group, but their views are toxic to their peers. My old hogh school in blood-red St. Charles County voted for Hillary in their mock election despite being 85% white and having went for Romney on 2012. I don't think that's an accident.

My theory on that: Young people, due to growing up in the current political climate that can trace it's roots back to the Gingrich Revolution, are extremely polarized politically. While a large majority of millennial voters are left wing (especially when not just counting the white vote), the millennials that ARE conservative tend to be very, very conservative.

[DPKdebator]

1. Many people my age love Donald Trump (really the only exception are the feminists and LGBTs for the most part) although have reservations about expressing it (I'm somewhat open about this, so I have to deal with ignorant arguments while the liberal kids automatically dismiss my opinion as fake since it didn't come from CNN and/or agree with theirs); this belief that children are permanently put off from Trump is a total lie. A lot of schools, including my neighborhood's elementary, didn't talk about the election (unlike 2012); plus they're too young to remember all the things MSM made up about the Donald (and teenagers are too young to remember Dubya and early days of Obama) and are more likely to be influenced by their parents saying "Trump's plan for money means we can go on a vacation!" I'd hardly call it the redpilling of a generation, but younger voters will be nothing like Millennials (a lot of Gen Zers view Millennials as a bunch of selfish latte liberals and wackjob SJWs).

2. Trump's most likely going to fire up an investigation into voter fraud, and considering what happened with Detroit I wouldn't be surprised seeing it elsewhere (in fact, I'd be surprised if nothing came up) and regardless, by the time I can vote in 2020 I'll probably need a voter ID, which I'd 100% support- when I went with my dad when he voted in November, literally all they do is ask for your name and street and then give you a

3. Trump has been president for five days, let's give it some time before trash-talking his job as president. (there's plenty Trump has planned for his first 100 days

4. Not every immigrant hates Trump. In fact, several I know (including my dad, plus my family in Ireland) love him.

1. Lol. Just no. Your situation =/= other people your age and their views of Trump. Polls of Gen Z have him pretty well despised. And it makes no intuitive sense either that they'd love him considering Z is almosg majority-minority.

2. This is just f-ing devoid of any fact. If you think for a second that millions (or even thousands) voted illegally, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

3. Fair, but the oublic has generally negative views of most of his major policy proposals aside from Childcare and repeal of ACA.

4. Again, the "personal anecdote" fallacy.

1. My views hardly represent Gen Z as a whole, and my statement was mostly based off people I know in real life. Polls are often a good indicator, but again, they don't always represent a group of people as a whole. The word "many" doesn't mean all or even a majority in several cases.

2. I never claimed millions voted illegally, although there were discrepancies in Detroit.

3. Not every poll has Gen Zers despising Trump: this survey here found saw Trump have predominant support 34%-20%.

[krazen1211]

Of course not. After he wins again the Democrats will be ruthlessly gerrymandered, and it will be even easier and more glorious than 2011 since the Democrats have shrunk themselves into a pathetic 400 county rump party.

[Figueira]

Well obviously both parties will continue to exist as the major parties, but I think Trump is indeed causing problems for future Republicans.

-I think he's solving big league ones caused by Reagan/Bush.

Not sure what you're talking about that, but it's possible to solve problems while creating new ones.

[krazen1211]

Of course not. After he wins again the Democrats will be ruthlessly gerrymandered, and it will be even easier and more glorious than 2011 since the Democrats have shrunk themselves into a pathetic 400 county rump party.

400 counties that 70% of the country lives in? It's Republicans in places like rural Texas that will have a serious self-packing problem in the long-run if current trends hold.

Mathematically that doesn't even work. There are only 23 districts where Trump got 70% of the vote, and a large portion of those are easily unpacked in the next redistricting. Antiquated VRA preclearance nonsense is gone. There are at least 61, and probably 63, such Hillary districts.

The Rump party has close to 23 such packs in NYC and the Bay Area alone.

[Vosem]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.



It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

The same argument doesn't quit go for Bush 2000 with Nader. Bush wasn't as detested among those who didn't vote for him as Trump is now. Bush started at 65/20 in approval; Trump started at 45/45. Making gains among those who disliked him was an option for Bush. It seems unlikely to be one for Trump.

As for young Republicans, I'm talking about voters under 45 who voted in the Republican primaries in 2016, and to a lesser extent also 2012. These people exist and their preferences in both years veered wildly away from the rest of the party, which outvoted them. Trump tended to be very, very weak among them, and they generally shifted between whoever was the strongest anti-Trump candidate without regard to ideology, voting for Cruz/Rubio/Kasich in different states.

"Doctrinaire conservatives" is not a good summary either -- these people also disliked Romney in 2012, giving first place to Paul and second to whoever the anti-establishment flavor of the day was (either Santorum or Gingrich), with Romney in third in many places he won. My own assessment is that they tend to be isolationist, reflexively anti-establishmentarian, and with a strong fiscally conservative streak, and divided on social issues, with there being a faction that doesn't care and another that remains very, very right-wing.

Trump failed to appeal to these people in the primary at all. To the point that they demonstrated that they liked every other wing in the party better. And it's not like there's a demographic amongst young Democrats who'd find Trumpism appealing. So, yeah, I don't think Trumpism is particularly long for the world.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Well obviously both parties will continue to exist as the major parties, but I think Trump is indeed causing problems for future Republicans.

-I think he's solving big league ones caused by Reagan/Bush.

By proving Democrats long-standing accusations of racism and bigotry, he is certainly not. He might appeal to alt-right young whites, many of whom I've noticed are actually pretty prominent in that age group, but their views are toxic to their peers. My old hogh school in blood-red St. Charles County voted for Hillary in their mock election despite being 85% white and having went for Romney on 2012. I don't think that's an accident.

