Is Trump hurting Republicans' long time prospect?

[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.

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.

Actually, quite a few were.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2016&fips=42&f=0&off=0&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2016&fips=12&f=0&off=0&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2016&fips=55&f=0&off=0&elect=0

That's a LOT of dark blue...

even here...
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2016&fips=8&f=0&off=0&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2016&fips=41&f=0&off=0&elect=0

[Person Man]

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.

Hillary probably didn't win "because of SCOTUS" not because a lot of conservatives wanted "a pro-lifer" but that Democrats were so unpopular downballot, she would have been totally ineffective and SCOTUS might not of happen (what if Collins wouldn't budge, but Casey and Donneley did?). She would of had a 1 seat majority and would of suffered a massive wave against her in 2018. The GOP could of have a 61 senate seats, the Presidency, 250 House seats, and 37 Governorships by 2020.

[Roronoa D. Law]

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.

Agreed the death of the Republican party isn't driven by age but by the Urban-Rural divide becoming partisan.

[LONG LIVE KING DONALD I]

Trump actually did better than expected with the youth vote in certain key states according to CNN exit polls.

Wisconsin: he won 18-24 year olds 45-43 points.

Minnesota: he won 18-24 year olds 48-43 (the only other age group that voted for Trump was the 50-64 demographic).

Pennsylvania: he lost 18-24 year olds 50-45, but this was noticeably better than how he performed among 25-29 year olds (lost 53-40) and 30-39 year olds (lost 54-40).

Given that people generally become more conservative and not less as they grow up I'd say he's in a pretty good spot in the rust belt.

All he has to do in 2020 is hold Florida and flip Minnesota and he can afford to lose NC, Arizona, and Georgia.

[RINO Tom]

Uh, Republicans represent tons of non-rural areas in Congress.  There's a whole lot of room between inner city and rural, and Republicans currently hold most of it.

[RINO Tom]

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.

And I'll need a citation for that, as well.  There's zero reason to believe that young White Republicans are less well off than young White Democrats.

[LONG LIVE KING DONALD I]

Trump actually did better than expected with the youth vote in certain key states according to CNN exit polls.

Wisconsin: he won 18-24 year olds 45-43 points.

Minnesota: he won 18-24 year olds 48-43 (the only other age group that voted for Trump was the 50-64 demographic).

Pennsylvania: he lost 18-24 year olds 50-45, but this was noticeably better than how he performed among 25-29 year olds (lost 53-40) and 30-39 year olds (lost 54-40).

Given that people generally become more conservative and not less as they grow up I'd say he's in a pretty good spot in the rust belt.

All he has to do in 2020 is hold Florida and flip Minnesota and he can afford to lose NC, Arizona, and Georgia.

The problem is that Michigan would be one of the first to flip back to Dems if they can juice up black turnout. And your statement about people becoming more conservative with age is questionable at best, which was talked about earlier. Also, while the 18-24 year old vote in WI, MN and OH aren't good for D's long-term, that's not where their coalition will likely even be. The youth vote in Texas, FL, GA, NC and AZ is absurdly D-heavy, and that's much more Democratic than any of the Midwestern youth vote is Republican in any of those states.

It's not really questionable. Conservative candidates have pretty much always done better with the elderly and vice versa with the youth and liberals.

The trends are not there YET for democrats to take Texas in 2020 barring a 1980 landslide.

But ultimately it will come down to Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida in 2020.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems will flip WI, MI and Pa back in 2020, cause Gary Peters will be running in 2020. And Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen will hold VA and NH. 

[RINO Tom]

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.

And I'll need a citation for that, as well.  There's zero reason to believe that young White Republicans are less well off than young White Democrats.

I don't know where I said that in here? I was making the point that white liberals are not a dying breed anymore than white conservatives are. They're (both groups) only shrinking as an overall percentage of the population.

You seemed to imply White yuppies (a term associated with a White collar job) made up a significantly higher percent of millennial liberals than millennial conservatives.

