How does the Republican Party of the future win over minority voters?

[DPKdebator]

It has been agreed by most people out there (or, at least on this forum) that the Republicans need to appeal to minority voters in the future to remain a viable political force. However, how can the future Republican Party appeal to America's nonwhite voters?

[GlobeSoc]

They can't really win lower-class minorities without the party being completely and utterly unrecognizable, but I could see a reverse Bill Clinton making Asians a marginal group and getting blowouts in Fort Bend, Orange County type places, as upper-class minorities could be flipped if the Democrats go too far to the left economically for their tastes, which is what I expect will happen.

[TheSaint250]

Moderate on immigration, abortion, gay marriage (many have already moderated on this), capitalize on the protection of religion (no, in this context, this does not mean passing RFRAs) and free-market capitalism, and push for school choice, lower taxes, and responsible government spending.

Essentially, moderate on social issues and emphasize fiscal responsibility.

[twenty42]

I'm a firm believer that demographics fall in line with election results, not the other way around. We will eventually have a Democratic president who oversees disastrous economic times and/or an unpopular war, and there will be a realignment due to the self-correcting nature of our politics.

I'm not saying this will break the dam, but it will put a hole in it. I don't think Republicans are going to win the black vote all of a sudden, but they could garner 20-25% in the case of a cataclysmic Democratic administration, which would be enough to dramatically change the map.

[Technocracy Timmy]

We will eventually have a Democratic president who oversees disastrous economic times and/or an unpopular war, and there will be a realignment due to the self-correcting nature of our politics.

There wasn't a realignment in 2008 when Bush presided over both.

[The_Doctor]

I'm a firm believer that demographics fall in line with election results, not the other way around. We will eventually have a Democratic president who oversees disastrous economic times and/or an unpopular war, and there will be a realignment due to the self-correcting nature of our politics.

I'm not saying this will break the dam, but it will put a hole in it. I don't think Republicans are going to win the black vote all of a sudden, but they could garner 20-25% in the case of a cataclysmic Democratic administration, which would be enough to dramatically change the map.

We're in a Republican alignment right now though?

[twenty42]

We will eventually have a Democratic president who oversees disastrous economic times and/or an unpopular war, and there will be a realignment due to the self-correcting nature of our politics.

There wasn't a realignment in 2008 when Bush presided over both.

The national popular vote swung Democratic by 9.6 points, and Democrats picked up 113 electoral votes by flipping nine states plus NE-02. That's pretty significant.

[Sumner 1868]

Hispanics will be white sooner or later.

[DPKdebator]

We will eventually have a Democratic president who oversees disastrous economic times and/or an unpopular war, and there will be a realignment due to the self-correcting nature of our politics.

There wasn't a realignment in 2008 when Bush presided over both.

The national popular vote swung Democratic by 9.6 points, and Democrats picked up 113 electoral votes by flipping nine states plus NE-02. That's pretty significant.

I don't know how reliable the Atlas considers Wikipedia, but 2008 is listed as a "possible modern realigning election" on the page about realigning elections.

[Beet]

There is no need. People vote based on the best candidate, not demographics. If you put up a good candidate, you will get 15% of the black vote, 40% of Hispanics, etc. and so on.

[Technocracy Timmy]

We will eventually have a Democratic president who oversees disastrous economic times and/or an unpopular war, and there will be a realignment due to the self-correcting nature of our politics.

There wasn't a realignment in 2008 when Bush presided over both.

The national popular vote swung Democratic by 9.6 points, and Democrats picked up 113 electoral votes by flipping nine states plus NE-02. That's pretty significant.

That swing largely came from the financial crisis hitting at the right time. McCain and Obama were neck and neck in the polls even with Bush's unpopularity before the crisis hit.

A realignment has lasting effects on both Parties. The new realigning majority coalition usually wins at least 3 consecutive presidential elections, the realigning President performs far better in their reelection bid, and the new majority coalition forces the opposition Party to moderate. The Democrats didn't win a third consecutive term in the WH and Obama performed worse in 2012 than 2008. The Democrats got swept from their own trifecta into a GOP trifecta 8 years later. Plus the Republicans did this by not moderating at all in 2010, 2014, and 2016.

I'd argue that we're still in the Republican alignment era that started in 1980.

[twenty42]

We will eventually have a Democratic president who oversees disastrous economic times and/or an unpopular war, and there will be a realignment due to the self-correcting nature of our politics.

There wasn't a realignment in 2008 when Bush presided over both.

The national popular vote swung Democratic by 9.6 points, and Democrats picked up 113 electoral votes by flipping nine states plus NE-02. That's pretty significant.

That swing largely came from the financial crisis hitting at the right time. McCain and Obama were neck and neck in the polls even with Bush's unpopularity before the crisis hit.

A realignment has lasting effects on both Parties. The new realigning majority coalition usually wins at least 3 consecutive presidential elections, the realigning President performs far better in their reelection bid, and the new majority coalition forces the opposition Party to moderate. The Democrats didn't win a third consecutive term in the WH and Obama performed worse in 2012 than 2008. The Democrats got swept from their own trifecta into a GOP trifecta 8 years later. Plus the Republicans did this by not moderating at all in 2010, 2014, and 2016.

I'd argue that we're still in the Republican alignment era that started in 1980.

My point is that a wave election will encompass all voters involved. Non-white population can keep growing, but margins will self-stabilize in the event of a disastrous Democratic presidency. Black, white or purple, the American public will want change. That will eventualize into minority voters swinging to the right.

[Virginiá]

My point is that a wave election will encompass all voters involved. Non-white population can keep growing, but margins will self-stabilize in the event of a disastrous Democratic presidency. Black, white or purple, the American public will want change. That will eventualize into minority voters swinging to the right.

Carter didn't seem to have that effect. Reagan's margins (both times) among African Americans and Hispanics were lackluster given his overall win margins.

The GOP is going to have to change quite a bit to win them over, and their behavior right now is really hurting their future prospects with current minority generations. The only progress they seem to be making is with African American men, and it's hard to separate that from their overall advantage with men in general. My point is that the Republican Party is going to have to work for those voters, and that may entail taking up positions/behaviors that eventually drive away other existing parts of their coalition.

[twenty42]

My point is that a wave election will encompass all voters involved. Non-white population can keep growing, but margins will self-stabilize in the event of a disastrous Democratic presidency. Black, white or purple, the American public will want change. That will eventualize into minority voters swinging to the right.

Carter didn't seem to have that effect. Reagan's margins (both times) among African Americans and Hispanics were lackluster given his overall win margins.

The GOP is going to have to change quite a bit to win them over, and their behavior right now is really hurting their future prospects with current minority generations. The only progress they seem to be making is with African American men, and it's hard to separate that from their overall advantage with men in general. My point is that the Republican Party is going to have to work for those voters, and that may entail taking up positions/behaviors that eventually drive away other existing parts of their coalition.

African-Americans and Hispanics were also a much smaller portion of the American electorate in 1980 than they are now.

You also have to remember that pre-1960s blacks will eventually die out and so will the racist past of America. Do you really think that the African-American population of 2050 will have the same attitudes toward racism having grown up in millenial America?

[Del Tachi]

Talk about how NAFTA and other DLC-inspired faux liberal policies have decimated Hispanic and AA working class communities.

Might be a promising strategy for a Trump-style candidate without the racial rhetoric.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They have obstructed comprehensive immigration reform which will hurt them in 2018, 2020 and 2022. Which is the very reason why Nancy Pelosi and Booker will be in power by then.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

There's no reason for Republicans to risk a huge chunk of their white support to go after Latinos who are concentrating themselves in the major cities of a handful of large-population states. If they can maintain 2016 numbers with whites the GOP will have an enduring structural advantage in Congress and in the EC, and who cares how many minorities you lose if they're gerrymandered out of the way?

If I were a Republican strategist I would basically advise what the Trump campaign did: moderate on social issues, go hard on crime and terrorism and use some populist economic rhetoric to try and get northern whites voting like southern ones.

[RINO Tom]

Talk about how NAFTA and other DLC-inspired faux liberal policies have decimated Hispanic and AA working class communities.

Might be a promising strategy for a Trump-style candidate without the racial rhetoric.

I know you're real big on that narrative, but to call NAFTA "DLC-inspired" is blatantly wrong.  It was a Republican's baby, a Republican'a campaign promise and a GOP Congress' bill; who cares that an ideology-free Democratic President signed it?

[Sumner 1868]

Hispanics will not be a minority by the time it really matters and will probably be considered mostly white sooner or later.

[Del Tachi]

Talk about how NAFTA and other DLC-inspired faux liberal policies have decimated Hispanic and AA working class communities.

Might be a promising strategy for a Trump-style candidate without the racial rhetoric.

I know you're real big on that narrative, but to call NAFTA "DLC-inspired" is blatantly wrong.  It was a Republican's baby, a Republican'a campaign promise and a GOP Congress' bill; who cares that an ideology-free Democratic President signed it?

Because it gives Republicans like Trump a pass to criticize it.  Obamacare was also a Republican healthcare plan, but that hasn't stopped the GOP from (successfully) turning it into a major talking point that they're still using to turn out their base voters five election cycles later.

Do you really think that politics is more about policy than it is identity and messaging?

[Del Tachi]

Talk about how NAFTA and other DLC-inspired faux liberal policies have decimated Hispanic and AA working class communities.

Might be a promising strategy for a Trump-style candidate without the racial rhetoric.

Yeah great idea...tell those young minorities about factory jobs they've never seen or know anyone who's worked one. While you're at it...bring up that the Democrats were the party of the KKK *gasp*

Per a 2016 report by the American Manufacturing Alliance, the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States has been disastrous for the Black community.  The authors talked about it on NPR here.  Makes sense, considering that 10% of African-Americans workforce is in the manufacturing sector compared to only 8.8% of the general population.

Check your figures next time, please.

[hopper]

My point is that a wave election will encompass all voters involved. Non-white population can keep growing, but margins will self-stabilize in the event of a disastrous Democratic presidency. Black, white or purple, the American public will want change. That will eventualize into minority voters swinging to the right.

Carter didn't seem to have that effect. Reagan's margins (both times) among African Americans and Hispanics were lackluster given his overall win margins.

The GOP is going to have to change quite a bit to win them over, and their behavior right now is really hurting their future prospects with current minority generations. The only progress they seem to be making is with African American men, and it's hard to separate that from their overall advantage with men in general. My point is that the Republican Party is going to have to work for those voters, and that may entail taking up positions/behaviors that eventually drive away other existing parts of their coalition.

African-Americans and Hispanics were also a much smaller portion of the American electorate in 1980 than they are now.

You also have to remember that pre-1960s blacks will eventually die out and so will the racist past of America. Do you really think that the African-American population of 2050 will have the same attitudes toward racism having grown up in millenial America?

Blacks-No not really Black People were 10% of the Presidential Electorate in 1980 and they were 12% of the Presidential Electorate in 2016 so there was not a dramatic difference at all on what % of the Presidential Electorate that Blacks made up 1980 vs 2016. Hispanics-Yes they made up 2% of the Presidential Electorate in 1980 vs 9 or 11% (Depending which Exit Poll you look at) of the Presidential Electorate in 2016 so that is a sizeable difference.

[hopper]

Talk about how NAFTA and other DLC-inspired faux liberal policies have decimated Hispanic and AA working class communities.

Might be a promising strategy for a Trump-style candidate without the racial rhetoric.

I know you're real big on that narrative, but to call NAFTA "DLC-inspired" is blatantly wrong.  It was a Republican's baby, a Republican'a campaign promise and a GOP Congress' bill; who cares that an ideology-free Democratic President signed it?

It was a Democrat Congress that passed it.

[hopper]

They have obstructed comprehensive immigration reform which will hurt them in 2018, 2020 and 2022. Which is the very reason why Nancy Pelosi and Booker will be in power by then.

It didn't hurt them from 2010-2016 why would not passing comprehensive immigration reform hurt them now?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Talk about how NAFTA and other DLC-inspired faux liberal policies have decimated Hispanic and AA working class communities.

Might be a promising strategy for a Trump-style candidate without the racial rhetoric.

I know you're real big on that narrative, but to call NAFTA "DLC-inspired" is blatantly wrong.  It was a Republican's baby, a Republican'a campaign promise and a GOP Congress' bill; who cares that an ideology-free Democratic President signed it?

It was a Democrat Congress that passed it.

While Democrats were the majority Party in the House and Senate at the time, the bill was passed on the backs of GOP legislators.

House:
132 Republicans voted in favor.
102 Democrats voted in favor.

Senate:
34 Republicans voted in favor.
27 Democrats voted in favor.