Agree or Disagree: Demographic Changes in the US largely favor the Democratic Party

[ProgressiveModerate]

For a while, especially during the era of Obama, this had been the consensus by many in the election community. At face value, it makes sense in that cities and minority groups Democrats do well with tend to be growing faster than the nation whereas the GOP tends to do better in areas of the country that are stagnant or shrinking. Yet 10 years later I don't think anyone would say Democrats have stable permanent coalition even though they tend to more often than not win the popular vote. Still, in the 2020 election there was a very strong correlation between the US growth map and 2016--> 2020 swing map.

[Roll Roons]

Depends on the place. The people moving into places like Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Austin, Nashville or Seattle are largely young liberals of all races.

But those moving to Myrtle Beach and Naples are a different story.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Weak Agree. It is true demographic change is a help to the Dems on net. But of course, it's far from enough to give them elections.

[Torie]

Demographic changes have favored the Dem party since the beginning of time. Think about that one.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Demographic changes have favored the Dem party since the beginning of time. Think about that one.

Actually, this wasn't true in the 1850s. German-Americans were a strongly GOP constituency before the temperance movement became huge on national level.

[lfromnj]

Demographic changes have favored the Dem party since the beginning of time. Think about that one.

Actually, this wasn't true in the 1850s. German-Americans were a strongly GOP constituency before the temperance movement became huge on national level.

German protestants were. German catholics weren't. See RRH 1860 Cincinnati map

[Torie]

Demographic changes have favored the Dem party since the beginning of time. Think about that one.

Actually, this wasn't true in the 1850s. German-Americans were a strongly GOP constituency before the temperance movement became huge on national level.

You may be on to something. Sometimes whole cohorts flip, ala the Scots Irish, one the epitome of Jacksonian "democracy," the incubator of the Dem party itself, now about 85% Trumpist, given they love of violence and hatred of book learning, to put it as crudely and tendentiously as possible.

[TML]

This should be true in theory, but in practice the Democratic Party has often failed to exploit such changes adequately. For example, the percentage of nonwhites in FL has increased from 31% in 2010 to 38.5% in 2020, yet Democrats’ failure to register nearly as many new voters in this state as Republicans have done during this time period means they did not fully exploit this demographic change to their advantage (according to a prominent FL Democratic strategist, there are many untapped potential Democratic voters among this group which could be tapped by Democrats if they cared enough to do so).

[Agonized-Statism]

Yes, although Republicans will adapt (as they already have somewhat by tapping into working class discontent with trade policy), the Democrats' huge coalition will fragment (lots of unresolved conflict like gentrifier vs. gentrified), and voting habits will change as demographic groups grow and gain socioeconomic influence (although climate change and economic contraction will slow that down a lot; largely non-white climate refugees have been a big part in Texas' shift). As the Democrats' demographic and electoral advantage has grown, divergent interests threatening their coalition have also become more apparent. But demographic change favors Democrats in that Republicans will be forced to change a lot more.

It's the choices Democrats will make on which interests they want in their party that will decide exactly how Republicans return from the wilderness. See Mexican-Americans going for Sanders in the 2020 primaries and then giving Biden diminished returns in the election. But at the same time, Democrats letting a given group down doesn't make that group Republican automatically- Republicans have to make an effort to appeal to a disaffected group, and when the single-issue lockdown voting goes, what do they have to offer Mexican-Americans? A feeling of alienation in both parties has kept either from harnessing the full potential of Mexican-American voting power so far.

We got a taste of how an America that feels heard will vote in 2008. Imagine how one that's actually heard, and not just offered an "at least we're not them", would vote.

[cinyc]

Strongly Disagree. Demography is not destiny.

[swf541]

Weak agree, but agreed with the poster above that they arent destiny.  That said the continued rural decline in most of the country and slowly increasing secularization is definitely not great for the GOP

[David Hume]

Strongly agree. Demographic Changes favor D for sure. It's a different question how able are they to utilize it. And it turns out they are very stupid to embrace things like defund the police and CRT that turn off Latinos.

[Del Tachi]

Weak disagree.  An aspect of America's demographic transformation that isn't talked about nearly enough is that the electorate is greying even faster than it is browning, with each national electorate being older than the one before.  This on balance would seem to favor Republicans. 

Even still, the nation's demographic composition isn't changing fast enough that neither party is able to adapt to it.   

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Depends on the place. The people moving into places like Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Austin, Nashville or Seattle are largely young liberals of all races.

But those moving to Myrtle Beach and Naples are a different story.

The key difference is the people described in the first line will mostly still be alive in 20-30 years.