|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 09:17:12 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  2016=1928?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2016=1928?  (Read 3129 times)
Chinggis
Rookie
**
Posts: 178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 16, 2017, 10:58:06 am »
« edited: April 16, 2017, 03:50:21 pm by Chinggis »

The more I think about it, the more I notice certain parallels between the 1928 and 2016 elections. Bear with me here for a bit...

* BOTH YEARS, the Democratic Party nominated experienced New York politicos who rejected radical reform in lieu of incrementalism (Al Smith/Hillary Clinton).

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton won unprecedented support and money from usually Republican Wall Street. Smith and Clinton both favored the corporate '"establishment" wing of the Democratic Party and lost support from the "populist" and "progressive" elements (Smith failed to thrill Bryan voters; Hillary failed to thrill Bernie voters)

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton failed to stake out bold policy positions on the soaring inequalities in their eras. Smith refused to endorse a progressive farm policy; Clinton refused to endorse singe-payer healthcare. Their essential conservatism cost them both dearly among a certain kind of Democrat.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton ran as unapologetic champions of The City in an era of cultural upheaval. Smith and Clinton both embraced cultural liberalism and won record support in the nation's big metropolitan areas for it, especially among immigrants and yuppies. They both got massacred in rural areas and small towns across the nation for the same reason.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton were perceived as corrupt by a large segment of the population, due to their extensive business and political connections. Tammany Hall and the Clinton Foundation served as weights around their respective necks, contributing to their record losses throughout rural and small-town America. An examination of the returns from both elections reveals an underlying truth- throughout "Middle America," it was often socially unacceptable to vote for Al(coholic) Smith or Crooked Hillary.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton brought in new voters from odd places to their party- Smith got some usually Republican Midwestern farmers, Clinton got some usually Republican Midwestern professionals. Both lost more than they gained since so many Democrats jumped ship (white southerners and Bryan-voting progressives from Smith, working-class whites and progressives from Clinton).

* BOTH YEARS, the Republican Party nominated a wealthy businessman without experience in the military or elected office (Herbert Hoover/Donald Trump).

* Hoover and Trump both benefited from racist/nativist themes. Both men were strongly supported by groups embracing those themes, whether the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s or the "alt-right" in the 2010s. Both tacitly condoned such activity.

* Both elections resulted in total Republican control of the federal government (and most state governments across the country).

Does that mean Trump is the next Hoover? Hard to say. Anyone see other parallels or is this stretching?
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,354
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2017, 01:13:59 pm »

The more I think about it, the more I notice certain parallels between the 1928 and 2016 elections. Bear with me here for a bit...

* BOTH YEARS, the Democratic Party nominated experienced New York politicos who rejected radical reform in lieu of incrementalism (Al Smith/Hillary Clinton).

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton won unprecedented support and money from usually Republican Wall Street. Smith and Clinton both favored the corporate '"establishment" wing of the Democratic Party and lost support from the "populist" and "progressive" elements (Smith failed to thrill Bryan voters; Hillary failed to thrill Bernie voters)

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton failed to stake out bold policy positions on the soaring inequalities in their eras. Smith refused to endorse a progressive farm policy; Clinton refused to endorse singe-payer healthcare. Their essential conservatism cost them both dearly among a certain kind of Democrat.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton ran as unapologetic champions of The City in an era of cultural upheaval. Smith and Clinton both embraced cultural liberalism and won record support in the nation's big metropolitan areas for it, especially among immigrants and yuppies. They both got massacred in rural areas and small towns across the nation for the same reason.

* Both Al Smith and Hillary Clinton brought in new voters from odd places to their party- Smith got some usually Republican Midwestern farmers, Clinton got some usually Republican Midwestern professionals. Both lost more than they gained since so many Democrats jumped ship (white southerners and Bryan-voting progressives from Smith, working-class whites and progressives from Clinton).

