Is Trump hurting Republicans' long time prospect?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The die was already cast on this.  Trump is just speeding it along.  I'm actually surprised at the level of anger progressives have towards Trump.  He's actually less atrocious than the average conservative Republican.  Republican policies were hurting their long term prospects by alienating the fastest growing segments of this country.  This trend accelerated under George W. Bush's disastrous presidency.  Trump probably hurt it more by lambasting latinos though.  But it was already going to happen anyways.  If anything, oddly, Trump seems to be more gay friendly than the typical Republican... but I don't really see how that helps him as the larger vote share/growth is going to be minority voters in 2020.

-John. McSame 2008. Got. A. Larger. Share. Of. The. Hispanic. Vote. Than. Bush 1988. George W. Bush's disastrous presidency was apparently a wild success.

Republicans are boosting their long-term prospects by supporting the revision of immigration of groups hostile to their long-term prospects. Simple as that. Fewer minorities=fewer worries for the GOP.

You seem to think that the rising hispanic vote is based upon mass immigration... it's not... it's based on those (in this country now legally) under 18 growing older... and their higher than average birth rates...  the die is already cast on this too.

-By the same partially flawed logic, Mormons and the present residents of the Great Plains are the genetic future of White American politics.

No, because Mormons are a tiny segment of the population... thus even with a higher birthrate there will be little impact... whereas hispanics are what? 15% of the population?  Probably a greater share of the population that's of child-bearing age?  Thus, fluctuations in such a large segment will have greater impact.

-Man, how stupid was Ronald Reagan to sign that amnesty into law. #NoAmnesty #EndDACA #MAGA

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

You do understand that 3/4 of Mexican Americans are legal native born citizens right and are among the fastest growing demographics while white voters are set to decrease in 2024? And that the Great Migration from 1965-2005 is irreversible? Yes?

Your palpable fear of the future of minority majority America is entertaining.

-If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would have moved there. No thanks.

The migration from 1965-2005 may not be reversible. The migrations after 2016 can be prevented.

You know, the most anthropologically interesting thing about your comment is that you're openly referring to "Mexican" as a very thinly veiled synonym for "brown voter" who is distinct from your values and interests, even if they are as American as you are. You don't want them because they're minorities, not that they're immigrants, and you know fully well that most of the immigrants since 1965 have been predominantly minority.

But let's be honest. You don't know the numbers, and if you did, you would know that DACA kids are a minuscule fraction of the potential electorate. You would know that the post-2016 immigration would be a fraction, a tiny, tiny fraction of the electorate compared to the vast tens of millions of voters who are either immigrants or the children of post-1965 immigrants. So even stopping it wouldn't really turn the tide, especially as white deaths are increasingly outpacing white births.

I do know the facts, and I do know the sums and figures, so let's be clear. Your white America is going to be subsumed in a multicultural multihued America that is going to be here by the 2030s, if not sooner. That is not really in question any longer. The longest you can hold out is till 2036 and the numbers are pretty brutally clear that at some point, if the Democrats maintain a 80-20 edge among the minority vote, even routinely losing the white vote by landslides is going to still win them an election.

Lastly, your white America isn't as monolithic as you think, not in the slightest. Anywhere between 35 and 43% of white voters vote Democratic in any election, from federal to state. Combined with minority America routinely awarding 70-80% of their votes to the Democrats, this adds up to the GOP being really dependent on pulling inside straights. and eking out 50-51% wins. Your vision of America succeeding is dependent on white voters going GOP by 70-80% and acting as a monolithic bloc.

You're essentially pulling numbers out of your behind and hoping they add up, when they don't.

-I am aware the vast majority of interstate variation in voting is due to the White vote, not the minority share of the population.

Look; if you want to move to Mexico, that's fine. I just don't want it to move to me.

Also, immigration restriction can't hurt the GOP. It can only help.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also, the trend is your friend till the bend at the end. The Hispanic total fertility rate has fallen drastically since the mid-2000s.

[The_Doctor]

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

You do understand that 3/4 of Mexican Americans are legal native born citizens right and are among the fastest growing demographics while white voters are set to decrease in 2024? And that the Great Migration from 1965-2005 is irreversible? Yes?

Your palpable fear of the future of minority majority America is entertaining.

-If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would have moved there. No thanks.

The migration from 1965-2005 may not be reversible. The migrations after 2016 can be prevented.

You know, the most anthropologically interesting thing about your comment is that you're openly referring to "Mexican" as a very thinly veiled synonym for "brown voter" who is distinct from your values and interests, even if they are as American as you are. You don't want them because they're minorities, not that they're immigrants, and you know fully well that most of the immigrants since 1965 have been predominantly minority.

But let's be honest. You don't know the numbers, and if you did, you would know that DACA kids are a minuscule fraction of the potential electorate. You would know that the post-2016 immigration would be a fraction, a tiny, tiny fraction of the electorate compared to the vast tens of millions of voters who are either immigrants or the children of post-1965 immigrants. So even stopping it wouldn't really turn the tide, especially as white deaths are increasingly outpacing white births.

