Is Trump hurting Republicans' long time prospect?

[pppolitics]

Is Trump hurting Republicans' long time prospect?

Sure, he may be helping the Republicans win the Midwest right now, but he's reinforcing the notion Republican Party is the Old White Man's Party.

Suppose, for example, you are a fourteen years old Hispanic girl, I doubt that you would think fondly of the Republican Party right now.

[JustinTimeCuber]

correction:
14 years old, hispanic, OR a girl.
I'm only one of those three.

[pppolitics]

The GOP is going through an ideology shift just like the Democrats. That's how political parties work. Attitude shifts keep political parties relevant. Now to your false statement that the Republican Party is only for old white men, that is a huge lie. It would be as false as saying the Democrats are the anti-white people Party.

That's different.

I don't remember any Democratic Presidential candidate said that white people are "criminals" and "rapists".

[publicunofficial]

There are many young adults whose first experience as to what Republicans were like was the Bush administration, sandwiched between two decent-to-good Democratic presidents, that left a bad taste in their mouth that will be with them forever.

I can only imagine how many children's first experience of conservatism was seeing Trump on TV making fun of the retarded and talking about grabbing pussies.

[Virginiá]

Depends how Trump is viewed by 16 - 29 year olds over the next 4 years. Partisan leanings tend to develop early in adulthood and become increasingly hardened over time. So far since the mid-90s Republicans have been extraordinarily unlucky on that front. 18-29 year olds currently hate Trump, and in all likelihood in 2020 the 4 years worth of high schoolers who turned 18 during his presidency will probably have opinions similar to their slightly older, voting-age peers.

But the answer to the broader question here is, yes, unpopular presidents tend to negatively impact their party long-term, and well-liked presidents boost them. The Republican coalition is currently built around people who came of age between 1948 - 1992, where they had a remarkably successful string of popular Republican presidents (or ones that were well-received otherwise) and relatively unpopular Democratic presidents, with some exceptions on both sides. This led to a lot of long-term support. Right now, the script has flipped since the mid 90s and Republicans are on track to have alienated a massive portion of the Millennial generation and a small part of generation x.




(img/stats from 2011)

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/section-1-how-generations-have-changed/

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The GOP is going through an ideology shift just like the Democrats. That's how political parties work. Attitude shifts keep political parties relevant. Now to your false statement that the Republican Party is only for old white men, that is a huge lie. It would be as false as saying the Democrats are the anti-white people Party.

That's different.

I don't remember any Democratic Presidential candidate said that white people are "criminals" and "rapists".

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=from%3AHillaryClinton%20white&src=typd

[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.

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

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

[(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.

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

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

-I don't think there's any necessary equilibrium between the parties. Party dominance is effectively random, and there's no necessity for them to represent nearly 50% of the electorate. Remember the fourth party system, when, by random chance, except in the 1910s, the GOP was dominant on every level all the time.

Gary Johnson is a "strong leftist"

Why can't the GOP become the Party of the Elderly, like the Democrats are the Black Party?

Trump was benefited by older voters in the GOP primary, but was not dependent on them, in any case. Look at the New Hampshire exit polls.

[Wiz in Wis]

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.

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

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

I think he thinks immigration rates are still like the 90s/00s. Clearly, they are not.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

Well unless he reduces legal immigration, no wall or refugee ban will stop new immigrants from voting D, since virtually all of them are legal anyways.

-Refugees are "legal immigration". But that's only the first step.

[Wiz in Wis]

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.

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

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

-I don't think there's any necessary equilibrium between the parties. Party dominance is effectively random, and there's no necessity for them to represent nearly 50% of the electorate. Remember the fourth party system, when, by random chance, except in the 1910s, the GOP was dominant on every level all the time.

Gary Johnson is a "strong leftist"

Why can't the GOP become the Party of the Elderly, like the Democrats are the Black Party?

Trump was benefited by older voters in the GOP primary, but was not dependent on them, in any case. Look at the New Hampshire exit polls.

I think you're missing a potentially fatal flaw 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.

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

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

-I don't think there's any necessary equilibrium between the parties. Party dominance is effectively random, and there's no necessity for them to represent nearly 50% of the electorate. Remember the fourth party system, when, by random chance, except in the 1910s, the GOP was dominant on every level all the time.

Gary Johnson is a "strong leftist"

Why can't the GOP become the Party of the Elderly, like the Democrats are the Black Party?

Trump was benefited by older voters in the GOP primary, but was not dependent on them, in any case. Look at the New Hampshire exit polls.

I think you're missing a potentially fatal flaw here.

-There is no flaw. If anything, due to population aging and longer life expectancy, this is a foolproof strategy.

[publicunofficial]

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.

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

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

-I don't think there's any necessary equilibrium between the parties. Party dominance is effectively random, and there's no necessity for them to represent nearly 50% of the electorate. Remember the fourth party system, when, by random chance, except in the 1910s, the GOP was dominant on every level all the time.

Gary Johnson is a "strong leftist"

Why can't the GOP become the Party of the Elderly, like the Democrats are the Black Party?

Trump was benefited by older voters in the GOP primary, but was not dependent on them, in any case. Look at the New Hampshire exit polls.

I think you're missing a potentially fatal flaw here.

-There is no flaw. If anything, due to population aging and longer life expectancy, this is a foolproof strategy.

You know people don't automatically become conservatives when they turn 55 right?

[(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.

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

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

I think he thinks immigration rates are still like the 90s/00s. Clearly, they are not.

-True. But when Trump brings back the jobs, what do you think he thinks will happen?

[(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.

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

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

-I don't think there's any necessary equilibrium between the parties. Party dominance is effectively random, and there's no necessity for them to represent nearly 50% of the electorate. Remember the fourth party system, when, by random chance, except in the 1910s, the GOP was dominant on every level all the time.

Gary Johnson is a "strong leftist"

Why can't the GOP become the Party of the Elderly, like the Democrats are the Black Party?

Trump was benefited by older voters in the GOP primary, but was not dependent on them, in any case. Look at the New Hampshire exit polls.

I think you're missing a potentially fatal flaw here.

-There is no flaw. If anything, due to population aging and longer life expectancy, this is a foolproof strategy.

You know people don't automatically become conservatives when they turn 55 right?

-I know. I'm raising it as a hypothetical.

[Pandaguineapig]

Long-term doom is often overstated and rarely comes to fruition (for example the line that democrats would dominate American politics for 40 years as many thought in 2008) parties change and adapt to issues and events to remain in power. The republicans will be in the driver's seat for the short term with control of state and local politics as well as the democrats moving to the left at break-neck speed. Eventually there will be a backlash and democrats will regain power nothing is permanent in politics

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Except the idea that people become much more Republican as they age isn't really true. Maybe among whites due to a nostalgia for a whiter America that there used to be, but that's about it. In fact, elder minorities are more Democratic than younger ones, though not by much.

-I know. I'm raising it as a hypothetical.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Long-term doom is often overstated and rarely comes to fruition (for example the line that democrats would dominate American politics for 40 years as many thought in 2008) parties change and adapt to issues and events to remain in power. The republicans will be in the driver's seat for the short term with control of state and local politics as well as the democrats moving to the left at break-neck speed. Eventually there will be a backlash and democrats will regain power nothing is permanent in politics

-The Democrats lost the House in 1994 and 2010 because of their support for the individual mandate. If they were smart, they would have learned the art of 40-year dominance from Sam Rayburn.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I agree with Virginia for the most part. I am almost certain he damages the GOP long-term in the Southwest and in the New South, if this week is any indication. It might take a decade, but I will not at all be surprised if TX and AZ eventually go the way of California and if Democrats are eventually able to break through in states like NC and GA. The Midwest is more iffy because they're less likely to be turned off by the wall/refugee nonsense than those to their South and are much less likely to be turned off by the general nativist and white nationalistic sentiments than the aforementioned states. But on the whole, definitely worse off, because partisan leanings are pretty cemented for life by the time you reach mid-20's, and Gen Y and Z will form a majority within the next decade alone. It'll be much worse if the economy goes through a recession (as is projected) and if Trump isn't able to recover from it.

-You are thinking of Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. Trump does damage the GOP's short-term prospects in Georgia and Arizona; the long-term consequences are so far ambiguous.

[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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I agree with Virginia for the most part. I am almost certain he damages the GOP long-term in the Southwest and in the New South, if this week is any indication. It might take a decade, but I will not at all be surprised if TX and AZ eventually go the way of California and if Democrats are eventually able to break through in states like NC and GA. The Midwest is more iffy because they're less likely to be turned off by the wall/refugee nonsense than those to their South and are much less likely to be turned off by the general nativist and white nationalistic sentiments than the aforementioned states. But on the whole, definitely worse off, because partisan leanings are pretty cemented for life by the time you reach mid-20's, and Gen Y and Z will form a majority within the next decade alone. It'll be much worse if the economy goes through a recession (as is projected) and if Trump isn't able to recover from it.

-You are thinking of Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. Trump does damage the GOP's short-term prospects in Georgia and Arizona; the long-term consequences are so far ambiguous.

No, I'm thinking of Pete Wilson and the 1994 California midterms

-The same midterms when the GOP gained three House seats in CA while losing none?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I agree with Virginia for the most part. I am almost certain he damages the GOP long-term in the Southwest and in the New South, if this week is any indication. It might take a decade, but I will not at all be surprised if TX and AZ eventually go the way of California and if Democrats are eventually able to break through in states like NC and GA. The Midwest is more iffy because they're less likely to be turned off by the wall/refugee nonsense than those to their South and are much less likely to be turned off by the general nativist and white nationalistic sentiments than the aforementioned states. But on the whole, definitely worse off, because partisan leanings are pretty cemented for life by the time you reach mid-20's, and Gen Y and Z will form a majority within the next decade alone. It'll be much worse if the economy goes through a recession (as is projected) and if Trump isn't able to recover from it.

-You are thinking of Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. Trump does damage the GOP's short-term prospects in Georgia and Arizona; the long-term consequences are so far ambiguous.

No, I'm thinking of Pete Wilson and the 1994 California midterms

-The same midterms when the GOP gained three House seats in CA while losing none?

The same midterm that ended up being a Pyrrhic victory in retrospect.

-No; it was just a victory. The real bloodbath for the GOP in California was 1992, when Bush lost such treasured GOP strongholds as San Diego and Ventura counties to Crooked Bill.

The same thing occurred simultaneously in Vermont and New Jersey. New Jersey was far more Republican than California in 1988, and Vermont was similarly Republican as California in 1988.

[(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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I agree with Virginia for the most part. I am almost certain he damages the GOP long-term in the Southwest and in the New South, if this week is any indication. It might take a decade, but I will not at all be surprised if TX and AZ eventually go the way of California and if Democrats are eventually able to break through in states like NC and GA. The Midwest is more iffy because they're less likely to be turned off by the wall/refugee nonsense than those to their South and are much less likely to be turned off by the general nativist and white nationalistic sentiments than the aforementioned states. But on the whole, definitely worse off, because partisan leanings are pretty cemented for life by the time you reach mid-20's, and Gen Y and Z will form a majority within the next decade alone. It'll be much worse if the economy goes through a recession (as is projected) and if Trump isn't able to recover from it.

-You are thinking of Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. Trump does damage the GOP's short-term prospects in Georgia and Arizona; the long-term consequences are so far ambiguous.

No, I'm thinking of Pete Wilson and the 1994 California midterms

-The same midterms when the GOP gained three House seats in CA while losing none?

The same midterm that ended up being a Pyrrhic victory in retrospect.

-No; it was just a victory. The real bloodbath for the GOP in California was 1992, when Bush lost such treasured GOP strongholds as San Diego and Ventura counties to Crooked Bill.

The same thing occurred simultaneously in Vermont and New Jersey. New Jersey was far more Republican than California in 1988, and Vermont was similarly Republican as California in 1988.

I don't think it's a coincidence that California hispanics swung heavily D from that point forward, and as they've become a plurality in the state, their numbers haven't fallen back down to earth yet. Urban hispanics in Cali vote almost as D as blacks. That should be alarming for the GOP on a long-term scale.

-They swung heavily D on the state level. And even there, not necessarily on the gubernatorial level. Schwarzenegger won the most Hispanic county in California solidly in 2003. Where he really had trouble was Silicon Valley. Hispanics did not swing at all on the Federal level; in fact, they were more Democratic in earlier decades. Michael Dukakis 1988 got the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as did Barack Obama in 2012.

Urban Whites in Cali vote as D as Texan Hispanics. So?