Long term drift to the Democrats?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:20:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Long term drift to the Democrats?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Long term drift to the Democrats?  (Read 30098 times)
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 21, 2003, 06:09:11 AM »

Would it be a fair assumption to make to say that immigration over the long term will push the US further and further to the Democrats? Has this already happened in CA where the GOP are now effectively locked out in presidential elections?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2003, 12:12:54 PM »

Well...yes but not because of that.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2003, 03:40:34 PM »

Relax people, the theory about a long term drift to one party or the other has been on for the last 100 years and more. Tongue

Not that there haven't been good reasons for these theories and they seem to have been valid in the "short-term". Over time a party that's looking at a minority status takes action to expand its base and remain competitive. The US political system rocks that way. Smiley

In the specific case you mention (paid immigrant growth) Bush won 33% of Hispanics in 2000 and the GOP won 39% in the 2002 midterms. The GOP is also making gains among other immigrant groups like the Indian-American community. If you find this shocking, Let me provide some explanation..... Unlike the black community, which is now (for the most part) solidly liberal and thus certain to oppose the GOP for some time to come, the Hispanic and Indian-American community is way to the right on social issues. I would guess that a clear majority is pro-life and pro-school prayer and would probably oppose gay marriage among others.

And even if a reasonable argument is made that the GOP wont take a majority of these votes and will still have a definite (if smaller) long term decline; then consider this...............

The Americans of the Bush nation tend to have more children than the Americans of the Gore nation, and the communities of the Bush nation tend to welcome growth while the communities of the Gore nation tend to limit it: California's culturally conservative Central Valley is growing faster than the culturally liberal San Francisco Bay area.

The fastest-growing parts of the United States are formerly rural counties on the metropolitan fringe, beyond the edge-city office centers, and are now filling up with family-sized subdivisions, outlet shopping malls, and booming mega-churches. Though many of these are within the boundaries of major metro areas, these counties tend to vote strongly Republican; and, with their growth, they have produced Republican majorities almost large enough to offset the Democratic margins in heavily black or culturally liberal central cities. These are places such as Collin County, Texas, which grew by 86 percent in the 1990s, and voted 73 percent to 24 percent for Bush; Forsyth County, Georgia, which grew by 123 percent, and voted 78 percent to 19 percent for Bush; and Douglas County, Colorado, which grew by 191 percent, and voted 65 percent to 31 percent for Bush.

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2003, 03:59:37 PM »

Long Term from when? 1860? 1900? 1924? 1936? 1956? 1964? 1972? 1984? 1996? etc?

My guess next election:

GOP gain Hispanic votes, Dems gain in Appalachia.

Nice, safe bets Wink
Logged
JNB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2003, 06:18:35 PM »



 As someone who just recently moved out of California and lives most of his life there, the reasons why California has become a Democratic leaning state have many reasons, not just increased Hispanic vote. For one, since about 1990, the state has experienced a large amount of white flight, especially from fomerly swing or even GOP leaning areas. In the 80s, in So Cal, the San Fernando Valley and the Long Beach areas used to have at least on the presidential and statewide level a GOP lean. The Westren and Southren Part of the Silicon Valley(Santa Clara county) also used to have a GOP lean while the Livermore-San Ramon-Walnut Creek corridor of the Bay Area(also called the tri valley area) used to be pretty solidly GOP. In all of these areas, the GOP vote was anchored by a combination of defense industry and high paying blue collar/industrial jobs, and as these jobs starting in 1990 to dry up, the workers moved elsewhere, replaced by a combination of Latino, Far Eastren and South Asian(India) immigratns and liberal whites from the Northeast US. All of these areas now solidly Democratic with the exception of the San Ramon area that merely leans Democratic.

   Also, the fomer GOP strongholds in Southren California, that gave a reliable 60% of the vote on the presidential and statewide levels, such as Orange County, the GOP fortress itself), San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernadino County and Ventura county now at very best lean GOP, and give statewide canidates maybe 50% of the vote. If one looks at election maps dating back to the 88 presidential elections, the geographical pattern still is mostly the same, just the GOP counties are less Republican while the Democratic counties are quite a bit more Democratic.
Logged
JNB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2003, 06:47:43 PM »



 Man, forgive my grammar in the last post. To further the discussion, I read the book, "The emerging Democratic majority" and it makes more than a few wild assumptions. The first wild assumption is that it allows predicts that the white working class in future elections will shift to the left on cultural issues, and that observation flies in the face of reality. The Democrats have been very lucky that have as much of the white working class vote as they did in 2000, and that was a result of the ultra partisan AFL-CIO led by their boss Sweeney, Bush' own poor campaign in 2000 especially trying to sell the working class on why his tax cut that would go mostly for the rich at a time(of then) prosperity(The tax cut package hurt Bush far more than it helped him) and the last minuite DUI revelation that probably switched 2%+ of the vote in Midwestren swing states from Bush to Gore and depressed the vote of white Evangelical Christians. That said, the book does not take these factors into account.

