The Reason Dems are certainly NOT dead going forward....

[SCNCmod]

Arizona and Georgia make much more sense since both were both much closer than Texas and are home to legitimately competitive races in 2018 whereas Texas' Senate race is a long-shot, to say the least.

I agree... But the one thing about Texas... I think they have by far the largest % of eligible Latino voters  that are not registered to vote.  Because Texas is already a Minority-Majority state... but a much lower % of minorities are registered to vote (compared to % of Whites registered to vote).  

2016 Texas Demos:
White: 42%
Latino: 41%
Black: 11%
Other: 6%


****To illustrate the starkness of how Texas is changing: Of Texans born in 2011...70% were minority (meaning at least 1 parent was not white).. This is probably slightly higher for 2016.

How much of those minority numbers are from under 18 year olds though.  Whites might still be a majority of the over 18 population.

You are correct... Many of the latino in Texas are under 18 (but this is also why the voting demos are changing so rapidly... as so many turn 18 each year.)

I think the stats I saw regarding the 18+ Texas Demographics are:
White.... 42% of total population (53% of population over 18 yrs old)
Minority.... 58% of total population (47% of population over 18 yrs old)

....But eligible whites have much high registration than eligible minorities... If they had the same % of registered eligible voters... Texas would already be a blue state.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Dems are certainly not dead going forward; we lost two elections in a row; 2014 and 2016 just like the GOP did in 2006 and 2008.

There is plenty of time to win Congress back and grab a bunch of term limited GOP govs in 2018 just in time for the 2020 reapportionment.

[SCNCmod]

That 47% minority number, is that just general population or eligible voters?  If it's eligible voters then Dems should literally camp out in Texas and register people ASAP.

The General population break down is: 42% White ... 58% Minority

The Eligible Voter break down is: 53% White ... 47% Minority

*The reason for this discrepancy is because the Under 18 popular is very heavily Minority (meaning at least 1 parent is not white) ... ie- the stat that 70% of 1 year olds in Texas are non-white.

[jojoju1998]

I feel like no party has been able to craft a truly national Coalition since FDR did in 1932. Reagan had his Coalition in 1980, but that was supplanted somewhat by the Democrats forming their Coalition with Minorities.

We would need a huge economic depression.....

[หมูเด้ง]

I feel like no party has been able to craft a truly national Coalition since FDR did in 1932. Reagan had his Coalition in 1980, but that was supplanted somewhat by the Democrats forming their Coalition with Minorities.

We would need a huge economic depression.....

I agree with this. The New Deal coalition was formidable and large parts of it still exist today.

Reagan's coalition was flimsy and terrible for long-term gains

I always like to say that half of old Republicans are Democrats and half of old Democrats were Republicans.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

That 47% minority number, is that just general population or eligible voters?  If it's eligible voters then Dems should literally camp out in Texas and register people ASAP.

The General population break down is: 42% White ... 58% Minority

The Eligible Voter break down is: 53% White ... 47% Minority

*The reason for this discrepancy is because the Under 18 popular is very heavily Minority (meaning at least 1 parent is not white) ... ie- the stat that 70% of 1 year olds in Texas are non-white.

OK thanks, I wasn't sure if the 47% minority number included illegal aliens that were not eligible to vote.  If Texas minorities are 47% of the eligible voting population then it's ridiculous that Democrats aren't focusing more on Texas.

If the wall and tariff go through, the potential is very much there for an inverse MA-Sen 2010 upset to happen. Small chance to be sure, but crazier stuff has happened.

Yes!  And if that stuff happens, then this is California 2.0 on a national level.  After the GOP governor pissed off hispanics there, the state has basically never been competitive.  Trump's about to do this on a national level.  He's trying to much to follow white nationalist movements of other countries... but his problem is that it won't work here because this isn't an overwhelmingly white country.

-No; after the 1992 GOP bloodbath in Illinois, Vermont, New Jersey, and California, not one of these states has basically ever been competitive.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The alt-right hates Texas.  Some of them want to have the state secede and deport the "cuckservatives" there.

[SCNCmod]

That 47% minority number, is that just general population or eligible voters?  If it's eligible voters then Dems should literally camp out in Texas and register people ASAP.

