How much time does the GOP have left (demographically)?

[Higgins]

Looking only at the Presidential level, how much time should the GOP have left to capture the White House with their current coalition? I've read the Religious Right is failing in numbers and influence; the numbers of both White and non-White Hispanics are rising and both groups tend to vote Democrat. Is there any estimated point at which the GOP's White non-Hispanic base will no longer be sustainable to win the Presidency?

[Person Man]

You mean how long  Reaganism will be the dominant tenant of the GOP, not neccesarily how long the GOP will be relevant.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Economics is what will do the GOP in if they don't adapt; though demographic and generational change both play an auxiliary role in this situation.

[Higgins]

Economics is what will do the GOP in if they don't adapt; though demographic and generational change both play an auxiliary role in this situation.

You don't think the GOP brand is already tarred as the party of "Rich and White"? Even if they turn to economics, I feel that stigma will (hopefully) kill them among younger people in years to come.

[TheSaint250]

Moderation on social issues will make the party more appealing to Democrat-leaning demographic groups. The party shouldn't cede its position on economic issues. The choices of the future should be based on economic standing of the parties

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The GOP already altered their coalition in 2016 and it worked: they recaptured the White House. Republicans are doing fine.

[TheSaint250]

The GOP already altered their coalition in 2016 and it worked: they recaptured the White House. Republicans are doing fine.

It was fine for 2016 but down the road there needs to be more appeal to minorities and young Americans as well as WWC

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I predict the GOP will win 80-90% of the white vote 20 years from now.

[Higgins]

I predict the GOP will win 80-90% of the white vote 20 years from now.

Why? Younger voters tend to be more Democratic leaning.

[Nyvin]

They still have geography working in their favor massively.   And in the United States that counts for a whole heck of a lot actually.   

I'd say by 2028 or 2032 their current agenda will no longer be viable at a national level, although I doubt they'll be able to win the popular vote ever again with their current platform.

[Virginiá]

The GOP already altered their coalition in 2016 and it worked: they recaptured the White House. Republicans are doing fine.

Trump brought in the bare minimum necessary to scratch out a win. By no means is this enough to even get to 2020. If Trump had won by 10 points or more, I might say, ok, looks like maybe something has changed, but he lost by 2% and barely carried the states he needed to win an EC victory. Further, part of this was based on him having no past record (he will have a tarnished record full of flip-flopping in 2020) and unsustainable turnout among smaller white voter demographics.

Let's not forget something else - Trump deviated from the standard GOP agenda in regards to trade and social programs. Does anyone think this is taking the GOP by storm? Even Trump has pretty much abandoned all those promises he made that won over the people he needed to win over. In 2020 he'll be nothing but a guy who made a hell of a lot of promises then blatantly went back on them literally as soon as he was elected. Suffice to say that the next Republican candidate will likely stick to more traditional Republican policies.


In effect, Trump has really changed nothing beyond 2016. If the Republican Party was an addict that was completely broke, Trump would probably be a bag of PCP-laced dope they found on the ground that got them high one last time before they hit rock bottom.

[Beet]

I predict the GOP will win 80-90% of the white vote 20 years from now.

And last year when I broached the Alabamization of America, people like BRTD laughed at me. Now lots of people are predicting it.

[Santander]

I predict the GOP will win 80-90% of the white vote 20 years from now.

Whites are the most diverse racial group in America. Won't happen.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The GOP already altered their coalition in 2016 and it worked: they recaptured the White House. Republicans are doing fine.

Well yeah, it worked for 2016, but with rapidly changing demographics it's going to get eons harder for the GOP to win in the future if they continue to alienate minorities through Trumpism.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Trump brought in the bare minimum necessary to scratch out a win. By no means is this enough to even get to 2020. If Trump had won by 10 points or more, I might say, ok, looks like maybe something has changed, but he lost by 2% and barely carried the states he needed to win an EC victory. Further, part of this was based on him having no past record (he will have a tarnished record full of flip-flopping in 2020) and unsustainable turnout among smaller white voter demographics.

Whatever. All the next successful GOP candidate needs to do is keep the rural WWC voters Trump brought into the party while winning back those educated, suburban Romney voters who were turned off in 2016. That is eminently achievable. And keep in mind, you only need 270 electoral votes; Democrats can run up the popular vote in states like California and New York where millennial Hispanics live, but if Republicans hold their gains the Midwest they will keep winning the Presidency. As we saw in 2016.

Let's not forget something else - Trump deviated from the standard GOP agenda in regards to trade and social programs. Does anyone think this is taking the GOP by storm? Even Trump has pretty much abandoned all those promises he made that won over the people he needed to win over. In 2020 he'll be nothing but a guy who made a hell of a lot of promises then blatantly went back on them literally as soon as he was elected. Suffice to say that the next Republican candidate will likely stick to more traditional Republican policies.

Yes, I think that thanks to Trump what it is possible to advocate on trade and social programmes in a GOP primary has shifted towards what is a more winning position in the general, to the benefit of the party.

Anyway, Trump is scandal-ridden and 2020 already looks like it will be a write-off for the GOP, no argument here. But this thread is about the strength of coalitions over the next few cycles, not about how competent an individual candidate is. Trump has proved the path is there: all Republicans need to do is find a candidate with less of his weaknesses who can carry the same message.  

In effect, Trump has really changed nothing beyond 2016. If the Republican Party was an addict that was completely broke, Trump would probably be a bag of PCP-laced dope they found on the ground that got them high one last time before they hit rock bottom.

The Republican Party has literally won 3 of the last 4 elections. These metaphors may be comforting, but they are delusional.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The GOP already altered their coalition in 2016 and it worked: they recaptured the White House. Republicans are doing fine.

Well yeah, it worked for 2016, but with rapidly changing demographics it's going to get eons harder for the GOP to win in the future if they continue to alienate minorities through Trumpism.

The Hispanic vote was 11% in 2012 and 11% in 2016. Doesn't exactly seem rapid to me.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The GOP already altered their coalition in 2016 and it worked: they recaptured the White House. Republicans are doing fine.

Well yeah, it worked for 2016, but with rapidly changing demographics it's going to get eons harder for the GOP to win in the future if they continue to alienate minorities through Trumpism.

The Hispanic vote was 11% in 2012 and 11% in 2016. Doesn't exactly seem rapid to me.

You kind of just proved my point. The latino community is the second largest ethnic group in America and it's growing fast, by 2050, we are projected to have a minority-majority. If the GOP can't increase their vote share of latinos, they could lose states like Texas and Arizona.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The GOP already altered their coalition in 2016 and it worked: they recaptured the White House. Republicans are doing fine.

Well yeah, it worked for 2016, but with rapidly changing demographics it's going to get eons harder for the GOP to win in the future if they continue to alienate minorities through Trumpism.

The Hispanic vote was 11% in 2012 and 11% in 2016. Doesn't exactly seem rapid to me.

You kind of just proved my point. The latino community is the second largest ethnic group in America and it's growing fast, by 2050, we are projected to have a minority-majority. If the GOP can't increase their vote share of latinos, they could lose states like Texas and Arizona.

The problem with that is Texas Hispanics tend to assimilate into Texan culture and vote more Republican than e.g. California Hispanics.

[Badger]

The GOP already altered their coalition in 2016 and it worked: they recaptured the White House. Republicans are doing fine.

Well yeah, it worked for 2016, but with rapidly changing demographics it's going to get eons harder for the GOP to win in the future if they continue to alienate minorities through Trumpism.

The Hispanic vote was 11% in 2012 and 11% in 2016. Doesn't exactly seem rapid to me.

You kind of just proved my point. The latino community is the second largest ethnic group in America and it's growing fast, by 2050, we are projected to have a minority-majority. If the GOP can't increase their vote share of latinos, they could lose states like Texas and Arizona.

