Serious Q for Republicans

[hopper]

Also Hispanics are overwhelmingly concentrated in states like Texas, California and New York that are not currently competitive so they have less impact on the election than thought because they are inefficiently located for the Electoral College.

Well Arizona as well.

[Virginiá]

So far, death patterns have actually been helping the GOP due to the death of the New Deal Democrats.

People who grew up under FDR have long since passed or become such a small portion of the population that its irrelevant. That happened over a decade ago. Over the past decade the people who have been increasingly dying off in large numbers if the Silent generation - people who grew up mostly under Truman and Eisenhower, who have all tended to skew more Republican. Within 5 - 8 years all of the remaining silent gen. will be over 80 years old, which would be a very small portion of the electorate.

Point is, since 2007-ish, the death rates have increasingly and very disproportionately affected Republicans due to the heavy GOP leanings of the silent generation. Because the GOP relies heavily on Boomers and the older portion of Gen. X, old voters "aging" out of the electorate will disproportionately affect the GOP for the next 20 - 25 years at least.

-If Romney won 50% of Latinos with no gains with non-college Whites, he would still have lost in the electoral college. Think!

It's more about long-term viability. Consistently scoring these kinds of numbers among Hispanics is going to eventually bring down states like TX, AZ and put states like NV/CO permanently off the map. Florida may also be another concern in this regard. Problems with minorities and Millennials is showing similar trends to other states slipping from the GOP's grasp, with the caveat here being that the constant influx of older voters and an electorate whose white voters have shifted more Republican has bought the GOP more time to dick around.

-

The GOP can't just write off these portions of the electorate. And waiting for them to assimilate and start voting like whites is ridiculous. It is basically the same as saying "we have no plan." There is no guarantee that will ever bring you close to the support you need long-term. It's also a pretty lazy approach that I can only imagine future Republicans will resent the older GOP generations for.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Virginia, you have a very overactive imagination. I suggest keeping it to yourself, lest you be embarrassed by another Trump victory.

[Virginiá]

Virginia, you have a very overactive imagination. I suggest keeping it to yourself, lest you be embarrassed by another Trump victory.

Nothing in my post suggested Trump couldn't win in 2020. I even said long-term twice. If you want to call simple addition and subtraction part of my overactive imagination, then by all means, continue.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Political trends are tricky business. It's not the most promising trend possible, but anyone putting too much faith in the continuation of current demographic trends and the continuation of current voting trends, whatever those trends are, is certain to be disappointed.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Virginia, you have a very overactive imagination. I suggest keeping it to yourself, lest you be embarrassed by another Trump victory.

Nothing in my post suggested Trump couldn't win in 2020. I even said long-term twice. If you want to call simple addition and subtraction part of my overactive imagination, then by all means, continue.

-Think a DJT Jr. victory in 2032. In any case, if you used your assumptions in 1988, you would have predicted inevitable doom for both DJT and GWB. Instead, the Hispanic and White votes both trended towards the GOP since then. Yes; in the long run, the country may be New Mexicanized, as you predict. But, despite the deterioration of U.S. institutions, the GOP will continue to survive, just as it does in mayoral races, though in a less conservative form (of course, I would prefer a more conservative form).

If, however, your assumptions are correct, the first priorities of the GOP should be immigration reduction and the institution of a stiff tax on out-of-wedlock births. The second priority of the GOP should be the institution of political business cycles to make sure economic growth is always highest in presidential election years, so as to positively impact the younger generation's perceptions of the GOP. The third priority of the GOP should be an incorporation of Ron Paulism into its appeal, for the same purpose as the second priority.

[Beet]

Republicans don't need the minority vote as long as they can keep increasing their share of the white vote. It makes sense as long as the cost of convincing the next marginal white person is lower than convincing the next marginal non-white person to vote for them. Unless the remaining white Democrats decide to become extremely stalwart for some reason, cannibalizing white Democratic support will always be easier.