* BOTH YEARS, the Republican Party nominated a wealthy businessman without experience in the military or elected office (Herbert Hoover/Donald Trump).

* Hoover and Trump both benefited from racist/nativist themes. Both men were strongly supported by groups embracing those themes, whether the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s or the "alt-right" in the 2010s. Both tacitly condoned such activity.

* Both elections resulted in total Republican control of the federal government.

Does that mean Trump is the next Hoover? Hard to say. Anyone see other parallels or is this stretching?

There is also a theme of 'normalcy" barrowed from the 1920 election, where, like Trump, Harding ran against internationalism and progressivism.

Both Hoover and Trump were considered "not really conservative" and at various times had as a policy of replacing regulations and taxation with tariffs. They both have reputations as Prohibitionists, and both come from a point in time where there has been of time of economic inequality, speculation, and instability following a preceding prosperous era.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,120
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2017, 01:28:49 pm »

Does that mean Trump is the next Hoover? Hard to say. Anyone see other parallels or is this stretching?

I can't comment much on the specifics you listed above, but if you mean the "next Hoover" as in the next Republican to bring about an era of Democratic control, I'd have to say no - not in the way that happened with Hoover/FDR. The Great Depression wasn't exactly something history could have predicted in the manner that it occurred. The realigning effect that event had is practically unparalleled, and there is no guarantee anything close to that would happen under Trump.

Otherwise you did point out some decent similarities as far as I can tell. Though, I might also add that he shares some other similarities with other presidents as well (Carter). It really depends on how you want to look at it.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2017, 02:38:25 pm »
« Edited: April 16, 2017, 02:48:07 pm by hopper »

Does that mean Trump is the next Hoover? Hard to say. Anyone see other parallels or is this stretching?

I can't comment much on the specifics you listed above, but if you mean the "next Hoover" as in the next Republican to bring about an era of Democratic control, I'd have to say no - not in the way that happened with Hoover/FDR. The Great Depression wasn't exactly something history could have predicted in the manner that it occurred. The realigning effect that event had is practically unparalleled, and there is no guarantee anything close to that would happen under Trump.

Otherwise you did point out some decent similarities as far as I can tell. Though, I might also add that he shares some other similarities with other presidents as well (Carter). It really depends on how you want to look at it.
Yeah Trump's relationship with Congress isn't that good(thus far) and neither was Carter's so Trump and Carter have that in common.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2017, 03:18:15 pm »

In just recent times or the modern era just to compare:

I think Hillary in 2016 was like Romney in 2012 in that both candidates didn't connect(a message) if you will to win the Presidential Election.

I do think Trump was like Ross Perot in 1992 running on a populist message but candidate wise he was like Carter in 1976 in that the party establishment didn't like him.

Logged
Chinggis
Rookie
**
Posts: 178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2017, 03:37:33 pm »

I can't comment much on the specifics you listed above, but if you mean the "next Hoover" as in the next Republican to bring about an era of Democratic control, I'd have to say no - not in the way that happened with Hoover/FDR.

Totally agree with you. There are a bunch of compelling reasons why a comprehensive realignment a la the New Deal is unlikely if not impossible today- gerrymandering being just one.

And Trump has accepted the neoliberal economic agenda as all other post-Reagan Republican Presidents have.

ftfy

Yeah Trump's relationship with Congress isn't that good(thus far) and neither was Carter's so Trump and Carter have that in common.

Hoover and Trump both had a terrible working relationship with Congress, even when Republicans were in control. Hoover and Trump both had an awful adversarial relationship with the press from Day 1, and both Hoover and Trump were isolated from dissenting viewpoints by a handful of family and trusted staff.

The Carter parallels are there as well, of course.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,354
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2017, 03:39:37 pm »

So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.
Logged
Chinggis
Rookie
**
Posts: 178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2017, 03:44:48 pm »

So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.