The General population break down is: 42% White ... 58% Minority

The Eligible Voter break down is: 53% White ... 47% Minority

*The reason for this discrepancy is because the Under 18 popular is very heavily Minority (meaning at least 1 parent is not white) ... ie- the stat that 70% of 1 year olds in Texas are non-white.

OK thanks, I wasn't sure if the 47% minority number included illegal aliens that were not eligible to vote.  If Texas minorities are 47% of the eligible voting population then it's ridiculous that Democrats aren't focusing more on Texas.

According to TX exit polls... Trump got 69% of the White vote (which made up 58%) ... and Hillary only got 66% of the minority Vote (which made up 42%).  But where Dems really lost... was they only got 61% of the Latino vote in TX.  Same in FL & AZ where Dems only got 62% of the Latino's that voted

(in fact if Dems got 66% in FL & AZ... Hillary would be President)... I can't help but think having a latino on the ticket (vs a VP who Speaks Spanish) would've got 66% ... rather than just 62%

[jojoju1998]

I feel like no party has been able to craft a truly national Coalition since FDR did in 1932. Reagan had his Coalition in 1980, but that was supplanted somewhat by the Democrats forming their Coalition with Minorities.

We would need a huge economic depression.....

I agree with this. The New Deal coalition was formidable and large parts of it still exist today.

Reagan's coalition was flimsy and terrible for long-term gains

Which is why I think this talk about Democrats going dead is kind of getting stale. Once we have a massive crisis, and a landslide election, then we can talk.

[GoTfan]

I feel like no party has been able to craft a truly national Coalition since FDR did in 1932. Reagan had his Coalition in 1980, but that was supplanted somewhat by the Democrats forming their Coalition with Minorities.

We would need a huge economic depression.....

I agree with this. The New Deal coalition was formidable and large parts of it still exist today.

Reagan's coalition was flimsy and terrible for long-term gains

Which is why I think this talk about Democrats going dead is kind of getting stale. Once we have a massive crisis, and a landslide election, then we can talk.

But didn't the New Deal Coalition sort of implode in '68 when they split between Humphrey, McCarthy and Kennedy?

[หมูเด้ง]

I feel like no party has been able to craft a truly national Coalition since FDR did in 1932. Reagan had his Coalition in 1980, but that was supplanted somewhat by the Democrats forming their Coalition with Minorities.

We would need a huge economic depression.....

I agree with this. The New Deal coalition was formidable and large parts of it still exist today.

Reagan's coalition was flimsy and terrible for long-term gains

Which is why I think this talk about Democrats going dead is kind of getting stale. Once we have a massive crisis, and a landslide election, then we can talk.

Its more complicated than that. Who gets blamed and who wins thereafter.There is already a new crisis brewing.

[Virginiá]

But didn't the New Deal Coalition sort of implode in '68 when they split between Humphrey, McCarthy and Kennedy?

Honestly it seemed like the traditional coalition was already unraveling by 1960, when various Southern states began consistently peeling off (although that actually happened even earlier in 1948 too but the deep south did hold during the 50s).

But personally I don't like evaluating coalitions purely based on presidential politics. The New Deal coalition more or less held in other respects until the Gingrich era.

[หมูเด้ง]

But didn't the New Deal Coalition sort of implode in '68 when they split between Humphrey, McCarthy and Kennedy?

Honestly it seemed like the traditional coalition was already unraveling by 1960, when various Southern states began consistently peeling off (although that actually happened even earlier in 1948 too but the deep south did hold during the 50s).

But personally I don't like evaluating coalitions purely based on presidential politics. The New Deal coalition more or less held in other respects until the Gingrich era.

The entire idea of a New Deal Coalition is weird. There were only really a couple of years in the 30s or 60s where actually policy was done.

[JA]

But didn't the New Deal Coalition sort of implode in '68 when they split between Humphrey, McCarthy and Kennedy?

Honestly it seemed like the traditional coalition was already unraveling by 1960, when various Southern states began consistently peeling off (although that actually happened even earlier in 1948 too but the deep south did hold during the 50s).

But personally I don't like evaluating coalitions purely based on presidential politics. The New Deal coalition more or less held in other respects until the Gingrich era.

The entire idea of a New Deal Coalition is weird. There were only really a couple of years in the 30s or 60s where actually policy was done.