The future of the country is in the hands of white Democrats. If they become extremely stalwart, the GOP will have to reach out to minority voters, which necessarily means abandoning the racist identity of the party. If that happens, racism will be without a major party and probably collapse as a force in politics. If white Democrats continue to switch to the GOP, you will see political racial polarization and race-based politics, ending in potential genocide. It's all up to white Democrats.

My advice to white Democrats would be to not be afraid to stand up to minority constituencies within the party. If you feel uncomfortable because of excessive anti-white rhetoric on the left, please speak up and stand up for yourself without guilt or shame. There are plenty of us minorities who are not extreme SJW. Since you are the glue holding the country together, the Democratic party should be catering to you moreso than minorities.

[Virginiá]

-Think a DJT Jr. victory in 2032. In any case, if you used your assumptions in 1988, you would have predicted inevitable doom for both DJT and GWB.

Actually, based on the numbers I would have seen then, which probably wouldn't have given me strong hope of the growth of a bloc of voters that is persistently & strongly Democratic (minorities), and strong GOP performance among the youth might have led me to believe the GOP will enjoy years longer of presidential success. All else things the same, without the growth of minorities that might have been true. Actually, though, despite Bill's 2 terms, the 80s-90s and early-mid 2000s was still a pretty good time for Republicans.

If, however, your assumptions are correct, the first priorities of the GOP should be immigration reduction and the institution of a stiff tax on out-of-wedlock births. The second priority of the GOP should be the institution of political business cycles to make sure economic growth is always highest in presidential election years, so as to positively impact the younger generation's perceptions of the GOP. The third priority of the GOP should be an incorporation of Ron Paulism into its appeal, for the same purpose as the second priority.

I do actually agree with your last 2 points there (business cycle & Paulism), although my opinions on the latter are more mixed. Your party for sure needs to stop picking losing fights over various social issues.

Republicans don't need the minority vote as long as they can keep increasing their share of the white vote.

There lies the problem. TD has actually gone over this a couple different ways, iirc. For instance, the GOP's success in moving more whites into the party over the past 15+ years has simply been too little, too late. Their existing success would need to be accelerated a good bit, and right now there isn't much to show that they can actually keep getting more white voters anyway. They can try, but white Millennials so far have shown themselves not to be as receptive to the GOP and that would immediately hinder GOP efforts to expand their ranks.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-Think a DJT Jr. victory in 2032. In any case, if you used your assumptions in 1988, you would have predicted inevitable doom for both DJT and GWB.

Actually, based on the numbers I would have seen then, which probably wouldn't have given me strong hope of the growth of a bloc of voters that is persistently & strongly Democratic (minorities), and strong GOP performance among the youth might have led me to believe the GOP will enjoy years longer of presidential success. All else things the same, without the growth of minorities that might have been true. Actually, though, despite Bill's 2 terms, the 80s-90s and early-mid 2000s was still a pretty good time for Republicans.

If, however, your assumptions are correct, the first priorities of the GOP should be immigration reduction and the institution of a stiff tax on out-of-wedlock births. The second priority of the GOP should be the institution of political business cycles to make sure economic growth is always highest in presidential election years, so as to positively impact the younger generation's perceptions of the GOP. The third priority of the GOP should be an incorporation of Ron Paulism into its appeal, for the same purpose as the second priority.

I do actually agree with your last 2 points there (business cycle & Paulism), although my opinions on the latter are more mixed. Your party for sure needs to stop picking losing fights over various social issues.

Republicans don't need the minority vote as long as they can keep increasing their share of the white vote.

There lies the problem. TD has actually gone over this a couple different ways, iirc. For instance, the GOP's success in moving more whites into the party over the past 15+ years has simply been too little, too late. Their existing success would need to be accelerated a good bit, and right now there isn't much to show that they can actually keep getting more white voters anyway. They can try, but white Millennials so far have shown themselves not to be as receptive to the GOP and that would immediately hinder GOP efforts to expand their ranks.