The problem with that is Texas Hispanics tend to assimilate into Texan culture and vote more Republican than e.g. California Hispanics.

No, Texas Hispanics who arrive there Generations ago assimilated over time, especially in the north part of the state. 1st and 2nd generation arrivals are being assimilated no more rapidly than California brethren.

More to the point, assimilation doesn't mean turning Republican. Asians have proven this.

[Nyvin]

I think the Urban/Rural divide and the Young/Old divide are much more prominent and will become much stronger than the racial divide between the two parties.

[Virginiá]

Anyway, Trump is scandal-ridden and 2020 already looks like it will be a write-off for the GOP, no argument here. But this thread is about the strength of coalitions over the next few cycles, not about how competent an individual candidate is. Trump has proved the path is there: all Republicans need to do is find a candidate with less of his weaknesses who can carry the same message.  

But that's what I was talking about - can they find someone like that each time there is an open presidential race, and will they be accepted by primary voters? Having Republicans commit from here on out to not touch the safety net is a huge change, and so far it's not a change that is being reflected among most of the actual politicians, including Trump himself apparently. This is just something I'd have to see to believe, because it would mark a major turning point for the party in terms of policy. Trump said what he needed to say but has put no actions behind the words and has no foundation for carrying his brand into the future, beyond his own presidency.

I'd also note that Trump didn't even top GHWB in white support. Clinton did worse than Obama, but if 59% - 60% is the very best Republicans do on an average basis, then that won't carry them in the future. Demographics don't mean everything, but if they want to be essentially a whites-only party, they are going to need around 65% and more each time to constantly remain viable in the future.

The Republican Party has literally won 3 of the last 4 elections. These metaphors may be comforting, but they are delusional.

That being said, I don't see the midterm elections as that consequential. Midterms have long been known as referendums on the incumbent president, and at least in 2010, Democrats were severely overextended. Even a slightly unpopular president was enough to cost them a lot of offices that they held in places they weren't normally welcome in. I think many of us growing up and tuning into politics almost exclusively in the Obama era has led a great many to forget how much an unpopular Republican president can cost their party.

Also, look back to when parties were powerful but lost a lot at once. Democrats in 1993 probably never envisioned losing the House for most of the next generation, as they were on top of the world then. I doubt Republicans imagined they would be the minority party for most of the next 60 years when the depression struck.

At any rate, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Economics is what will do the GOP in if they don't adapt; though demographic and generational change both play an auxiliary role in this situation.

You don't think the GOP brand is already tarred as the party of "Rich and White"? Even if they turn to economics, I feel that stigma will (hopefully) kill them among younger people in years to come.

Well their white working class base in the Deep South, Appalachia, and the Midwest certainly don't see their own Party as that of a bunch of rich white people, and those who do see the Party that way don't care because they're Reaganites who genuinely believe in a lot of Reagan's economic agenda (minus entitlement reform and now free trade).

I don't suspect that shifting to the left on economics will be what saves them; they'll stay on course where they are. I was implying that economic conditions won't be cured by their supply side economic theory the same way New Deal full employment policies couldn't solve stagflation.

[Coraxion]

More to the point, assimilation doesn't mean turning Republican. Asians have proven this.

Plus, Hispanos of New Mexico show that assimilation isn't a safe assumption.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats really need to stop sucking and move off the "demographics make us inevitable" narrative.

[Santander]

More to the point, assimilation doesn't mean turning Republican. Asians have proven this.

Do they really assimilate though? They mostly either live in Hawaii or concentrate together with others of their ethnic group in places like Hackensack or Edison in New Jersey or Buffalo Grove or Arlington Heights in Illinois. I suppose they're kind of everywhere in California, but even then, there are definitely areas of Asian concentration. I'm not sure I'd call that assimilation in the same way I wouldn't describe Italians as assimilated either, since 80% of them are still concentrated within 500 miles of NYC.