WaPo: Increasing Immigrant Population Might Not Hurt Republicans Much

[Never]

Based on research from Pew, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post argues that the increase in America's immigrant population will not adversely affect the Republican Party's chances in presidential elections, despite the tendency of immigrants to vote Democratic. The reasoning behind this claim is that immigrants tend to reside in solidly Democratic states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. In fact, according to the Post, "Of the 15 states with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 13 of them went for President Obama in 2008 and 2012."

I found the claims put forth by Cillizza to be compelling, but not without their flaws. Since America uses the electoral college, which votes for president by state versus popular vote, it is reasonable to assume that Republicans shouldn't be concerned too much if states that are currently Democratic moved even farther to the left. However, it is important to remember that crucial states for the Republicans like Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, and Texas all have sizable immigrant populations. That being said, in states like Texas there is evidence that Hispanics, an ethnic group with a large number of immigrants, are more Republican than Hispanics nationwide. In short, it appears that while Republicans shouldn't panic about the increase in the immigrant population affecting their presidential election chances, they would be well served to still make appeals to this demographic.

[ElectionsGuy]

Arizona and Texas are the other two. I seriously don't know about Arizona, its shaky turf now for republicans. Texas on the other hand will probably stay republican until all whites that are now 50+ die off.

[jaichind]

I can sort of see how this can be true.  And coupled with what Edsall points out

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/opinion/edsall-the-great-white-hope.html?_r=0

where it is pointed out in studies Whites when presented with information that Whites on the long run might not be in the majority tends to shift right.    I pretty much thought the same way a while ago without any "research" but based on logical gut instinct.

I would think this is a mirror image of high minority votes for the Democratic ticket in presidential elections.  From a game theory point of view, in a two party competition the shifts of the platforms/appeals of the two parties would mostly work to converge toward a 50/50 balance of power.  If one party can manage to get the support well beyond 50/50 then over time the other party would adjust its platform/appeal so that it picks off constituents that as weakly attached to the dominate party.  

So if the Democratic party is effective at getting a large majority of the minority vote, then by that very nature, weakly attached white constituents of the Democratic party would swing toward the GOP.  

Moving forward, I see no real path for the GOP to get a significantly greater share of the minority vote.  As such the GOP plan will have to go from 60% of the White vote to 63% and then 65% of the White vote.  I do not see this as impossible and in fact quite plausible.  If 71% of Hispanics can vote for the Democratic Party I cannot see why 65% of Whites cannot vote for GOP.    

I will repeat myself.  If the Black vote can be 90% for Dem and Hispanic vote can be 70% for Dem, I do not see why Whites cannot vote 65% or even 70% for GOP especially when it feels that its majority status is under threat.  The alternative to this would be for White Hispanics due to higher income and with it social status identifies itself as White and adopt White voting practices.   Either way, the way I see it, the best way forward for the GOP is to project itself as the "White" Party.

[IceSpear]

Either way, the way I see it, the best way forward for the GOP is to project itself as the "White" Party.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Never]

I felt unnerved after reading Edsall's article. It almost seemed as if he were implying that Republicans should just keep campaigning for White voters and ignore minorities. If the GOP becomes the White party, and the Democrats become the ethnic party, I would be very worried about the future of racial dialogue in America.

Still, it is plausible that the Republican share of the White vote could keep increasing.
 

[Kevin]

I felt unnerved after reading Edsall's article. It almost seemed as if he were implying that Republicans should just keep campaigning for White voters and ignore minorities. If the GOP becomes the White party, and the Democrats become the ethnic party, I would be very worried about the future of racial dialogue in America.

Still, it is plausible that the Republican share of the White vote could keep increasing.
 

Wholeheartedly agree,

If a development like that happens this country might as well give up it's status as a first world nation entirely.

Of course that's unlikely to happen imo as many immigrant minorities like Hispanics Asians, and others integrating into American society quickly. 2nd and 3rd generation descendents of immigrants at least from what I see are moving towards the center too. So they will most likely be a highly conflicted voting bloc in the future not leaning towards ether party or roughly split between them.

[Mr. Morden]

Of course, even if all immigration went to heavily Democratic states, that would still have the effect of increasing the number of House seats allocated to those states above what they would otherwise be.  That would happen even if none of the immigrants become citizens.  The GOP should counter this by encouraging immigration to their own states, but blocking the immigrants from becoming citizens.

[In case your sarcasm detector is broken, that last part is a joke.]

[libertpaulian]

Either way, the way I see it, the best way forward for the GOP is to project itself as the "White" Party.

What could possibly go wrong?

You get Donald J. Trump as the nominee.  That's what.

[ElectionsGuy]

Ha thanks for bumping ^

[Senator-elect Spark]

An increasing Hispanic population certainly is not in the Republicans' favor. The Hispanic population is projected to grow by at least 50% by 2050, and for them to remain competitive in national contests. Arizona is a state that has the potential to become a battleground if this trend continues. Texas will be Republican for a while until the older white population dies off.  there has to be a modification to the party platform. Otherwise I see a tough road ahead for the GOP.

[RINO Tom]

Echoing what others have said, having parties divided on race (they're really not quite there yet) is a truly alarming future.

[hopper]

An increasing Hispanic population certainly is not in the Republicans' favor. The Hispanic population is projected to grow by at least 50% by 2050, and for them to remain competitive in national contests. Arizona is a state that has the potential to become a battleground if this trend continues. Texas will be Republican for a while until the older white population dies off.  there has to be a modification to the party platform. Otherwise I see a tough road ahead for the GOP.

I think Latinos are supposed to make up 27% of the US Population by 2050 or 2060. They make up 18% of the Nations Population now.

[libertpaulian]

Ha thanks for bumping ^

I was just being nosy and happened to stumble upon this thread.

[jaichind]

Either way, the way I see it, the best way forward for the GOP is to project itself as the "White" Party.

What could possibly go wrong?

You get Donald J. Trump as the nominee.  That's what.

Who went on to win the election. 

Of course the coalition that Trump won by is somewhat different than the GOP "White Party" strategy I had in mind.  I envisioned the Trump voters plus suburban upper-middle White as well.  In other words: the super-set of the 2016 Trump vote and the 2016 GOP congressional vote.  Assuming the GOP can fuse these two mostly overlapping blocs together, a big IF, then it would fit the vision I had on a GOP "White only" based strategy.

[Virginiá]

If you think you can just keep upping your share of the white vote each presidential election, then by all means, support that strategy. Keep in in mind Trump didn't actually win more white voters than Romney, and he lost the popular vote while only barely winning the 3 rust belt states he needed. To me, it looks like a failing strategy that just happened to eek out a win against an opponent as hated and mistrusted as much as Trump himself.

[Figueira]

In fact, according to the Post, "Of the 15 states with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 13 of them went for President Obama in 2008 and 2012."

Uh, do they realize that Obama won both of those years?

[Hydera]

In fact, according to the Post, "Of the 15 states with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 13 of them went for President Obama in 2008 and 2012."

Uh, do they realize that Obama won both of those years?

Yes but theres a saving grace for the GOP since as they stick to the anti-free trade stance they'll benefit from the economic problems in the midwestern states as a economy there is stagnant because of dependency on manufacturing which also means less immigration that tends to benefit the dems.

[hopper]

This is incredibly dumb. If Republicans do decide to go full on Marine Le Pen, have fun with 200 House seats, MAYBE half the Senate, and a minority in presidential elections (if they run on beingg the party of whites, I can't wait to see how that pays off in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina come 2040

its not really Demographic Shifts that are hurting the GOP in NC its where people are moving to in the State like "The Research Triangle"(Duke, UNC) and Charlotte which are left leaning area's. It would help though if they get more Black Votes though in the future in NC.

[hopper]

This is incredibly dumb. If Republicans do decide to go full on Marine Le Pen, have fun with 200 House seats, MAYBE half the Senate, and a minority in presidential elections (if they run on beingg the party of whites, I can't wait to see how that pays off in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina come 2040

I don't think Republicans are gonna full on Marine Le Pen though. Anyways if they still had 50 US Senate Seats they could still stop things anyway but on budget resolutions where you can pass those in reconciliation on only 51 votes and have a Dem Vice President to break the tie.

[hopper]

Based on research from Pew, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post argues that the increase in America's immigrant population will not adversely affect the Republican Party's chances in presidential elections, despite the tendency of immigrants to vote Democratic. The reasoning behind this claim is that immigrants tend to reside in solidly Democratic states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. In fact, according to the Post, "Of the 15 states with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 13 of them went for President Obama in 2008 and 2012."

I found the claims put forth by Cillizza to be compelling, but not without their flaws. Since America uses the electoral college, which votes for president by state versus popular vote, it is reasonable to assume that Republicans shouldn't be concerned too much if states that are currently Democratic moved even farther to the left. However, it is important to remember that crucial states for the Republicans like Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, and Texas all have sizable immigrant populations. That being said, in states like Texas there is evidence that Hispanics, an ethnic group with a large number of immigrants, are more Republican than Hispanics nationwide. In short, it appears that while Republicans shouldn't panic about the increase in the immigrant population affecting their presidential election chances, they would be well served to still make appeals to this demographic.

The growing immigrant populations has hurt the GOP in NJ, IL, and CA in Presidential Elections a lot recently particularly CA.

[hopper]

In fact, according to the Post, "Of the 15 states with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 13 of them went for President Obama in 2008 and 2012."

Uh, do they realize that Obama won both of those years?

Obama did win on demographics in 2012 because of non-married Black and Hispanic Women but 2008 it wasn't so much because of demographics as to why he won.

[hopper]

An increasing Hispanic population certainly is not in the Republicans' favor. The Hispanic population is projected to grow by at least 50% by 2050, and for them to remain competitive in national contests. Arizona is a state that has the potential to become a battleground if this trend continues. Texas will be Republican for a while until the older white population dies off.  there has to be a modification to the party platform. Otherwise I see a tough road ahead for the GOP.

Yeah the party hasn't made modifications since 1980 with Reagan. If they lost the Presidency in 2016, 2020, and 2024 they would have made at least moderate modifications by 2024. The reason I am saying this is if they had lost in 2016(which they didn't) it would have been viewed as a fluke with Trump being the nominee. 

[jaichind]

This is incredibly dumb. If Republicans do decide to go full on Marine Le Pen, have fun with 200 House seats, MAYBE half the Senate, and a minority in presidential elections (if they run on beingg the party of whites, I can't wait to see how that pays off in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina come 2040

Not sure about that.  One should take into account that 100 years ago Italians were not considered White.  Assimilated Latinos over the next decades will be considered and also vote like Whites.  Also one should also take into account that even a "Whites Only" GOP will have a floor each for Black, Latino, and Asian support as there will be elements in each one of the demographics that will vote GOP for various reasons (social-economic or cultural assimilation.)   One thing that will get in the way of the GOP "White Only" strategy I envisioned would be over-reliance on an explicit evangelist platform which would divided the secular White vote from the GOP as well as lower the floor for the GOP for the Black, Latino, and Asian voting blocs.  In that sense Trump 2016 campaign which did not rely on explicit Evangelical appeals but instead counted on White consolidation to rope in the White Evangelical vote worked like a charm.  While it did not do exactly what I wanted I view the Trump 2016 campaign as a solid model to build from for the "White Only" GOP strategy I envision for the future. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Map for Cory Booker

266 Dem
191 Trump