-The Hispanic population grew by 50% during the 1980s. The non-Hispanic-White population grew by 6%. This was all well-covered at the time. Don't make up numbers. And Hispanics were far more strongly Democratic in the 1980s (relative to the non-Hispanic White vote) than today.

In the 1998 elections, the GOP won 55 Senate seats (one more than it did in the 2014 elections) and won the House popular vote by 1.1 points (4.6 points fewer than it did in 2014). The Clinton era was not a better time for the GOP than the Age of Obama.

You do realize DJT got more votes than any previous GOP nominee, right?

If DJT won uniformly 10% more of the Hispanic vote, he'd only win six more electoral votes. If he won uniformly 3.5% more of the non-Hispanic White vote, he'd have won twenty more electoral votes. White outreach is simply a winning strategy for the GOP, and it will be for decades to come. I'm not a fan of making up numbers.

The nationwide 1992 GOP bloodbath was not due to an influx of minorities, but WJC winning states like Kentucky and Montana.

The White youth in the 2000s were mentally scarred by the Iraq War and the GOP putting up candidates with no appeal to them. Trump solved some of these problems (especially on foreign policy) while creating others (expressing an explicit backward-looking posture on the economy). In any case, new generations always arise.

[The_Doctor]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

[The_Doctor]

Somehow I don't see the Hispanics being that into the party that has a President that calls them rapists and mocks them and wants to build a wall with Mexico. Seems to me that it's the kind of thing that prevents them from backing that Party.

They voted 65-29% Democratic for a reason and they've been voting Democratic since the 1960s. Republicans aren't changing that trend. Simply put if Republicans insulted my lineage and my background I'd be pretty sure I'd be hostile to them. “Otherizing“ a group seems a surefire way to get that group to consistently vote against you.

Trump did no worse than Romney with Hispanic Voters though in the end though.

Build a wall-Didn't Congress vote to build a fence in 2006 along the Mexican Border but the fence was never built?

The problem is that his white vote majority wasn't enough to surmount the fact that Latinos and minority voters were overall able to deliver a strong plurality to Clinton in the popular vote. It's not so much that Trump barely outperformed Romney as much as that given the glacial shift in the white population for the GOP that minority voters are going to be vastly more important going forward in the future.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Somehow I don't see the Hispanics being that into the party that has a President that calls them rapists and mocks them and wants to build a wall with Mexico. Seems to me that it's the kind of thing that prevents them from backing that Party.

They voted 65-29% Democratic for a reason and they've been voting Democratic since the 1960s. Republicans aren't changing that trend. Simply put if Republicans insulted my lineage and my background I'd be pretty sure I'd be hostile to them. “Otherizing“ a group seems a surefire way to get that group to consistently vote against you.

Trump did no worse than Romney with Hispanic Voters though in the end though.

Build a wall-Didn't Congress vote to build a fence in 2006 along the Mexican Border but the fence was never built?

The problem is that his white vote majority wasn't enough to surmount the fact that Latinos and minority voters were overall able to deliver a strong plurality to Clinton in the popular vote. It's not so much that Trump barely outperformed Romney as much as that given the glacial shift in the white population for the GOP that minority voters are going to be vastly more important going forward in the future.

-A majority of HRC's coalition was non-Hispanic White.

[Virginiá]

-The Hispanic population grew by 50% during the 1980s. The non-Hispanic-White population grew by 6%. This was all well-covered at the time. Don't make up numbers. And Hispanics were far more strongly Democratic in the 1980s (relative to the non-Hispanic White vote) than today.

I dunno - I don't know what was well covered in the 80s, and I would have liked to see real changes in the electorate before I made assumptions. Maybe all the data was there to see and I'd draw different conclusions than what I'm saying here? I don't know why you'd assume that I know what was available to me in the 80s.