Absolutely. A deeper look at the 1932 election, for example, shows that even Hoover's defeat was far from inevitable. Some historians believe as do I that had the Democrats nominated another fiscal conservative in 1932, Hoover may well have won another term.

Nothing is preordained.
Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 398
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2017, 04:21:53 pm »

So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.

Absolutely. A deeper look at the 1932 election, for example, shows that even Hoover's defeat was far from inevitable. Some historians believe as do I that had the Democrats nominated another fiscal conservative in 1932, Hoover may well have won another term.

Nothing is preordained.

This is quite hilarious considering that this was essentially what FDR campgained as in 1932.
Logged
Pro-Life Single Issue Voter
ExtremeRepublican
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,601


Political Matrix
E: 8.39, S: 7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2017, 04:28:51 pm »

Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,354
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2017, 04:46:41 pm »

Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

Because the last realignment was 47 years ago towards the Republicans and maybe it will be 5 years or maybe 50 years from now, but it will happen as long as the United States doesn't break up or becomes a kingdom  before realignment takes place
Logged
GlobeSoc
The walrus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,686


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2017, 04:52:09 pm »

Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.
Reagan - FDR
HW Bush - Truman
Clinton - Eisenhower
W Bush - Kennedy/LBJ
Obama - Nixon/Ford
Trump - Carter
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,411


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2017, 05:00:13 pm »

Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

Because the last realignment was 47 years ago towards the Republicans and maybe it will be 5 years or maybe 50 years from now, but it will happen as long as the United States doesn't break up or becomes a kingdom  before realignment takes place

I would argue that our last realignment was in 1992 as right now we are neither in dem dominance or GOP domaine





Logged
Chinggis
Rookie
**
Posts: 178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2017, 05:07:12 pm »

So we agree that Trump's presidencies has begun like past disasterous but it doesn't neccesarily follow or even predictable that he will be disaster.

Absolutely. A deeper look at the 1932 election, for example, shows that even Hoover's defeat was far from inevitable. Some historians believe as do I that had the Democrats nominated another fiscal conservative in 1932, Hoover may well have won another term.

Nothing is preordained.

This is quite hilarious considering that this was essentially what FDR campgained as in 1932.

Believe it or not, Roosevelt was the most progressive option even in 1932 and was recognized as such at the time. Other choices for the nomination included a banker, a businessman, and a corporate attorney, along with the conservative Al Smith, the conservative Texan John Nance Garner, and the conservative Maryland governor Albert Ritchey.

Roosevelt promised balanced budgets during the campaign, yes, but what people remembered- what made him stand out- what won him the election- was his promise of a "New Deal" and the acknowledgment that bad things can happen to good people. This message resonated with people who were tired of Hoover saying the real problem was that Americans weren't working hard enough.

In an alternate timeline where the Democrats actually ran a conservative campaign, I could see Hoover squeaking into another term with Socialists, Commies et al. getting over 10 percent of the vote.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,120
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2017, 05:47:03 pm »

In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

No, John Judis didn't quite say that. Since the NJ article is paywalled, here is something from Trende on it:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/11/what_to_make_of_john_judis_republican_advantage_125558.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, I think Judis is right - for now. Part of the idea of a realignment finally bearing fruit in elections is that districts that might look out of reach or leaning away from Democrats become competitive or flip entirely. Without exit polls by district, it's hard to say, but once Millennials reach critical mass, Republicans will lose their grip on many areas.

Second, the last realignment was to Republicans, and so we are already in a Republican era. The reason people keep predicting a shift to Democrats is not because of hackery but because that is what history & the data currently shows. Personally I think it's pretty hackish for a Republican, in the face of all of this info, to actually suggest they are going to have a hold on power for another few decades. There is very little to actually back that idea up, and the "we control so much at state/Congressional level blah blah" doesn't matter one bit. Parties have rapidly lost massive amounts of seats within the span of one or two elections, such as 1932, 1946, 1994 and 2010.