I do know the facts, and I do know the sums and figures, so let's be clear. Your white America is going to be subsumed in a multicultural multihued America that is going to be here by the 2030s, if not sooner. That is not really in question any longer. The longest you can hold out is till 2036 and the numbers are pretty brutally clear that at some point, if the Democrats maintain a 80-20 edge among the minority vote, even routinely losing the white vote by landslides is going to still win them an election.

Lastly, your white America isn't as monolithic as you think, not in the slightest. Anywhere between 35 and 43% of white voters vote Democratic in any election, from federal to state. Combined with minority America routinely awarding 70-80% of their votes to the Democrats, this adds up to the GOP being really dependent on pulling inside straights. and eking out 50-51% wins. Your vision of America succeeding is dependent on white voters going GOP by 70-80% and acting as a monolithic bloc.

You're essentially pulling numbers out of your behind and hoping they add up, when they don't.

-I am aware the vast majority of interstate variation in voting is due to the White vote, not the minority share of the population.

Look; if you want to move to Mexico, that's fine. I just don't want it to move to me.

1. Not an answer. You answered nothing in my statement. You're just parsing nonsense and hoping that it sounds intelligent enough to constitute an answer. You know the numbers don't add up in the slightest for your vision of America and that you're making assumptions about the white vote that is unsubstantiated.

2. Get over your fear of Mexico. Like, seriously.

Latino-Americans are pretty darn similar to white Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans in terms of their economic, social, and cultural aspirations and behaviors. They're going to become doctors, lawyers, and a whole multitude of occupations and they will behave exactly as Irish Americans did in 1850, Eastern European Americans did in 1910, and other minority populations did and integrate into America. By a few generations, they will stop voting intensely Democratic, and start mixing up their vote. People like you screaming "I don't want Mexico to move to me" keeps them voting Democratic, for the record. They gave George W. and Ronald Reagan 44% of the vote. They did it because they're like most other Americans in the first place.

[The_Doctor]

Also, the trend is your friend till the bend at the end. The Hispanic total fertility rate has fallen drastically since the mid-2000s.

Yeah, but guess what, they're still expanding while white Americans are falling starting in 2024. Immigration has been the reason for population growth since 2000. 54% of immigration since 2000 has been Mexican-American. They'll continue expanding as a share of the electorate. And white fertility rates are not at replacement levels.

This is only a big deal because the GOP insists on casting Latino voters as some sort of "others" instead of pursuing W's multiracial conservative GOP coalition. If you were winning 44% of the Latino vote and 40% of the Asian vote, the birthrate of the Latino population would be absolutely inconsequential.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also, the trend is your friend till the bend at the end. The Hispanic total fertility rate has fallen drastically since the mid-2000s.

Yeah, but guess what, they're still expanding while white Americans are falling starting in 2024. Immigration has been the reason for population growth since 2000. 54% of immigration since 2000 has been Mexican-American. They'll continue expanding as a share of the electorate. And white fertility rates are not at replacement levels.

This is only a big deal because the GOP insists on casting Latino voters as some sort of "others" instead of pursuing W's multiracial conservative GOP coalition. If you were winning 44% of the Latino vote and 40% of the Asian vote, the birthrate of the Latino population would be absolutely inconsequential.

-Dubya's strategy was dependent on perpetually blowing bubbles in the sunbelt while winning fewer electoral college votes than a guy who lost the popular vote by 2 points. I am not impressed by it. If immigration has been the main reason for population growth, it only makes sense for the GOP to curb it. California's already overcrowded.

[The_Doctor]

Also, the trend is your friend till the bend at the end. The Hispanic total fertility rate has fallen drastically since the mid-2000s.

Yeah, but guess what, they're still expanding while white Americans are falling starting in 2024. Immigration has been the reason for population growth since 2000. 54% of immigration since 2000 has been Mexican-American. They'll continue expanding as a share of the electorate. And white fertility rates are not at replacement levels.

This is only a big deal because the GOP insists on casting Latino voters as some sort of "others" instead of pursuing W's multiracial conservative GOP coalition. If you were winning 44% of the Latino vote and 40% of the Asian vote, the birthrate of the Latino population would be absolutely inconsequential.

-Dubya's strategy was dependent on perpetually blowing bubbles in the sunbelt while winning fewer electoral college votes than a guy who lost the popular vote by 2 points. I am not impressed by it. If immigration has been the main reason for population growth, it only makes sense for the GOP to curb it. California's already overcrowded.

The guy who lost the popular vote won because of winning Michigan by 10,000, PA by 40,000 and WI by 22,000. W won by 100,000 in the winning state of Ohio and won by a similar amount in Florida. W's 2004 victory was a lot more solid than your man.

"Restricting immigration" is not a winning idea, because as you acknowledge, my numbers add up and yours don't. Your numbers are based on wild assumptions and mine are based on the evidentiary assumption that the GOP is going to have to start winning Latino voters and Asian voters by bigger margins than they have in the past. Your idea makes them dependent on white votes, including currently Democratic urban white voters who didn't vote for Trump.

If your numbers added up, you would explain how and we would debate that, but since yours don't add up, you'll continue talking about everything but the fact your immigration restriction ideas don't really change the demographic path of this country. Your concession on this point is noted.

The GOP's future is going to have to appeal to a coalition of whites and minorities, and increasingly, minority voters are going to have to be a bigger part of the GOP's (and DNC)'s future. That's reality. 

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Trump is helping the Republicans' long-time prospect enormously by taking actions to reduce Democrat immigration. Immigration is the single largest long-term threat to the GOP.

You do understand that 3/4 of Mexican Americans are legal native born citizens right and are among the fastest growing demographics while white voters are set to decrease in 2024? And that the Great Migration from 1965-2005 is irreversible? Yes?

Your palpable fear of the future of minority majority America is entertaining.

-If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would have moved there. No thanks.

The migration from 1965-2005 may not be reversible. The migrations after 2016 can be prevented.

You know, the most anthropologically interesting thing about your comment is that you're openly referring to "Mexican" as a very thinly veiled synonym for "brown voter" who is distinct from your values and interests, even if they are as American as you are. You don't want them because they're minorities, not that they're immigrants, and you know fully well that most of the immigrants since 1965 have been predominantly minority.

But let's be honest. You don't know the numbers, and if you did, you would know that DACA kids are a minuscule fraction of the potential electorate. You would know that the post-2016 immigration would be a fraction, a tiny, tiny fraction of the electorate compared to the vast tens of millions of voters who are either immigrants or the children of post-1965 immigrants. So even stopping it wouldn't really turn the tide, especially as white deaths are increasingly outpacing white births.

I do know the facts, and I do know the sums and figures, so let's be clear. Your white America is going to be subsumed in a multicultural multihued America that is going to be here by the 2030s, if not sooner. That is not really in question any longer. The longest you can hold out is till 2036 and the numbers are pretty brutally clear that at some point, if the Democrats maintain a 80-20 edge among the minority vote, even routinely losing the white vote by landslides is going to still win them an election.

Lastly, your white America isn't as monolithic as you think, not in the slightest. Anywhere between 35 and 43% of white voters vote Democratic in any election, from federal to state. Combined with minority America routinely awarding 70-80% of their votes to the Democrats, this adds up to the GOP being really dependent on pulling inside straights. and eking out 50-51% wins. Your vision of America succeeding is dependent on white voters going GOP by 70-80% and acting as a monolithic bloc.

You're essentially pulling numbers out of your behind and hoping they add up, when they don't.

-I am aware the vast majority of interstate variation in voting is due to the White vote, not the minority share of the population.

Look; if you want to move to Mexico, that's fine. I just don't want it to move to me.

1. Not an answer. You answered nothing in my statement. You're just parsing nonsense and hoping that it sounds intelligent enough to constitute an answer. You know the numbers don't add up in the slightest for your vision of America and that you're making assumptions about the white vote that is unsubstantiated.

2. Get over your fear of Mexico. Like, seriously.

Latino-Americans are pretty darn similar to white Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans in terms of their economic, social, and cultural aspirations and behaviors. They're going to become doctors, lawyers, and a whole multitude of occupations and they will behave exactly as Irish Americans did in 1850, Eastern European Americans did in 1910, and other minority populations did and integrate into America. By a few generations, they will stop voting intensely Democratic, and start mixing up their vote. People like you screaming "I don't want Mexico to move to me" keeps them voting Democratic, for the record. They gave George W. and Ronald Reagan 44% of the vote. They did it because they're like most other Americans in the first place.

-First off, the case of Blacks is a massive counterpoint to your argument all minorities eventually assimilate in all respects. Second, Hispanics have already stopped voting intensely Democratic, mostly due to their vote being an average of the Black and neighboring non-Hispanic-White vote. Just compare Jimmy Carter's vote share in South Texas to HRC's. As the White vote in Texas became less Democratic, so did the vote of Texan Hispanics. People reasonably stating they do not want Mexico to move to them does not keep them voting Democratic; that is frankly nuts. Hispanics' support for Democratic redistribution policies does. Bush only got 40% (not 44%) of the Hispanic vote due to the sunbelt bubble. And a double-digit loss is still a double-digit loss.

Again, if I wanted Mexico to move to me, I would have moved there first. I'm not a fan of national decline, which Mexico has experienced to such a great extent since 1980.

If you'd have told a random guy in 1980 that a presidential candidate running on a record of the worst recession since the Great Depression and a rough equivalent of the Vietnam War as perceived in 1968 would get over 55% of the White vote, they'd have looked at you funny. But that's precisely what happened in 2008. So a subsuming of White America is, as best as I can tell, unjustified thus far, as the White vote shifts right.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also, the trend is your friend till the bend at the end. The Hispanic total fertility rate has fallen drastically since the mid-2000s.

Yeah, but guess what, they're still expanding while white Americans are falling starting in 2024. Immigration has been the reason for population growth since 2000. 54% of immigration since 2000 has been Mexican-American. They'll continue expanding as a share of the electorate. And white fertility rates are not at replacement levels.

This is only a big deal because the GOP insists on casting Latino voters as some sort of "others" instead of pursuing W's multiracial conservative GOP coalition. If you were winning 44% of the Latino vote and 40% of the Asian vote, the birthrate of the Latino population would be absolutely inconsequential.

-Dubya's strategy was dependent on perpetually blowing bubbles in the sunbelt while winning fewer electoral college votes than a guy who lost the popular vote by 2 points. I am not impressed by it. If immigration has been the main reason for population growth, it only makes sense for the GOP to curb it. California's already overcrowded.

The guy who lost the popular vote won because of winning Michigan by 10,000, PA by 40,000 and WI by 22,000. W won by 100,000 in the winning state of Ohio and won by a similar amount in Florida. W's 2004 victory was a lot more solid than your man.

"Restricting immigration" is not a winning idea, because as you acknowledge, my numbers add up and yours don't. Your numbers are based on wild assumptions and mine are based on the evidentiary assumption that the GOP is going to have to start winning Latino voters and Asian voters by bigger margins than they have in the past. Your idea makes them dependent on white votes, including currently Democratic urban white voters who didn't vote for Trump.

If your numbers added up, you would explain how and we would debate that, but since yours don't add up, you'll continue talking about everything but the fact your immigration restriction ideas don't really change the demographic path of this country. Your concession on this point is noted.

The GOP's future is going to have to appeal to a coalition of whites and minorities, and increasingly, minority voters are going to have to be a bigger part of the GOP's (and DNC)'s future. That's reality. 

-Again, instead of chasing the wind, the GOP should do what has actually worked to maximize its electoral college, Senate, and House vote advantage: forget the Hispanic vote (it's an average of the Black and non-Hispanic White votes anyway) and focus exclusively on gaining margins among electorally viable White voters in the Lincoln states. I do not concede even a bit of your point.

Immigration restriction works. Just ask Coolidge.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

All of the cited GOP wins were razor thin:

2000: GW razor thin "win" in Florida
2004: GW small win in Ohio
2016: Trump razor thin wins in a bunch of swing states

Doesn't this all add up to something?

The GOP is grasping.  As the minority share of the vote grows it will get harder and harder for the GOP to cling onto power.

2000: Best economy since the late 1960s; Bush forced to flip 11 states to get to 270.

2004: Iraq War; slowest economic recovery in American history.

2016: Least favorably rated candidate in history wins.

And all this in the face of a rising tide of voters who are, to say the least, not the GOP's natural constituents.

Also, ignoring the midterms is not the wisest move.

The fact the GOP managed to win in any of the above environments is, frankly, amazing.

[The_Doctor]

I'll answer the part about the black voters and your rambling about Carter and ... whatever you were trying to say.

Here's a very likely scenario happening in the next 20 years.

Do some math for me. Election 2036.

Whites: 48% of the vote. 70% GOP, 30% DNC.
Minorities: 52% of the vote. 20% GOP, 80% DNC.

Intelligently explain how you win this election by "ignoring" the Latino vote. Immigration restriction isn't going to change the demographic numbers, not by a long shot.

Oh, and you already conceded my point because you can't reach 51% under your scenario in the future. Not without the GOP becoming vastly more moderate, because the whites you'd need to reach in this case are the ones that voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They're not shifting right in enough numbers and fast enough to offset the minority vote growth.

[The_Doctor]

Also, the trend is your friend till the bend at the end. The Hispanic total fertility rate has fallen drastically since the mid-2000s.

Yeah, but guess what, they're still expanding while white Americans are falling starting in 2024. Immigration has been the reason for population growth since 2000. 54% of immigration since 2000 has been Mexican-American. They'll continue expanding as a share of the electorate. And white fertility rates are not at replacement levels.

This is only a big deal because the GOP insists on casting Latino voters as some sort of "others" instead of pursuing W's multiracial conservative GOP coalition. If you were winning 44% of the Latino vote and 40% of the Asian vote, the birthrate of the Latino population would be absolutely inconsequential.

-Dubya's strategy was dependent on perpetually blowing bubbles in the sunbelt while winning fewer electoral college votes than a guy who lost the popular vote by 2 points. I am not impressed by it. If immigration has been the main reason for population growth, it only makes sense for the GOP to curb it. California's already overcrowded.

The guy who lost the popular vote won because of winning Michigan by 10,000, PA by 40,000 and WI by 22,000. W won by 100,000 in the winning state of Ohio and won by a similar amount in Florida. W's 2004 victory was a lot more solid than your man.

"Restricting immigration" is not a winning idea, because as you acknowledge, my numbers add up and yours don't. Your numbers are based on wild assumptions and mine are based on the evidentiary assumption that the GOP is going to have to start winning Latino voters and Asian voters by bigger margins than they have in the past. Your idea makes them dependent on white votes, including currently Democratic urban white voters who didn't vote for Trump.

If your numbers added up, you would explain how and we would debate that, but since yours don't add up, you'll continue talking about everything but the fact your immigration restriction ideas don't really change the demographic path of this country. Your concession on this point is noted.

The GOP's future is going to have to appeal to a coalition of whites and minorities, and increasingly, minority voters are going to have to be a bigger part of the GOP's (and DNC)'s future. That's reality.  

-Again, instead of chasing the wind, the GOP should do what has actually worked to maximize its electoral college, Senate, and House vote advantage: forget the Hispanic vote (it's an average of the Black and non-Hispanic White votes anyway) and focus exclusively on gaining margins among electorally viable White voters in the Lincoln states. I do not concede even a bit of your point.

Immigration restriction works. Just ask Coolidge.

this won't work.  hispanics are going to grow as a proportion of the population even if immigration completely ends.

Alt rightists like Eharding who place a premium on white America remaining white don't traffic in facts. They just want their vision of a white America to remain the majority. As I've pretty much demonstrated in this thread, it's not happening but EHarding is very clearly advocating for a white America and definitely has clung to a series of assumptions that are not factual to try to convince us (or himself) that it's all plausible under the rubric of "immigration restriction."

This is 1/2 of the battle in the GOP today for political relevance. They have to deal with voters like him who have a cultural angst and fear about the future and set up a fantasy schema where the changes aren't simply going to happen if they take x or y action that actually don't change much in the end.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'll answer the part about the black voters and your rambling about Carter and ... whatever you were trying to say.

Here's a very likely scenario happening in the next 20 years.

Do some math for me. Election 2036.

Whites: 48% of the vote. 70% GOP, 30% DNC.
Minorities: 52% of the vote. 20% GOP, 80% DNC.

Intelligently explain how you win this election by "ignoring" the Latino vote. Immigration restriction isn't going to change the demographic numbers, not by a long shot.

Oh, and you already conceded my point because you can't reach 51% under your scenario in the future. Not without the GOP becoming vastly more moderate, because the whites you'd need to reach in this case are the ones that voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They're not shifting right in enough numbers and fast enough to offset the minority vote growth.

-Minorities are not going to be 52% of the vote in 2036. That scenario is not just unlikely; it is ludicrous. They aren't even going to be 52% of the vote in 2056. If the minority share of the vote is 52% in 2036, that indicates a great failure of immigration restriction on the part of the Trumpian GOP or some kind of reproductive technology shock that so far no one has seen.

Your failure to comprehend my clear points is not my issue, but yours.

The closest thing that comes to your vision of 2032 is Georgia. But there, as Adam Griffin pointed out, the White vote was less than 20% Dem in 2012. So your numbers are unwarranted, especially for nationwide matters.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

All of the cited GOP wins were razor thin:

2000: GW razor thin "win" in Florida
2004: GW small win in Ohio
2016: Trump razor thin wins in a bunch of swing states

Doesn't this all add up to something?

The GOP is grasping.  As the minority share of the vote grows it will get harder and harder for the GOP to cling onto power.

2000: Best economy since the late 1960s; Bush forced to flip 11 states to get to 270.

2004: Iraq War; slowest economic recovery in American history.

2016: Least favorably rated candidate in history wins.

And all this in the face of a rising tide of voters who are, to say the least, not the GOP's natural constituents.

Also, ignoring the midterms is not the wisest move.

The fact the GOP managed to win in any of the above environments is, frankly, amazing.

I can do this too...

2000: Dems have low energy candidate... lose
2004: Dems have low energy candidate... lose
2008: Republicans nominate war hero... lose
2012: I can't say much on this one
2016: Dems nominate someone with equally high negatives... still win popular vote.

HRC never had "equally high negatives" as DJT. Gore and Kerry may or may not have been "low energy" candidates, but they still ran in clearly winnable environments for both sides. And 2008 was in no sense a winnable environment for the GOP (though 2012 was).

[The_Doctor]

I'll answer the part about the black voters and your rambling about Carter and ... whatever you were trying to say.

Here's a very likely scenario happening in the next 20 years.

Do some math for me. Election 2036.

Whites: 48% of the vote. 70% GOP, 30% DNC.
Minorities: 52% of the vote. 20% GOP, 80% DNC.

Intelligently explain how you win this election by "ignoring" the Latino vote. Immigration restriction isn't going to change the demographic numbers, not by a long shot.

Oh, and you already conceded my point because you can't reach 51% under your scenario in the future. Not without the GOP becoming vastly more moderate, because the whites you'd need to reach in this case are the ones that voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They're not shifting right in enough numbers and fast enough to offset the minority vote growth.

-Minorities are not going to be 52% of the vote in 2036. That scenario is not just unlikely; it is ludicrous. They aren't even going to be 52% of the vote in 2056. If the minority share of the vote is 52% in 2036, that indicates a great failure of immigration restriction on the part of the Trumpian GOP or some kind of reproductive technology shock that so far no one has seen.

Your failure to comprehend my clear points is not my issue, but yours.

The closest thing that comes to your vision of 2032 is Georgia. But there, as Adam Griffin pointed out, the White vote was less than 20% Dem in 2012. So your numbers are unwarranted, especially for nationwide matters.

Actually by 2036, the white vote will be about 53-55% nationwide so not that far off. By 2040-2050, stuff like that is going to be happening across the Southern half of the United States. I was referring to Texas here, which I should have been clearer. The 52-48% for Texas is pretty clear.  

No, the problem here is that you are creating a fantasy about the future that is not based in reality. My points are crystal clear, that your "immigration restrictions" are not going to save the GOP. End of story.

And by 2036, minorities would be like 40-45% of the vote. That's a huge chunk of voters that you're asking the GOP to write off. Which is also idiotic.

Also GA is a perfect example. The racial breakdown was the same in 2004 as in 2016; but GA was 10 points closer.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'll answer the part about the black voters and your rambling about Carter and ... whatever you were trying to say.

Here's a very likely scenario happening in the next 20 years.

Do some math for me. Election 2036.

Whites: 48% of the vote. 70% GOP, 30% DNC.
Minorities: 52% of the vote. 20% GOP, 80% DNC.

Intelligently explain how you win this election by "ignoring" the Latino vote. Immigration restriction isn't going to change the demographic numbers, not by a long shot.

Oh, and you already conceded my point because you can't reach 51% under your scenario in the future. Not without the GOP becoming vastly more moderate, because the whites you'd need to reach in this case are the ones that voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They're not shifting right in enough numbers and fast enough to offset the minority vote growth.

-Minorities are not going to be 52% of the vote in 2036. That scenario is not just unlikely; it is ludicrous. They aren't even going to be 52% of the vote in 2056. If the minority share of the vote is 52% in 2036, that indicates a great failure of immigration restriction on the part of the Trumpian GOP or some kind of reproductive technology shock that so far no one has seen.

Your failure to comprehend my clear points is not my issue, but yours.

The closest thing that comes to your vision of 2032 is Georgia. But there, as Adam Griffin pointed out, the White vote was less than 20% Dem in 2012. So your numbers are unwarranted, especially for nationwide matters.

Actually by 2036, the white vote will be about 53-55% nationwide so not that far off. By 2040-2050, stuff like that is going to be happening across the Southern half of the United States. I was referring to Texas here, which I should have been clearer. The 52-48% for Texas is pretty clear.  

No, the problem here is that you are creating a fantasy about the future that is not based in reality. My points are crystal clear, that your "immigration restrictions" are not going to save the GOP. End of story.

And by 2036, minorities would be like 40-45% of the vote. That's a huge chunk of voters that you're asking the GOP to write off. Which is also idiotic.

-Texas will be a swing state by 2036; I have not disputed that point. The only way the GOP can be saved there permanently is maintaining its present affordable housing environment while getting the state legislature to place taxes on various Democratic constituencies (Austin techies, felons, etc.). I doubt either of these will happen, so I have little doubt in swing state Texas coming to fruition.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'll answer the part about the black voters and your rambling about Carter and ... whatever you were trying to say.

Here's a very likely scenario happening in the next 20 years.

Do some math for me. Election 2036.

Whites: 48% of the vote. 70% GOP, 30% DNC.
Minorities: 52% of the vote. 20% GOP, 80% DNC.

Intelligently explain how you win this election by "ignoring" the Latino vote. Immigration restriction isn't going to change the demographic numbers, not by a long shot.

Oh, and you already conceded my point because you can't reach 51% under your scenario in the future. Not without the GOP becoming vastly more moderate, because the whites you'd need to reach in this case are the ones that voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They're not shifting right in enough numbers and fast enough to offset the minority vote growth.

-Minorities are not going to be 52% of the vote in 2036. That scenario is not just unlikely; it is ludicrous. They aren't even going to be 52% of the vote in 2056. If the minority share of the vote is 52% in 2036, that indicates a great failure of immigration restriction on the part of the Trumpian GOP or some kind of reproductive technology shock that so far no one has seen.

Your failure to comprehend my clear points is not my issue, but yours.

The closest thing that comes to your vision of 2032 is Georgia. But there, as Adam Griffin pointed out, the White vote was less than 20% Dem in 2012. So your numbers are unwarranted, especially for nationwide matters.

Actually by 2036, the white vote will be about 53-55% nationwide so not that far off. By 2040-2050, stuff like that is going to be happening across the Southern half of the United States. I was referring to Texas here, which I should have been clearer. The 52-48% for Texas is pretty clear.  

No, the problem here is that you are creating a fantasy about the future that is not based in reality. My points are crystal clear, that your "immigration restrictions" are not going to save the GOP. End of story.

And by 2036, minorities would be like 40-45% of the vote. That's a huge chunk of voters that you're asking the GOP to write off. Which is also idiotic.

Also GA is a perfect example. The racial breakdown was the same in 2004 as in 2016; but GA was 10 points closer.

Right, and once these states start flipping, it will be very hard for the GOP to get them back.  For instance, when Georgia becomes majority minority in terms of the vote, the GOP might consistently get 45% of the vote, but they won't be able to win it.  Unlike more elastic Dem states that might flip like Minnesota... which will remain battlegrounds.

-Where'd you get the idea the racial breakdown was the same in 2004 as in 2016? I doubt this is the case.

If Texas goes permanently Dem in the 2040s, it will be due to the Hispanic vote. In the case of Georgia, it will more likely be due to rising property values in Atlanta and/or a continued influx of the college-educated.

The Hispanic vote generally moves with the surrounding White vote, so the same appeals work on both. Non-college Whites were a larger part of the Obama coalition than Hispanics, so it made more sense for Trump to appeal to them. When the White vote in Maine turns into that of Mississippi, then it may make sense for the GOP to specifically appeal to Hispanics. Before that, the non-college White vote offers more opportunities for the GOP.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'll answer the part about the black voters and your rambling about Carter and ... whatever you were trying to say.

Here's a very likely scenario happening in the next 20 years.

Do some math for me. Election 2036.

Whites: 48% of the vote. 70% GOP, 30% DNC.
Minorities: 52% of the vote. 20% GOP, 80% DNC.

Intelligently explain how you win this election by "ignoring" the Latino vote. Immigration restriction isn't going to change the demographic numbers, not by a long shot.

Oh, and you already conceded my point because you can't reach 51% under your scenario in the future. Not without the GOP becoming vastly more moderate, because the whites you'd need to reach in this case are the ones that voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They're not shifting right in enough numbers and fast enough to offset the minority vote growth.

-Minorities are not going to be 52% of the vote in 2036. That scenario is not just unlikely; it is ludicrous. They aren't even going to be 52% of the vote in 2056. If the minority share of the vote is 52% in 2036, that indicates a great failure of immigration restriction on the part of the Trumpian GOP or some kind of reproductive technology shock that so far no one has seen.

Your failure to comprehend my clear points is not my issue, but yours.

The closest thing that comes to your vision of 2032 is Georgia. But there, as Adam Griffin pointed out, the White vote was less than 20% Dem in 2012. So your numbers are unwarranted, especially for nationwide matters.

Actually by 2036, the white vote will be about 53-55% nationwide so not that far off. By 2040-2050, stuff like that is going to be happening across the Southern half of the United States. I was referring to Texas here, which I should have been clearer. The 52-48% for Texas is pretty clear.  

No, the problem here is that you are creating a fantasy about the future that is not based in reality. My points are crystal clear, that your "immigration restrictions" are not going to save the GOP. End of story.

And by 2036, minorities would be like 40-45% of the vote. That's a huge chunk of voters that you're asking the GOP to write off. Which is also idiotic.

Also GA is a perfect example. The racial breakdown was the same in 2004 as in 2016; but GA was 10 points closer.

And that the GOP restricting immigration would only make minority voters continue to despise them at high rates.

-That certainly didn't happen in the 1924 election.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

GA+TX+NC+AZ+FL > MN+WI+OH+NH+ME+PA+WI+IA+IL (and that one is the biggest stretch orlf either list, as it trended D in 2016 and the rurals are shrinking like crazy).

-Florida trended R in 2016, though. It's probably the most important of the swing states.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

GA+TX+NC+AZ+FL > MN+WI+OH+NH+ME+PA+WI+IA+IL (and that one is the biggest stretch orlf either list, as it trended D in 2016 and the rurals are shrinking like crazy).

-Florida trended R in 2016, though. It's probably the most important of the swing states.

Well then FL and IL basically cancel each other out from that list, but his analysis overall still applies.

-Yeah; but Florida gained electoral votes and IL lost them following the 2010 census (same will happen in 2020) so the canceling out is not total. FL already has nine more electoral votes than IL, the advantage will only grow. Of course, the same can be said of Texas, which trended strongly D in 2016.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

GA+TX+NC+AZ+FL > MN+WI+OH+NH+ME+PA+WI+IA+IL (and that one is the biggest stretch orlf either list, as it trended D in 2016 and the rurals are shrinking like crazy).

-Florida trended R in 2016, though. It's probably the most important of the swing states.

Well then FL and IL basically cancel each other out from that list, but his analysis overall still applies.

-Yeah; but Florida gained electoral votes and IL lost them following the 2010 census (same will happen in 2020) so the canceling out is not total. FL already has nine more electoral votes than IL, the advantage will only grow. Of course, the same can be said of Texas, which trended strongly D in 2016.

look at this map: http://www.270towin.com/maps/jmZno

If Republicans continue to alienate hispanics, this is probably the best possible scenario they could ever hope for in 25 years.

-Here's a question: who are there more of in the U.S.: Hispanics or non-college Whites?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

GA+TX+NC+AZ+FL > MN+WI+OH+NH+ME+PA+WI+IA+IL (and that one is the biggest stretch orlf either list, as it trended D in 2016 and the rurals are shrinking like crazy).

-Florida trended R in 2016, though. It's probably the most important of the swing states.

Well then FL and IL basically cancel each other out from that list, but his analysis overall still applies.

-Yeah; but Florida gained electoral votes and IL lost them following the 2010 census (same will happen in 2020) so the canceling out is not total. FL already has nine more electoral votes than IL, the advantage will only grow. Of course, the same can be said of Texas, which trended strongly D in 2016.

look at this map: http://www.270towin.com/maps/jmZno

If Republicans continue to alienate hispanics, this is probably the best possible scenario they could ever hope for in 25 years.

Eh, that's where we disagree. Florida will still be winnable for Republicans, but it would require them to change away from Trumpism/nativism.

I don't think it's winnable if they completely alienate hispanic voters.  Trump seemed to max out rural whites in 2016 and still barely won.  Hispanics are growing rapidly there, particularly in the swing counties in central Florida. 

-Vermont is among the most rural states in the country. No max-out.

Despite it all, Trump won Florida by over 100K votes while losing the popular vote by 2 points. Bush won it by 500 votes while losing the popular vote by .5 points.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

GA+TX+NC+AZ+FL > MN+WI+OH+NH+ME+PA+WI+IA+IL (and that one is the biggest stretch orlf either list, as it trended D in 2016 and the rurals are shrinking like crazy).

-Florida trended R in 2016, though. It's probably the most important of the swing states.

Well then FL and IL basically cancel each other out from that list, but his analysis overall still applies.

-Yeah; but Florida gained electoral votes and IL lost them following the 2010 census (same will happen in 2020) so the canceling out is not total. FL already has nine more electoral votes than IL, the advantage will only grow. Of course, the same can be said of Texas, which trended strongly D in 2016.

look at this map: http://www.270towin.com/maps/jmZno

If Republicans continue to alienate hispanics, this is probably the best possible scenario they could ever hope for in 25 years.

Eh, that's where we disagree. Florida will still be winnable for Republicans, but it would require them to change away from Trumpism/nativism.

And I think we should've learned from 2016 that no party is guaranteed a win, ever. But that doesn't change the fact that it will be much harder for R's to actually win in the future, unless they can co-opt something to attract Millennials, like student loan forgiveness, or actually giving a  about the environment.

-The environment might be a minor issue; student loan forgiveness is a nutty idea. I'm a millennial; do I care about student loan debt forgiveness? No. I'm in favor of cheaper higher education, not blowing up the national debt.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

GA+TX+NC+AZ+FL > MN+WI+OH+NH+ME+PA+WI+IA+IL (and that one is the biggest stretch orlf either list, as it trended D in 2016 and the rurals are shrinking like crazy).

-Florida trended R in 2016, though. It's probably the most important of the swing states.

Well then FL and IL basically cancel each other out from that list, but his analysis overall still applies.

-Yeah; but Florida gained electoral votes and IL lost them following the 2010 census (same will happen in 2020) so the canceling out is not total. FL already has nine more electoral votes than IL, the advantage will only grow. Of course, the same can be said of Texas, which trended strongly D in 2016.

look at this map: http://www.270towin.com/maps/jmZno

If Republicans continue to alienate hispanics, this is probably the best possible scenario they could ever hope for in 25 years.

Eh, that's where we disagree. Florida will still be winnable for Republicans, but it would require them to change away from Trumpism/nativism.

I don't think it's winnable if they completely alienate hispanic voters.  Trump seemed to max out rural whites in 2016 and still barely won.  Hispanics are growing rapidly there, particularly in the swing counties in central Florida. 

Yeah, but someone who appears "moderate" like a futuristic Rubio or some other minority that they trot out could very well run ahead of the baseline among Latinos at any time, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how they eventually break through in the EC in the distant future.

-Romney did great among Hispanics in the Republican primary, at least as well as Liddle Marco. How'd he do against Barry O?

There are more non-college Whites than Latinos even in the Obama coalition.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

GA+TX+NC+AZ+FL > MN+WI+OH+NH+ME+PA+WI+IA+IL (and that one is the biggest stretch orlf either list, as it trended D in 2016 and the rurals are shrinking like crazy).

-Florida trended R in 2016, though. It's probably the most important of the swing states.

Well then FL and IL basically cancel each other out from that list, but his analysis overall still applies.

-Yeah; but Florida gained electoral votes and IL lost them following the 2010 census (same will happen in 2020) so the canceling out is not total. FL already has nine more electoral votes than IL, the advantage will only grow. Of course, the same can be said of Texas, which trended strongly D in 2016.

look at this map: http://www.270towin.com/maps/jmZno

If Republicans continue to alienate hispanics, this is probably the best possible scenario they could ever hope for in 25 years.

Eh, that's where we disagree. Florida will still be winnable for Republicans, but it would require them to change away from Trumpism/nativism.

And I think we should've learned from 2016 that no party is guaranteed a win, ever. But that doesn't change the fact that it will be much harder for R's to actually win in the future, unless they can co-opt something to attract Millennials, like student loan forgiveness, or actually giving a  about the environment.

-Trump won every county but one in the Florida primary. Florida loves Trumpism.