2024 will be the realigning election of our lifetimes

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No. Wait until 2030s.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also, why would the GOP moderate on immigration? Suicide?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No. Wait until 2030s.

2024 will be the age generation tipping point where millennials and later are undoubtedly the biggest generation to vote.

Remember, people who are slightly older than millennials - those who are around 35-45 now - are almost as liberal as millennials on social issues.  So you couple them with the millennial generation and you have a very clear majority of the electorate.

-Meaningless statistic. What are you expecting? 1896-type coalitional realignment, 1932-type ideological realignment, or 60s chaos?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also, why would the GOP moderate on immigration? Suicide?

Because there will be too much political power in swing states with large hispanic populations by then...  particularly Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona... and maybe Texas...

Republicans will need to fight for some of these states unless they make up ground somewhere else... and the upper midwest is not enough if they lose Florida and Arizona.

-Why would the GOP want to give Hispanics more power in that case? In any case,


and FL has trended R three out of the past four elections.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

2024 will be the age generation tipping point where millennials and later are undoubtedly the biggest generation to vote.

Remember, people who are slightly older than millennials - those who are around 35-45 now - are almost as liberal as millennials on social issues.  So you couple them with the millennial generation and you have a very clear majority of the electorate.

By 2024 EHarding will have perfected a game-changing invention to keep the GOP in power: reanimate the dead and usher them to the voting booths in November. I hear the undead are severely conservative nationalists.

[insert Illinois dead voter joke by EHarding]

-Nope. It's called Making America Great Again.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why would Democrats be perpetually losing Pennsylvania and Michigan again?

-GOP going full Party of McKinley protectionist.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why would Democrats be perpetually losing Pennsylvania and Michigan again?

-GOP going full Party of McKinley protectionist.

That's going to turn off millennial and post-millenial Philly area swing voters.

-Two words: Obama, NAFTA

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also, why would the GOP moderate on immigration? Suicide?

Because there will be too much political power in swing states with large hispanic populations by then...  particularly Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona... and maybe Texas...

Republicans will need to fight for some of these states unless they make up ground somewhere else... and the upper midwest is not enough if they lose Florida and Arizona.

-Why would the GOP want to give Hispanics more power in that case? In any case,


and FL has trended R three out of the past four elections.

actually, I probably should have also noted that I think by 2024 Georgia will be lean democrat.  If you look at the 2016 vote by age group, the GOP is heavily relying on older voters there... the generational shift there will be more pronounced than in most states.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why would Democrats be perpetually losing Pennsylvania and Michigan again?

-GOP going full Party of McKinley protectionist.

That's going to turn off millennial and post-millenial Philly area swing voters.

-Two words: Obama, NAFTA

I'm not sure what you're getting at... my point was that if the Republican party continues down a protectionist route it will hurt them in wealthy Philly burbs that like NAFTA-like policies.  

-Obama got killed there due to his anti-NAFTA stance, don't you remember? Also was a disaster for the Dems among millenials. ;-)

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also, why would the GOP moderate on immigration? Suicide?

Because there will be too much political power in swing states with large hispanic populations by then...  particularly Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona... and maybe Texas...

Republicans will need to fight for some of these states unless they make up ground somewhere else... and the upper midwest is not enough if they lose Florida and Arizona.

-Why would the GOP want to give Hispanics more power in that case? In any case,


and FL has trended R three out of the past four elections.

actually, I probably should have also noted that I think by 2024 Georgia will be lean democrat.  If you look at the 2016 vote by age group, the GOP is heavily relying on older voters there... the generational shift there will be more pronounced than in most states.

That second map is kind of bizarre, why would Democrats be losing Nevada in that scenario.  If they are winning Arizona they are surely winning Nevada.

-Look at the trends. Trump did much better than Mitt in Clark, much worse in Maricopa.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Thinking about this further... what pains me the absolute most in all of these scenarios is that undoubtedly Florida will continue to be the most watched swing state for the next 5 elections.  

-Yup.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

That's going to turn off millennial and post-millenial Philly area swing voters.