That's because of the Conservative Coalition of conservative, mostly Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans obstructed the attempts at liberal progress by Northern, liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans. The New Deal Coalition existed solely because of the historic association of one's culture with one's party affiliation, which slowed the emergence of the parties being divided more by ideology than identity. Eventually the South began to lose the taboo of voting Republican, which was very gradual.

I remember in 2004 going with my paternal grandma and great grandma (both from rural Southern Georgia) and voting for John Kerry while my dad voted for Bush. In 2016, my grandma supported Ted Cruz, then Trump.

[หมูเด้ง]

But didn't the New Deal Coalition sort of implode in '68 when they split between Humphrey, McCarthy and Kennedy?

Honestly it seemed like the traditional coalition was already unraveling by 1960, when various Southern states began consistently peeling off (although that actually happened even earlier in 1948 too but the deep south did hold during the 50s).

But personally I don't like evaluating coalitions purely based on presidential politics. The New Deal coalition more or less held in other respects until the Gingrich era.

The entire idea of a New Deal Coalition is weird. There were only really a couple of years in the 30s or 60s where actually policy was done.

That's because of the Conservative Coalition of conservative, mostly Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans obstructed the attempts at liberal progress by Northern, liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans. The New Deal Coalition existed solely because of the historic association of one's culture with one's party affiliation, which slowed the emergence of the parties being divided more by ideology than identity. Eventually the South began to lose the taboo of voting Republican, which was very gradual.

I remember in 2004 going with my paternal grandma and great grandma (both from rural Southern Georgia) and voting for John Kerry while my dad voted for Bush. In 2016, my grandma supported Ted Cruz, then Trump.

That's why the name is so misleading. I wonder if Democrats would have some power if a lot of the Conservative Coalition was still in place or if the Republicans would have majorities back then if all but 3 conservative Democrats were Republicans.

[RINO Tom]

The short-term problem for Democrats is if they fail to sufficiently mobilize minorities, millennials, and urban/suburban voters to actually vote during Presidential, midterm, and local elections. It's quite obvious that, unless the Democrats compromise the growing part of the base, they won't make significant inroads into rural communities anymore. The Democratic Party is more consistently the party of globalization, cosmopolitanism, and multiculturalism than it is anything else. This simply doesn't and won't appeal to rural, white voters who feel left behind by globalization (and, honestly, they have been).

Democrats should focus on turning out their base in every state, but especially establishing solid infrastructure in the current and upcoming minority-majority states and those that have benefited from globalization (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (NYC), North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington). At our current rate of automation and productivity, along with the decreasing demand for resources and goods from small and rural communities, there are simply too many people living in these economically stagnant or declining areas. Anyone pretending they can rescue them without harming the global economy and big cities is lying to them and giving them false hope in exchange for votes.

Why would a company like Amazon, Microsoft, IB, Ford, or any other company open a branch or facility in some rural town in Kentucky? It's simply not worth it. Employers go where the skilled, educated employees are concentrated, which attracts more skilled, educated workers. Cities are where this occurs. Some small towns may get lucky by being transformed into a tourist area because they have something unique to offer, but that's a rare minority. I know I'm going to take some serious heat for this post, but I'm not saying any of this is morally right. Only that this is what's happening and to reverse it would require sacrificing many of the benefits of globalization - benefits which help people worldwide, including in America, have access to work and more affordable products.

1) Maybe their voters (debatable), but it's pretty obvious that their politicians and especially their progressive base are NOT down with globalization.  Barely any Senate Democrats voted with the GOP to give Obama fast-track authority with TPP, the DNC was drowned out with chants of shooting it down and as soon as Trump nixed it, Twitter was flooded with Democratic politicians claiming that Trump is taking credit for their battle and that THEY killed TPP, INCLUDING the supposed Wall Street shill, Chuck Schumer.

2) Very serious question: are inner-city Black people with a high school education "cosmopolitan"?  Are Hispanic voters in rural Texas "cosmopolitan"?  Are poor, 20-somethings in Portland who work at Starbucks "cosmopolitan"?  Or are you simply talking about a minority of White, semi-affluent liberals as if they make up the majority of your party?

[mgop]

dems are most certanly dead. only way people from 30 great trump states will ever vote for uncivilized baby-killers would be if trump dont fulfill his campaign promises.