Third, it's not like all of us are collaborating on the same ideas. I have my own opinions on what is going to happen, and it certainly wasn't based on something happening before 2010, even if 2008 at times did seem interesting in that regard. My opinion has been for a while now that once Millennials make up almost half of eligible voters, their political preferences will begin to dominate, and their voting patterns for years now have suggested big trouble for Republicans when that happens.
Logged
mieastwick
Rookie
**
Posts: 214


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2017, 06:20:31 pm »
« Edited: April 16, 2017, 06:29:05 pm by mieastwick »

In my humble opinion, Clinton is more analogous to Hoover than to Smith. Trump, like Smith, made massive gains among northern Catholics, including in Rhode Island, Luzerne County (PA), most of New York City, Dubuque, northern New York State, and North Dakota. Clinton, like Hoover, made massive gains among the southern elite in Tulsa, Atlanta, Orlando, Nashville, NoVa, Richmond, Birmingham, Charlotte, Bentonville/Fayetteville, and Dallas, as well as had extraordinary performances in SoCal. Likewise, Clinton came from the party in power, like Hoover, and abandoned a traditional party plank to fit in (for Clinton, taking on billionaires, for Hoover, enforcing civil rights). Hoover's boost based on anti-Catholic bigotry is also reminiscent of Clinton running on opposition to Trump's personality. Also, Trump, like Smith, got a lot of LaFolette (Bernie) voters to his side.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2017, 10:04:44 pm »
« Edited: April 16, 2017, 10:09:28 pm by hopper »

Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.
Reagan - FDR
HW Bush - Truman
Clinton - Eisenhower
W Bush - Kennedy/LBJ
Obama - Nixon/Ford
[/s]Trump - Carter
Corrected it for you!
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2017, 10:08:53 pm »
« Edited: April 16, 2017, 10:10:50 pm by hopper »


And Trump has accepted the neoliberal economic agenda as all other post-Reagan Republican Presidents have.

ftfy

That would be much more accurate Tongue
I was gonna post what you posted a few hours ago! I don't think Obama continued Reaganomics though.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2017, 10:50:54 pm »
« Edited: April 16, 2017, 11:06:46 pm by hopper »

In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

No, John Judis didn't quite say that. Since the NJ article is paywalled, here is something from Trende on it:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/11/what_to_make_of_john_judis_republican_advantage_125558.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, I think Judis is right - for now. Part of the idea of a realignment finally bearing fruit in elections is that districts that might look out of reach or leaning away from Democrats become competitive or flip entirely. Without exit polls by district, it's hard to say, but once Millennials reach critical mass, Republicans will lose their grip on many areas.

Second, the last realignment was to Republicans, and so we are already in a Republican era. The reason people keep predicting a shift to Democrats is not because of hackery but because that is what history & the data currently shows. Personally I think it's pretty hackish for a Republican, in the face of all of this info, to actually suggest they are going to have a hold on power for another few decades. There is very little to actually back that idea up, and the "we control so much at state/Congressional level blah blah" doesn't matter one bit. Parties have rapidly lost massive amounts of seats within the span of one or two elections, such as 1932, 1946, 1994 and 2010.

Third, it's not like all of us are collaborating on the same ideas. I have my own opinions on what is going to happen, and it certainly wasn't based on something happening before 2010, even if 2008 at times did seem interesting in that regard. My opinion has been for a while now that once Millennials make up almost half of eligible voters, their political preferences will begin to dominate, and their voting patterns for years now have suggested big trouble for Republicans when that happens.
In the suburbs your analysis might hold true for now but in rural areas I do think Republicans can still win there in the longer short term despite the Millennials growing influence in electoral politics.

The top trending Dem Congressional Districts were in CA, FL, AZ, TX, VA(NOVA) and GA in 2016.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,120
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2017, 11:41:06 pm »

In the suburbs your analysis might hold true for now but in rural areas I do think Republicans can still win there in the longer short term despite the Millennials growing influence in electoral politics.