At any rate, 2024 is generally when I have considered it a cut-off time for the GOP - where if they haven't made significant progress with either generation z and minorities, that even the more generous numbers just don't add up for them. Democratic performance among Millennials is very consistent and very deep, and future generations are only getting more diverse. In the end, Democrats will likely be pulling in much larger margins among <50 age group than Republicans will among the >50 group. However, I think the change will probably mean more in Congress/state legislatures than the electoral college, it's still hard to tell what happens when the GOP base becomes a distinct minority on that level.

And this will have been a long time coming too. The GOP has had their time - for like 2 generations now. That some people think that will last forever in the face of a clearly changing political landscape is beyond me.

I think the gerrymandering of 2010 was the worst thing the Republicans could have done because it has falsely emboldened them... they've basically pushed their agenda in the opposite direction of the changing American electorate thinking they would be able to continually get away with it.  But it's obviously going to catch up with them.  

At the same time their takeover hasn't done much to push the conservative agenda... they've gotten almost no-where on abortion in the last 10 years and gay marriage was legalized.  At best, they will now be able to crack down on immigration a bit more.

-What is the U.S. state with the lowest total fertility rate?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

There absolutely will be a realignment definitely. I wrote an entire timeline about it so I won't go into it here. But yeah I expect a 1896/1932 realignment towards the Dems.

And Harding save it. I don't respond to racists.

-I don't respond to advocates of WWIII.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Protectionism and closed-borders is going to be a ridiculously losing message once Millennials are a sufficiently large proportion of the electorate (I would argue that this has already happened by 2016 and the Electoral College is simply delaying the inevitable), but some of the other issues I'm uncertain of. There is no generational gap that I've seen in abortion issue polling. Most of the GOP has already moderated on gay marriage and the issue is already a massively downplayed one.

Eharding: the second map you post is unlikely to still be a Republican victory after the 2020 redistribution. Much less 2030.

Obama, NAFTA: Protectionism versus free-trade wasn't particularly an issue in 2008, and certainly decided very few votes. The election was fought on other topics.

Fertility rate: New England has the lowest and the Mountain West has the highest, as of 2015. This is  a little immaterial because people born in 2015 aren't going to be eligible to vote until 2033; we're discussing the changes that are more immediate.

Anyway, the idea that the GOP is doomed to die is a ridiculous one (mainly because the US system, as I've brought up numerous times, constantly adjusts so that the two parties are about 50/50), but the idea that a lot of the ideas that the GOP is currently advocating are doomed to die is basically unambiguously true. In a lot of cases (most obviously gay marriage), the process is already clearly underway.

-One curious point about McCain's convention speech is its notable anti-protectionism. McCain would surely have won OH had he went full protectionist.

Protectionism will be a good EC strategy for the next decade, closed borders forever.

Party control is random; 50-50 tendencies have only really existed since 2000.

Obergefell might be overturned, but I doubt any state is banning SSM again.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Trump would have won Ohio by one to three points in 2008. He might also have lost GA.

Trump's first win was in NH; younger voters there tended to favor Trump and Cruz over Kasich and Bush.

Protectionism is far more an EC strategy than a PV one.

If Trump appoints three Scalia equivalents, Roe and Obergefell are gone.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

2008 was the realignment of our lifetimes.

-No. Try the 1992-2000 period.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

2008 was the realignment of our lifetimes.

-No. Try the 1992-2000 period.

Eh, to an extent, but Bill Clinton's wins in parts of the Deep South were very candidate-specific, and there was still a massive amount of ticket splitting in this era. Heck, Alabama elected a Democrat and New York a Republican to the Senate in 1992! And the various House seats that each party had in turf that favored the other party at the Presidential level was still at pretty high rates. I would say that the realignment has been in small flux over the past 20 years. Each election except for really 2004 and 2012 has been different from the last in a pretty significant way.

The 2008 results had a .94 correlation with the 2004 results; same for 2016 and 2012. Last time it was below that was 1996, due to America shaking off Perot and WJC's consolidation of the NE. Split districts dropped dramatically from 1992 to 2000. Interstate polarization also grew dramatically between 1992 and 2000. The yuge urban-rural divide and marriage gap also appeared in the 1990s.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Anyone who thinks the GOP will just die (both in Congress and in presidential races) because of how millennials vote has learned nothing from this election.