-Democrats gonna accuse. Who cares? Trump isn't proving their accusations; they just keep making them. Romney lost all but one Lincoln state; Trump won many more.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Of course not. After he wins again the Democrats will be ruthlessly gerrymandered, and it will be even easier and more glorious than 2011 since the Democrats have shrunk themselves into a pathetic 400 county rump party.

400 counties that 70% of the country lives in? It's Republicans in places like rural Texas that will have a serious self-packing problem in the long-run if current trends hold.

Mathematically that doesn't even work. There are only 23 districts where Trump got 70% of the vote, and a large portion of those are easily unpacked in the next redistricting. Antiquated VRA preclearance nonsense is gone. There are at least 61, and probably 63, such Hillary districts.

The Rump party has close to 23 such packs in NYC and the Bay Area alone.

You're missing my point. Those 400 counties are growing and the rural counties are shrinking and have been for some time. That in and of itself is a sign of concern.

-Trump appealed to the forgotten men and women of this country. Whaddaya expect? It's not a "sign of concern"; it's a sign of Trump doing what he said he would do.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Of course not. After he wins again the Democrats will be ruthlessly gerrymandered, and it will be even easier and more glorious than 2011 since the Democrats have shrunk themselves into a pathetic 400 county rump party.

400 counties that 70% of the country lives in? It's Republicans in places like rural Texas that will have a serious self-packing problem in the long-run if current trends hold.

Mathematically that doesn't even work. There are only 23 districts where Trump got 70% of the vote, and a large portion of those are easily unpacked in the next redistricting. Antiquated VRA preclearance nonsense is gone. There are at least 61, and probably 63, such Hillary districts.

The Rump party has close to 23 such packs in NYC and the Bay Area alone.

You're missing my point. Those 400 counties are growing and the rural counties are shrinking and have been for some time. That in and of itself is a sign of concern.

-Trump appealed to the forgotten men and women of this country. Whaddaya expect? It's not a "sign of concern"; it's a sign of Trump doing what he said he would do.

That sure sounds like a brilliant long-term strategy: run up the score in Appalachia and in the Plains and see how far that gets you.

-Trump ran up the score in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, instead. Worked very well for him.

[krazen1211]

-Trump ran up the score in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, instead. Worked very well for him.

It's almost as if Trump won 30/50 states!

[Person Man]

Of course not. After he wins again the Democrats will be ruthlessly gerrymandered, and it will be even easier and more glorious than 2011 since the Democrats have shrunk themselves into a pathetic 400 county rump party.

400 counties that 70% of the country lives in? It's Republicans in places like rural Texas that will have a serious self-packing problem in the long-run if current trends hold.

Mathematically that doesn't even work. There are only 23 districts where Trump got 70% of the vote, and a large portion of those are easily unpacked in the next redistricting. Antiquated VRA preclearance nonsense is gone. There are at least 61, and probably 63, such Hillary districts.

The Rump party has close to 23 such packs in NYC and the Bay Area alone.

You're missing my point. Those 400 counties are growing and the rural counties are shrinking and have been for some time. That in and of itself is a sign of concern.

-Trump appealed to the forgotten men and women of this country. Whaddaya expect? It's not a "sign of concern"; it's a sign of Trump doing what he said he would do.

That sure sounds like a brilliant long-term strategy: run up the score in Appalachia and in the Plains and see how far that gets you.

-Trump ran up the score in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, instead. Worked very well for him.

by 1% in four states isn't running up the score. Sorry. 8% in Ohio and Iowa is impressive. I'll give you that. 3% in Arizona and even 5% in Georgia? Not so much. Maybe Trump will consolidate, but these states are leaving at the first sign of trouble, even if Ohio and Iowa aren't going anywhere. It's actually a pretty even trade.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Of course not. After he wins again the Democrats will be ruthlessly gerrymandered, and it will be even easier and more glorious than 2011 since the Democrats have shrunk themselves into a pathetic 400 county rump party.

400 counties that 70% of the country lives in? It's Republicans in places like rural Texas that will have a serious self-packing problem in the long-run if current trends hold.

Mathematically that doesn't even work. There are only 23 districts where Trump got 70% of the vote, and a large portion of those are easily unpacked in the next redistricting. Antiquated VRA preclearance nonsense is gone. There are at least 61, and probably 63, such Hillary districts.

The Rump party has close to 23 such packs in NYC and the Bay Area alone.

You're missing my point. Those 400 counties are growing and the rural counties are shrinking and have been for some time. That in and of itself is a sign of concern.

-Trump appealed to the forgotten men and women of this country. Whaddaya expect? It's not a "sign of concern"; it's a sign of Trump doing what he said he would do.

That sure sounds like a brilliant long-term strategy: run up the score in Appalachia and in the Plains and see how far that gets you.

-Trump ran up the score in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, instead. Worked very well for him.

Well you can only win on the backs of 70 point margins in shrinking counties for so long.

-Very few of those margins were 70 point.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hopefully, this is one of the last times we see a GOP dominance for a generation. If 2018, which will rebuild the state legislatures for the Dems and Gov mansions for Dems in preparation for 2020 reapportionment, and Tulsi Gabbard is the Democratic nominee and Dems prevail in winning the House and the Senate, then we will be able to stack the Crt with Kennedy's replacement and Ginnsberg as well. Despite the fact, Hilary bungled the Scalia vacancy.

A Trump midterm election and not a Hilary midterm set the Dems up for 2020.