  The second mistaken assumption of the book is that the Hispanic vote will become like the black vote and give the Democrats a overwhelming number of their votes. This is what the Democrats are depending on as their ace in the hole, but it seems that the GOP may be able to get 40% of the Hispanic vote nationally, especially as more liberal, 60s era Catholic clergy that push "peace and justice" issues retire.

  On culture war issues of race, guns and abortion, the Democrats have made about as many gains as they possibly can hope to make in trying to play up the left side of these issues. In the Northeastren Corridor states(MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA and I will throw in VT as well) along with the West Coast states of CA, WA and OR, the Democrats have 20 of 22 senate seats and have gained 20 house seats sinced the 94 election. It is at the point now that the issues such as guns and abortion are starting to do more harm than good for Democrats.
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2003, 09:32:30 PM »

The fastest-growing parts of the United States are formerly rural counties on the metropolitan fringe, beyond the edge-city office centers, and are now filling up with family-sized subdivisions, outlet shopping malls, and booming mega-churches. Though many of these are within the boundaries of major metro areas, these counties tend to vote strongly Republican; and, with their growth, they have produced Republican majorities almost large enough to offset the Democratic margins in heavily black or culturally liberal central cities.
We see this in Minnesota too.  The suburbs 25 miles outside of Minneapolis are growing like crazy and favored the GOP heavily.  The Democrats made gains in older suburbs, but not enough to offset the growing Republican trends in edge-cities or growing conservative trend in rural areas (where liberals on social issues are being voted out of office). The local DFL party is still reeling from a near statewide GOP sweep in 2002 Smiley
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2003, 11:19:39 PM »

True, though suburbs in general have trended strongly Democratic in recent years, compared to where they were. The Republicans' conservative positions on social issues such as guns and abortion have hurt them dearly in Oakland county in Michigan, for example, which now leans slightly Dem after having been strongly Republican for years. It's also the 3rd wealthiest county in the country.
Logged
JNB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2003, 12:14:13 AM »



    The GOP has been hurt the most in older, upper middle class suburbs. The heavy union presence in your state, and in PA and WI has helped keep the white working class vote at play for Democrats when compared to other states. In Pittsburgh PA for example, working class suburbs that went heavily for Dukakis in 88 went for Bush(albiet by a smaller margin) in 2000. Again, most of the voters who take left leaning stands on social issues such as guns, abortion and race have allready made the jump to the Democratic party. The Democrats have done a great job in peeling away these voters, what the Democrats have to worry about is in the Midwest, a fairly large part of their base is still socially conservative white working class voters. Again, the Book, "The emerging Democratic majority" glosses over the effort the unions made in 2000 on behalf of Gore, the Bush DUI incident and the poor campaign on the part of Bush.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2003, 05:52:56 AM »

Appalachia and other poor rural areas have been hit pretty hard by Bush's economic policies and by the downturn.

As a result I would expect to see swings to the Dems in all Appalachian states.

However I would also expect that as the Hispanic community gets richer they will trend GOP.
Logged
JNB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2003, 06:29:03 AM »


  There has been no sign that the border states have been moving away from Bush. If there was any sign, we would have seen it in the KY gov race and if the poor rural areas were moving away from Bush, there would have been some indications from the MS gov race.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2003, 07:27:57 AM »

1. Racial politics in MS make it a very bad indicator of trends in poor rural areas.
And if you quote MS, I will quote Lousiana.

2. Actually the much of the Appalachian part of KY swung towards the Democrats in 2003.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2003, 07:34:34 AM »

Also the Appalacian parts of KY voted much stronger Democrat in the 2003 Gov election than the 2000 Presidential election.

I realize that Gubernatorial and Presidential elections are not the same thing, but it's interesting none the less.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2003, 10:11:46 AM »

You are correct in pointing out that, basically, cultural divides between the parties are getting greater while economic divides are getting smaller. It used to be that the rich voted Republican and the poor voted Democratic, but this is much less true than it used to be. It's down to the point where even the richest voters are only about 60-40 Republican and the poorest are only about 60-40 Democratic. But cultural fault lines are getting greater. Democrats are getting stronger among wealthy, socially progressive voters and Republicans are gaining among poor, socially conservative voters. Whether or not this will continue in the future, however, is open to debate. Clinton was fairly popular with poor rural voters, but Gore was not. This seems to have made up most of the difference between 1996 and 2000, as Gore did almost as well as Clinton in most suburban and urban areas, with as you say exceptions in highly working class areas which voted more like rural areas did.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2003, 11:50:04 AM »

I think what recent results seem to show is more economic voting in some states and more social voting in others.