Why do you need to make an absurd straw man argument that is not what is actually being debated here?

This idea that there will be a realignment election that will lead to a >20-year long Democratic rule  (at minimum) at the presidential level is exactly what you are debating, though? So no, not really a strawman. Demographics aren't destiny, which is something your party had to learn the hard way last year. And no, I'm obviously not denying that the GOP needs to fix their demographic problems, or else they'll be in trouble, especially in states like TX and FL. I'd expect most presidential elections in the future to be quite competitive and I don't believe that there is an impenetrable blue or red wall. 

What poster said the GOP would simply die? 

It is very reasonable to argue that the GOP will find itself on the bad side of a realignment despite the 2016 results.  Lets not forget that Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.  I believe this is unprecedented in the last 100 years.

So if we look at past elections as an indicator, we see that Democrats have a general advantage when turnout is high (e.g., Presidential years)... that's the baseline...

Then we look at trendlines... we know the following:

1) Minorities have been a stable voting bloc for Democrats over the last 30 years... this is indisputable.

2) Republicans have made no serious inroads with minority voters.

3) The minority population has steadily grown in each and every Presidential election.

4) Republicans consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those 65+

5) Democrats consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those under 30.

6) Those voters over 65 are more likely to not be alive in 8 years than those under 30. 

7) Despite the adage that people get more conservative as they get older, most studies show that party alignment stays with people as they age.

Looking at all these factors it is entirely reasonable to summarize that a realigning election is on the near horizon given that the party in power is not the party that a) a majority of voters consistently choose on the Presidential level and b) the will likely benefit from demographic changes. 

-Tell that to John Kerry and George McGovern. 2004 was not a low-turnout election. And McGovern winning the under-20 vote foretold exactly nothing. Republicans have made very serious gains with minority voters since 20 years ago (losses with Asians offset by gains with Hispanics).

A realigning election will, of course, come, but not in 2024 (unless this party system's unusually short for some reason).

Tell the Democrats how to put their own house in order. They're the ones out of power.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Anyone who thinks the GOP will just die (both in Congress and in presidential races) because of how millennials vote has learned nothing from this election.

Why do you need to make an absurd straw man argument that is not what is actually being debated here?

This idea that there will be a realignment election that will lead to a >20-year long Democratic rule  (at minimum) at the presidential level is exactly what you are debating, though? So no, not really a strawman. Demographics aren't destiny, which is something your party had to learn the hard way last year. And no, I'm obviously not denying that the GOP needs to fix their demographic problems, or else they'll be in trouble, especially in states like TX and FL. I'd expect most presidential elections in the future to be quite competitive and I don't believe that there is an impenetrable blue or red wall. 

What poster said the GOP would simply die? 

It is very reasonable to argue that the GOP will find itself on the bad side of a realignment despite the 2016 results.  Lets not forget that Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.  I believe this is unprecedented in the last 100 years.

So if we look at past elections as an indicator, we see that Democrats have a general advantage when turnout is high (e.g., Presidential years)... that's the baseline...

Then we look at trendlines... we know the following:

1) Minorities have been a stable voting bloc for Democrats over the last 30 years... this is indisputable.

2) Republicans have made no serious inroads with minority voters.

3) The minority population has steadily grown in each and every Presidential election.

4) Republicans consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those 65+

5) Democrats consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those under 30.

6) Those voters over 65 are more likely to not be alive in 8 years than those under 30. 

7) Despite the adage that people get more conservative as they get older, most studies show that party alignment stays with people as they age.

Looking at all these factors it is entirely reasonable to summarize that a realigning election is on the near horizon given that the party in power is not the party that a) a majority of voters consistently choose on the Presidential level and b) the will likely benefit from demographic changes. 

-Tell that to John Kerry and George McGovern. 2004 was not a low-turnout election. And McGovern winning the under-20 vote foretold exactly nothing. Republicans have made very serious gains with minority voters since 20 years ago (losses with Asians offset by gains with Hispanics).

A realigning election will, of course, come, but not in 2024 (unless this party system's unusually short for some reason).

Tell the Democrats how to put their own house in order. They're the ones out of power.

You picked the one election out of the last 7 in which the GOP (barely) won the popular vote, and that's your big point.  I'm almost starting to think you are an elaborate schtick.

-You are apparently pretending that neither candidate quality nor wars and the economy matter electorally. Bizarre. Bush was not an especially high-quality candidate. Neither was Trump, for that matter (though he was higher-quality than Mitt).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The GOP can continue keeping elections close these next 6-8 years by upping their margins with white voters but they'll hit a ceiling at about 65%. The remaining 35% of White people are either too socially liberal or fiscally liberal to vote for them. This remaining 35% are city urban white folk, white women, winetrack liberals, and white millenials who have no interest in Trumps Republican Party.

The GOP then only has two options to increase their share of the white vote beyond 65%: moderate on social issues (and lose parts of their evangelical base so...not happening) or moderate on fiscal issues (and lose their libertarian base along with a lot of big money donors...which they also won't do). Basically they'll have no choice but to start doing better with minorities going beyond 2020 if they want to stay competitive at the Presidential level and with Trump leading the Party I do not believe that will happen. Trump did marginally better with nonwhite voters than Romney did but Bush performed much better with Hispanics and Reagan performed much better with black voters compared to Trumps performance with either group.

Millenials are a much more liberal generation compared to boomers. Millenials will be 25-44 years of age going into 2024 and boomers will be 60-78. Many boomers will have died off and more millenials will be consistently voting. The math doesn't bode well for the GOP in any way.

At this point, the GOP's last hope is that Generation X (born 1965-1980) and Generation Z (all born 2000 of after) both start trending Republican.

I don't see Generation Z trending Republican while the GOP is actively trying to undo abortion and gay marriage on the state level as well as openly trying to suppress minority voters (Generation Z will be the most racially diverse voting population).  If anything Generation Z will be even more Democratic than Millennials unless the GOP immediately moderates their absurd and vile positions on gay marriage and other social issues.

The best predictor of somebody's lifelong party affiliation is to look at what President was in power when they came of age and how that President was performing.

Right now the oldest of Gen Zers have barely turned 17 this year. The first wave of them (18-20 year olds) will come of age during the Trump or Pence presidency. Trump will likely be very unpopular and Pence will only be somewhat popular if he's seen as a stabilizing figure after Trump resigns or is impeached.

It's hard to say if Trump or Pence will win in 2020 and we can only guess what 2024-2036 will look like when all of Generation Z has reached adulthood (assuming their birth years will be 2000-2018). I do agree with you though. I think it's much more likely than not that Generation Z ends up being fairly liberal when all is said and done.

EDIT: Since you and I both believe that there will be a demcoratic realignment in the 2020's (which could last with the dems in power for 12+ years) then most of Generation Z will be liberal having come of age during popular or relatively popular democratic presidencies.

Agreed.  The real question is what year in the 2020's the realignment occurs.  I am pretty confident the demographics will be sufficiently altered by 2024 as boomers and older generations start to die off.

-What evidence do you have for this view of realignments? Does it work for the 19th century?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

There will be a realignment; it will probably be in the 2030s, and it may involve the Dems becoming the party of the rich.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why would it be 2024? Party systems generally last longer than this. Arbitrary generational categories are useless here.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why would it be 2024? Party systems generally last longer than this. Arbitrary generational categories are useless here.

?

Because 2024 is the first Presidential election where Boomers+ will not be calling the shots.

-That's an arbitrary and useless category.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why would it be 2024? Party systems generally last longer than this. Arbitrary generational categories are useless here.

?

Because 2024 is the first Presidential election where Boomers+ will not be calling the shots.

-That's an arbitrary and useless category.

Uh, no.  It's f'ing not.

-It is. What was the concrete electoral outcome of McGovern winning those under 23?