I'm not really trying to engage in a hostile argument with you, EHarding, so don't be a dick. You've been doing this pretty much as soon as you started here. Just quit it already.

You do realize DJT got more votes than any previous GOP nominee, right?

Population growth? He still got 45.9% in the end. Saying he got the most votes for a Republican ever is as pointless as saying Obama got the most votes ever for any president in 2008, when he only won the PV by a single digit margin.

If DJT won uniformly 10% more of the Hispanic vote, he'd only win six more electoral votes. If he won uniformly 3.5% more of the non-Hispanic White vote, he'd have won twenty more electoral votes. White outreach is simply a winning strategy for the GOP, and it will be for decades to come. I'm not a fan of making up numbers.

Look, I mean, you can keep acting like it won't matter what they do in regards to this but in the future that kind of thinking is not going to be thought well of. I'd bet the farm on it.

As for the 90s not being better than the Obama-era - I never said it was, you did, and in fact I'm not sure why I made that arbitrary date range but regardless it was still a good time for the GOP, compared to years before.

The White youth in the 2000s were mentally scarred by the Iraq War and the GOP putting up candidates with no appeal to them. Trump solved some of these problems (especially on foreign policy) while creating others (expressing an explicit backward-looking posture on the economy). In any case, new generations always arise.

I don't know, based on the election results he isn't very well liked. 48% to 43% among white Millennials is pretty bad. Maybe in 2020 if he actually runs again, it improves, but that is anyone's guess right now. I'm sure me and you have very different opinions on how that'll play out.

And yes, new generations will arise. I'm sure the GOP will hit it out of the park with white youth down the road some time, but forgive me if I don't think that monster will help at all.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

OK

[The_Doctor]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

Sigh. Just because northern whites without a college degree turned towards Trump doesn't mean that overall all 18-29 whites did. Just because you dislike a stat I cited from the exit polling does nor make it untrue. I realize facts are out in the Trump era but…

[RINO Tom]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

[RINO Tom]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

RINO Tom, do you think my ideology is conservative?

[RINO Tom]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

RINO Tom, do you think my ideology is conservative?

Yes, EXTREMELY so.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

EHarding, I have to disagree with you there.  Places like the suburbs of Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston aren't exactly liberal Republican bastions and are very ideologically conservative (look at who represents these areas in Congress).  There were some conservatives turned off by Trump, but I think these are the first people he would win back in 2020.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

EHarding, I have to disagree with you there.  Places like the suburbs of Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston aren't exactly liberal Republican bastions and are very ideologically conservative (look at who represents these areas in Congress).  There were some conservatives turned off by Trump, but I think these are the first people he would win back in 2020.

-This isn't 1996. Fairfax and DuPage were Dole counties, too. Things change. Barbara Comstock's, Pete Sessions's, and Tom Price's seats will be Titanium D by 2026. I haven't checked the primary vote in TX and GA, but my guess is Rubio and Kasich voters, having a similar demographic to Obama primary White voters, will someday leave the GOP for good. They are "the least conservative portion of the party", though they are still by no means always unwilling to support men like Price and Sessions. They remain largely Republican downballot for similar reasons people like them were Dole voters two decades ago.

Turns out, Cruz primary voteshare was uncorrelated with Trump overperforming Romney in the general election in GA.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/17/a_deep_dive_into_the_trump_and_clinton_coalitions_132367.html

I only consider a Cruz vote outside Texas a true anti-Trump True Conservative vote. Rubio voters still largely (though not entirely) belonged to "the least conservative portion of the party".

[The_Doctor]

*snorts* I voted for Cruz in the Republican Primaries. And better yet I voted similarly in 2012's Republican primaries. I believed Cruz was a genuine Reaganite not the half addled protectionist nationalist nonsense Trump is. I certainly as heck didn't vote for that orange buffoon and I would never do so.

Thanks for “validating˝ that I acted like a conservative in the primaries though!