The top trending Dem Congressional Districts were in CA, FL, AZ, TX, VA(NOVA) and GA in 2016.

Considering how deep GOP win margins run now in some of these areas, you're probably right. However, a few things:

1. Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power, no?
2. A reduction in the win margins of Republicans in some rural areas due to ascendant Millennials means it is still easier for Democrats to win in these areas than it is now. Even more so if Republican Millennials are more willing to split their tickets, which isn't impossible to think if the GOP runs candidates not palatable to them, though that is mainly a short-term issue if one at all.
3. Millennial Republicans are still more moderate than their older counterparts, so eventually they should help moderate the party overall and thus still benefits Democrats.


Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,933
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2017, 02:07:27 am »
« Edited: April 17, 2017, 02:38:24 am by Shadows »

There are remarkable similarities Similar tax rates, big business preventing progressive policies, domination of the financial elite, Stock Market crash & a recession, horribly inequitable growth, real struggle of the working class.

I believe people had the next FDR with Sanders, a once in a 100 year politician. FDR massively increased government & build infrastructure, initially cut military (before WWII began), introduced revolutionary concepts in the country like minimum wage & social security, helped unions get stronger with collective bargaining, created Securities & exchange commission, signed Glass Steagal, ended prohibition of alcohol & taxed it.

Sanders is in many ways paying homage somewhat to FDR's 2nd bill of rights guaranteeing education, healthcare, good jobs etc though he doesn't go as far as FDR & neither does he try to increase taxes that high. Universal Healthcare, Tuition free college, huge infrastructure, Modern Glass Steagal & breaking the banks, ending Citizens United, 15$ minimum wage, marijuana legalization seem core "new" New Deal policies !





FDR changed economic policies at a time when people didn't believe government had huge responsibility to the people, welfare wasn't a big thing & few believed higher taxes & spending can actually help people. Country after country would follow similar policies leading to the establishment of a New World Order. Reagan & Iron lady in UK did similar re-alignment & went in an opposite direction & the whole world essentially followed suit leading to a new era.

Both had a lot of economic papers, notable speakers supporting them. Keynes, the father of modern Macroneconomics proved statistically about the requirement of government intervention in times of depression & there were many economic papers & TV/Movie/Art supporting such a cause of a bigger government. Around or pre-Reagan, you had people like Milton Freedman, Ayn Rand about cutting government & taxes & welfare, stuff like "Greed is good" etc bringing a different re-alignment. Now you have Stiglitz, Piketty, Krugman, etc as famous economists arguing for a sharp left turn with brilliant economic work & even the IMF trashing Trickle Down. You have an aversion among people about big business & yearning for fundamental change !


Both FDR & Sanders are/were staunch anti-big banks, anti-big money/corporate- FDR's "I welcome the Hatred speech" is legendary - 2 New York born guys too! Remarkably uncanny!
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2017, 04:14:18 pm »

Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

He never said that. He said that we are entering a period where the Republicans may have a temporary advantage but we are not entering a Republican era. He was quite specific and clear on that.

As for the 21st century D predictions, do the math. Figure out that the GOP is going to need to keep winning 3-4% more whites each subsequent election to hold their 51%. Why would minorities swing to the Republicans, when the current GOP era has been geared towards motivating white voters to turn out?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2017, 09:45:13 pm »

In the suburbs your analysis might hold true for now but in rural areas I do think Republicans can still win there in the longer short term despite the Millennials growing influence in electoral politics.

The top trending Dem Congressional Districts were in CA, FL, AZ, TX, VA(NOVA) and GA in 2016.