Interesting.
Logged
JNB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2003, 02:26:40 PM »


 Realpolitik, the rural white areas will vote strongly GOP in most cases, in LA, to be blunt, many rural parish' that voted for Duke in 91 voted for Blanco last week, and we can guess why they didnt vote for Jindal, also is the Democratic presidential canidate going to be pro life, anti affirmative action and get a A+ rating from the NRA? Look, I can say that Arnolds win in CA in October was a signal of a new trend, but its not, as Arnolds liberal views on social issues are not anywhere near where Bush' views are. Same with all of the New England states that have Republican govrenors.

   As for KY, the numbers between the 2000 presidential election and 2003 Gov race were quite close, and Fletcher did very well in traditionally Democratic and very rural Westren KY.  As with LA, Flecther held many views that are a bit more conservative than the national Democratic party. Also the Appalacian parts of KY does not hold all that many votes, and it borders the most Democratic part of W VA.

I know you want the book emerging Democratic majority to be true, but face it, the research for that book was bad, and its conclusions are hardly based in fact.  To nym90, one striking stat from the 2000 election was that Bush had 57% of the white vote with only high school degrees. While many Republicans try to hold the line of the Wall Street Journal, that people switched to voting for the Republican party because of economic issues, the truth of the matter is that 3 social isues are what have given the GOP the nominal majority people see today. That is guns, race and abortion.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2003, 03:24:29 PM »

I've never read the book, and don't intend to.

I have an interest in Appalacia and don't care that sod all people live there.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2003, 02:05:59 PM »

I have an interest in Appalacia and don't care that sod all people live there.

Come again?? "Sod all" as in a few or a derogatory term for the people??
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2003, 02:13:12 PM »

You are correct in pointing out that, basically, cultural divides between the parties are getting greater while economic divides are getting smaller. It used to be that the rich voted Republican and the poor voted Democratic, but this is much less true than it used to be. It's down to the point where even the richest voters are only about 60-40 Republican and the poorest are only about 60-40 Democratic. But cultural fault lines are getting greater. Democrats are getting stronger among wealthy, socially progressive voters and Republicans are gaining among poor, socially conservative voters. Whether or not this will continue in the future, however, is open to debate. Clinton was fairly popular with poor rural voters, but Gore was not. This seems to have made up most of the difference between 1996 and 2000, as Gore did almost as well as Clinton in most suburban and urban areas, with as you say exceptions in highly working class areas which voted more like rural areas did.

Poor Realpolitik- his insistance that higher income vote republican and lower income vote democrat is likely to be denied again Cheesy

I myself also believe that people should vote on economic interest but I don't agree that the Poor's economic interest lies with the Dems nor that the Rich should definitely be solidly GOP. The dems and GOP have two different theories of economic development and growth and the people who agree with each of those should vote for that party. A class divide is as artificial and undesirable as a racial divide.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2003, 03:28:38 PM »

"Sod All" as in "Not Many" not as a derogatory term. I like Appalachia, it resembles where I live quite a lot.
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2003, 10:26:37 PM »

It seems that the more Democrats emerge the fewer elections they win Smiley
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2003, 01:26:36 AM »

I think the success of parties depends on their ability to appeal to new constituencies, which is the factor overlooked by all of these demographic projections. The Republicans' success since the 1960's can be mainly attributed to their ability to win over the fast-growing South; pure demographic projection would have predicted even larger Democratic majorities. Also, FDR was successful because he was able to win over Northern urban voters.

I think a successful Democratic candidate should be able to win over fast-growing suburban areas.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
bandit73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2003, 01:40:09 AM »

Quite frankly, the new suburbs are basically a lost cause.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2003, 12:41:56 PM »

I live in a poor rural area of the U.K with a history of Mining.
Logged
JNB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2003, 03:31:40 PM »

 Realpolitik, this probably explains why you do not understand why poor rural areas often vote Republican. I do not know how politics plays out in the UK, but in the US, what are termed "culture war" issues, meaning guns, abortion, etc., have taken a firm root in the American political landscape. Rural voters may not care for the Republican partys stand on economic issues, but as the Democratic party becomes further dominated by socially liberal educated professionals, rural voter continue to be even further alienated. The rural voters value gun ownership, and see any act to curb that as a threat, rural voters tend to be active Christians, and they see the multi culturalism the left pushes as a threat. So despite the fact that many of their economic intrests may be better served by Democrats, they vote Republican. California shows this split quite clearly. The Central valley and Sierra mountain counties are among the poorest in the state. Fresno county has a 10+ unemployment rate and among the highest poverty rates in the state, but it has bcome solidly Republican.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 11 queries.