[politics_king]

I can tell you that this is the GOP's last chance on enacting their agenda. If they can get 8 years with Trump it'll be their last grasp at power. I feel though the anti-Trump movement will get bigger and big money is going to flush in to get Trump out of office. The first week of Trump has been sad to say the least.

[LONG LIVE KING DONALD I]

I can tell you that this is the GOP's last chance on enacting their agenda. If they can get 8 years with Trump it'll be their last grasp at power. I feel though the anti-Trump movement will get bigger and big money is going to flush in to get Trump out of office. The first week of Trump has been sad to say the least.

4 days in he already threatened martial law in Chicago.

Republicans will win every election for the rest of our lives. Bet on it.

[(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.

And I'll need a citation for that, as well.  There's zero reason to believe that young White Republicans are less well off than young White Democrats.

I don't know where I said that in here? I was making the point that white liberals are not a dying breed anymore than white conservatives are. They're (both groups) only shrinking as an overall percentage of the population.

-You might be right, but [citation needed], still.

[Virginiá]

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.

I think that is relative to the time period. Maybe now it's somewhat more split (even if Democrats hold a persistent party ID advantage by small amounts), but in terms of political support it's often not balanced at all and at times wildly out of balance as the 20th century showed. However, even small imbalances can produce a lasting advantage for one party. For instance, if the vote is a tie right now, or even if Republicans lose the PV somewhat, they will still get a House majority. Evidently this now applies bigly to the electoral college, and the Senate is in some ways becoming a natural gerrymander for them.

But I would say that the nature of American politics is a constant push-pull and eventually things balance out for a little bit, but there are sometimes long periods of time where one party has enough support to guarantee reliable wins - such as Democrats in 1932 - 1994 and Republicans now in 1994 - now (at least besides the presidency)

-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.

That's an awfully simplistic view for a complex situation, imo. Healthcare policy could have "shocked" their majorities but it certainly wasn't the cause of their demise. Those trends were in motion long before 1994. I don't think their majorities in 2009 were at all sustainable, either. Democrats were fresh off of 2 waves in a row. It wasn't a realignment - the GOP still had the support to claim a reliable majority, its just enough voters were temporarily pissed off at them to put Democrats in charge. I'm pretty sure that regardless of what Obama/Democrats did, they were going to lose Congress again soon after 2009. The only part they could have mitigated was the size of those losses, which ideally should not have been as bad as it was had they played their right cards. Obama was a good fit for the GOP in this particular situation as he didn't give his party's election prospects nearly enough thought in regards to policy if you ask me, which is strategically foolish.

[Person Man]

Trump actually did better than expected with the youth vote in certain key states according to CNN exit polls.

Wisconsin: he won 18-24 year olds 45-43 points.

Minnesota: he won 18-24 year olds 48-43 (the only other age group that voted for Trump was the 50-64 demographic).

Pennsylvania: he lost 18-24 year olds 50-45, but this was noticeably better than how he performed among 25-29 year olds (lost 53-40) and 30-39 year olds (lost 54-40).

Given that people generally become more conservative and not less as they grow up I'd say he's in a pretty good spot in the rust belt.

All he has to do in 2020 is hold Florida and flip Minnesota and he can afford to lose NC, Arizona, and Georgia.

The problem is that Michigan would be one of the first to flip back to Dems if they can juice up black turnout. And your statement about people becoming more conservative with age is questionable at best, which was talked about earlier. Also, while the 18-24 year old vote in WI, MN and OH aren't good for D's long-term, that's not where their coalition will likely even be. The youth vote in Texas, FL, GA, NC and AZ is absurdly D-heavy, and that's much more Democratic than any of the Midwestern youth vote is Republican in any of those states.

It's not really questionable. Conservative candidates have pretty much always done better with the elderly and vice versa with the youth and liberals.

The trends are not there YET for democrats to take Texas in 2020 barring a 1980 landslide.

But ultimately it will come down to Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida in 2020.

Not in the 80s. That's why Reagan also was a disaster in the midterms.

[Person Man]

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.

I think that is relative to the time period. Maybe now it's somewhat more split (even if Democrats hold a persistent party ID advantage by small amounts), but in terms of political support it's often not balanced at all and at times wildly out of balance as the 20th century showed. However, even small imbalances can produce a lasting advantage for one party. For instance, if the vote is a tie right now, or even if Republicans lose the PV somewhat, they will still get a House majority. Evidently this now applies bigly to the electoral college, and the Senate is in some ways becoming a natural gerrymander for them.

But I would say that the nature of American politics is a constant push-pull and eventually things balance out for a little bit, but there are sometimes long periods of time where one party has enough support to guarantee reliable wins - such as Democrats in 1932 - 1994 and Republicans now in 1994 - now (at least besides the presidency)

-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.

That's an awfully simplistic view for a complex situation, imo. Healthcare policy could have "shocked" their majorities but it certainly wasn't the cause of their demise. Those trends were in motion long before 1994. I don't think their majorities in 2009 were at all sustainable, either. Democrats were fresh off of 2 waves in a row. It wasn't a realignment - the GOP still had the support to claim a reliable majority, its just enough voters were temporarily pissed off at them to put Democrats in charge. I'm pretty sure that regardless of what Obama/Democrats did, they were going to lose Congress again soon after 2009. The only part they could have mitigated was the size of those losses, which ideally should not have been as bad as it was had they played their right cards. Obama was a good fit for the GOP in this particular situation as he didn't give his party's election prospects nearly enough thought in regards to policy if you ask me, which is strategically foolish.

Pretty much two things
- Getting nothing done in order to win elections and then not doing anything is pointless.
- When people are ready to listen to Democrats, they do well, their hang time is then determined by how bad of shape we are in.

Beyond that, it will be interesting to see what an actual alignment looks like though it has made younger people in sunbelt and reliably liberal states liberal though it seems there were always relatively conservative younger people in the rest belt. That is probably because all the more liberal people move away while conservative ones stay at home where there are jobs in industries that rely on the gifts of the Republican Party to enhance profits. Trump was able to seal the deal by offering even larger gifts to them.

[Virginiá]

- Getting nothing done in order to win elections and then not doing anything is pointless.

That's the extreme end of that behavior, which I don't recommend either. An incumbent president should find a middle ground for their party, and I don't believe Obama did that. Policy decisions can have significant effects on the party's ability to hold power (as PPACA showed us), and sometimes it isn't wise to sacrifice the ability to govern or really do anything of substance just for a short-term policy win, which in PPACA's case turned out to be quite flawed, despised and now on the verge of decimation.

[RINO Tom]

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.

And I'll need a citation for that, as well.  There's zero reason to believe that young White Republicans are less well off than young White Democrats.

I don't know where I said that in here? I was making the point that white liberals are not a dying breed anymore than white conservatives are. They're (both groups) only shrinking as an overall percentage of the population.

You seemed to imply White yuppies (a term associated with a White collar job) made up a significantly higher percent of millennial liberals than millennial conservatives.

extremely ineloquent post that both misstates prior posts and is also irrelevant to them at the same time.  That white liberals and white conservatives are both shrinking percentages of the population is irrelevant to whether white yuppies make up a higher relative percentage of millennial liberals or millennial conservatives.  try again.

He said yuppie millenials are the bulk of our generation's White liberals, and saying that with no reference to the makeup of White millenial conservatives certainly draws a contrast and implies they form a more significant part of the White millenial Democratic Party than they do the White millenial GOP .... really not that crazy of a thing to assume.

[The_Doctor]

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.

You do understand that 3/4 of Mexican Americans are legal native born citizens right and are among the fastest growing demographics while white voters are set to decrease in 2024? And that the Great Migration from 1965-2005 is irreversible? Yes?

Your palpable fear of the future of minority majority America is entertaining.

[The_Doctor]

I'm going to argue that the Republican Party needs to ditch both Trumpism and Reaganism to succeed in the future. Ditch both extremes, trying to operate in the 1960s and 1980s paradigms is not really helpful when we have automation coming down the line, self-driving cars, we have smart phones, global warming, and we have a myriad of issues that simply didn't exist in 1965 or 1981.

Trump very much continues the branding of the GOP as a past-looking party and solves none of the major problems facing it. It's not just simply a matter of political popularity; the ideology itself has to make sense and to work. Trump's attempts to rework the GOP as a working class white party that pushes nativism is not necessarily a winner among urban areas or minorities. By cutting off free trade's benefits while not helping the population gain necessary skills to succeed in the future (e.g, college tuition help, etc) Trump is setting the GOP up for failure down the road. That's just one example of a Trump policy not working out.

Reagan is remembered as a successful president because supply side economics coupled with a strong anti-inflationary bent by the Fed allowed the economic boom of the 1980s and then the deregulation of the 1980s helped along the 1990s economy, which more or less was already set for a boom by the time Clinton took office as President. W. is remembered as less successful because 2008 marked the end of successfully deregulating the economy and untangling the unnecessary regulations Democrats had put on the economy from the 1930s to the 1970s.

I do think there is a route for a moderate - conservative Bill Clinton technocratic GOP to be effective down the road, but it's going to require the GOP to adapt without a Southern evangelical base and to free itself up to appeal to major urban areas that have long been ruled by liberals without an effective opposition. I think that this avenue hasn't simply been explored by the GOP because of its current southern evangelical base and cultural conservatism holding it back from making a pitch to voters who would be otherwise annoyed by liberal Democratic hegemonies in the major cities.

[Nyvin]

Trump actually did better than expected with the youth vote in certain key states according to CNN exit polls.

Wisconsin: he won 18-24 year olds 45-43 points.

Minnesota: he won 18-24 year olds 48-43 (the only other age group that voted for Trump was the 50-64 demographic).

Pennsylvania: he lost 18-24 year olds 50-45, but this was noticeably better than how he performed among 25-29 year olds (lost 53-40) and 30-39 year olds (lost 54-40).

Given that people generally become more conservative and not less as they grow up I'd say he's in a pretty good spot in the rust belt.

All he has to do in 2020 is hold Florida and flip Minnesota and he can afford to lose NC, Arizona, and Georgia.

People stop changing their political beliefs sometime in their late twenties to early thirties.   Most of the change occurs between the ages of 16 and 25.    Which way it changes depends on the social/economic environment and is not constant.

It's a myth that people get more conservative or liberal as they age...the current events around them have less and less impact on their beliefs as they age and that's about all that happens.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The die was already cast on this.  Trump is just speeding it along.  I'm actually surprised at the level of anger progressives have towards Trump.  He's actually less atrocious than the average conservative Republican.  Republican policies were hurting their long term prospects by alienating the fastest growing segments of this country.  This trend accelerated under George W. Bush's disastrous presidency.  Trump probably hurt it more by lambasting latinos though.  But it was already going to happen anyways.  If anything, oddly, Trump seems to be more gay friendly than the typical Republican... but I don't really see how that helps him as the larger vote share/growth is going to be minority voters in 2020.

-John. McSame 2008. Got. A. Larger. Share. Of. The. Hispanic. Vote. Than. Bush 1988. George W. Bush's disastrous presidency was apparently a wild success.

Republicans are boosting their long-term prospects by supporting the revision of immigration of groups hostile to their long-term prospects. Simple as that. Fewer minorities=fewer worries for the GOP.

[(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.

You do understand that 3/4 of Mexican Americans are legal native born citizens right and are among the fastest growing demographics while white voters are set to decrease in 2024? And that the Great Migration from 1965-2005 is irreversible? Yes?

Your palpable fear of the future of minority majority America is entertaining.

-If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would have moved there. No thanks.

The migration from 1965-2005 may not be reversible. The migrations after 2016 can be prevented.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The die was already cast on this.  Trump is just speeding it along.  I'm actually surprised at the level of anger progressives have towards Trump.  He's actually less atrocious than the average conservative Republican.  Republican policies were hurting their long term prospects by alienating the fastest growing segments of this country.  This trend accelerated under George W. Bush's disastrous presidency.  Trump probably hurt it more by lambasting latinos though.  But it was already going to happen anyways.  If anything, oddly, Trump seems to be more gay friendly than the typical Republican... but I don't really see how that helps him as the larger vote share/growth is going to be minority voters in 2020.

-John. McSame 2008. Got. A. Larger. Share. Of. The. Hispanic. Vote. Than. Bush 1988. George W. Bush's disastrous presidency was apparently a wild success.

Republicans are boosting their long-term prospects by supporting the revision of immigration of groups hostile to their long-term prospects. Simple as that. Fewer minorities=fewer worries for the GOP.

You seem to think that the rising hispanic vote is based upon mass immigration... it's not... it's based on those (in this country now legally) under 18 growing older... and their higher than average birth rates...  the die is already cast on this too.

-By the same partially flawed logic, Mormons and the present residents of the Great Plains are the genetic future of White American politics.

[Nyvin]

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.

You do understand that 3/4 of Mexican Americans are legal native born citizens right and are among the fastest growing demographics while white voters are set to decrease in 2024? And that the Great Migration from 1965-2005 is irreversible? Yes?

Your palpable fear of the future of minority majority America is entertaining.

-If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would have moved there. No thanks.

The migration from 1965-2005 may not be reversible. The migrations after 2016 can be prevented.

There is currently no net gain of migration from Mexico to the US....their youth bulge is mostly over.

https://populationpyramid.net/mexico/2016/

[The_Doctor]

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.

You do understand that 3/4 of Mexican Americans are legal native born citizens right and are among the fastest growing demographics while white voters are set to decrease in 2024? And that the Great Migration from 1965-2005 is irreversible? Yes?

Your palpable fear of the future of minority majority America is entertaining.

-If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would have moved there. No thanks.

The migration from 1965-2005 may not be reversible. The migrations after 2016 can be prevented.

You know, the most anthropologically interesting thing about your comment is that you're openly referring to "Mexican" as a very thinly veiled synonym for "brown voter" who is distinct from your values and interests, even if they are as American as you are. You don't want them because they're minorities, not that they're immigrants, and you know fully well that most of the immigrants since 1965 have been predominantly minority.

But let's be honest. You don't know the numbers, and if you did, you would know that DACA kids are a minuscule fraction of the potential electorate. You would know that the post-2016 immigration would be a fraction, a tiny, tiny fraction of the electorate compared to the vast tens of millions of voters who are either immigrants or the children of post-1965 immigrants. So even stopping it wouldn't really turn the tide, especially as white deaths are increasingly outpacing white births.

I do know the facts, and I do know the sums and figures, so let's be clear. Your white America is going to be subsumed in a multicultural multihued America that is going to be here by the 2030s, if not sooner. That is not really in question any longer. The longest you can hold out is till 2036 and the numbers are pretty brutally clear that at some point, if the Democrats maintain a 80-20 edge among the minority vote, even routinely losing the white vote by landslides is going to still win them an election.

Lastly, your white America isn't as monolithic as you think, not in the slightest. Anywhere between 35 and 43% of white voters vote Democratic in any election, from federal to state. Combined with minority America routinely awarding 70-80% of their votes to the Democrats, this adds up to the GOP being really dependent on pulling inside straights. and eking out 50-51% wins. Your vision of America succeeding is dependent on white voters going GOP by 70-80% and acting as a monolithic bloc.

You're essentially pulling numbers out of your behind and hoping they add up, when they don't.