Considering how deep GOP win margins run now in some of these areas, you're probably right. However, a few things:

1. Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power, no?
2. A reduction in the win margins of Republicans in some rural areas due to ascendant Millennials means it is still easier for Democrats to win in these areas than it is now. Even more so if Republican Millennials are more willing to split their tickets, which isn't impossible to think if the GOP runs candidates not palatable to them, though that is mainly a short-term issue if one at all.
3. Millennial Republicans are still more moderate than their older counterparts, so eventually they should help moderate the party overall and thus still benefits Democrats.



Lets see one by one:

1.) Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power- Um no not exactly. In 2016 I think overall migration between suburban and urban counties kind of evened out I think. I think overall migration to urban counties was higher from 2010/2011-2015 than in suburban counties. I could always be wrong though on that. Still the suburbs is where the Dem gained ground in 2016 and that is a caution to Republicans for the future. I mean for example Republicans aren't even competitive in Bergen County, NJ at the Presidential Level which is in the NYC Metropolitan Area that has to start to change in my opinion.

2A.)A reduction in the win margins in some rural areas due to ascendant Millennials it is still easier for Democrats to win in these area's than it is now-I think in some rural areas in the South mainly as more Millennials enter the electorate those areas could probably trend Dem and maybe even be competitive in the long term for Democrats. The opposite is currently happening in the Midwest in states like MI, PA, and WI where the rural areas are trending Republican so it might be a lost cause for the Dems to even compete in those respective states rural areas.

2B.)Even more so if Republican Millennials are more will to spilt their tickets which isn't impossible if the GOP candidates not palatable to them, though that is mainly a short term if one at all.-True. That's a scenario when "The Greatest Generation" I think voted for Reagan at the Presidential Level but still voted Dem at the Congressional Level because the Dem Presidential Candidates weren't worth voting for in their eyes.

3.) Millennial Republicans are still more moderate than their older counterparts, so they eventually they should help moderate the party overall and this still benefits the Dems- Millennial Republicans are more moderate on immigration and gay marriage than their older counterparts but on fiscal issues they are in-line with the current parties platform I think.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2017, 09:54:53 pm »

Why does every long-term Atlas prediction involve a early-to-mid-21st Century Democratic realignment?  Before Trump won, the consensus was that it started in 2008, and now they have just shifted the goalposts to 2020/2024.  Partisan realignments are becoming more and more rare, and there is no evidence that we are about to embark in a long-term Democratic era.  In fact, the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" (from the early 2000s) has now recanted and said that we are entering a Republican era.

He never said that. He said that we are entering a period where the Republicans may have a temporary advantage but we are not entering a Republican era. He was quite specific and clear on that.

As for the 21st century D predictions, do the math. Figure out that the GOP is going to need to keep winning 3-4% more whites each subsequent election to hold their 51%. Why would minorities swing to the Republicans, when the current GOP era has been geared towards motivating white voters to turn out?
Each election is different though with different issues and candidates. I don't really play the demographic game in my head every election. You take every election result and see what you can improve on as a party after that respective election. Right now I see the Republican Party trying to find itself like the Dems were trying to do in the Carter Era and the Dems are basically where the Republicans were after Ford lost to Carter in the 1976 Presidential Election.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,120
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2017, 11:18:09 pm »

1.) Continuing urbanization of America will further erode rural political power- Um no not exactly. In 2016 I think overall migration between suburban and urban counties kind of evened out I think. I think overall migration to urban counties was higher from 2010/2011-2015 than in suburban counties. I could always be wrong though on that. Still the suburbs is where the Dem gained ground in 2016 and that is a caution to Republicans for the future. I mean for example Republicans aren't even competitive in Bergen County, NJ at the Presidential Level which is in the NYC Metropolitan Area that has to start to change in my opinion.

Yes, that's true. I actually posted an article on it last month: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261282.0

What I meant was that people are continuing to move to more populated areas, whether they be urban cores, the suburbs around them or even a little further out. The area(s) consistently losing out still are rural areas:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not to say all types of 'burbs are good for Democrats - definitely not, but areas where Democrats are really getting blown out are not doing so well in terms of population growth.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines