Republicans need to win 70% of the white vote to have an Obama 08 style victory

[DS0816]

It's not surprising that they would need that much. Republican strategy is almost totally reliant on increasing the white vote and not worrying about other demographics.

That’s because approximately 90 percent of the percentage of the U.S. Popular Vote—as received by a Republican presidential nominee—comes from whites [nationwide].

[Mister Mets]

Under what scenario would Republicans get 70% of the white vote while all their other demographics remain the same?

Demographic groups aren't giant monoliths that all think the same way.  If there's something about the Republican candidate that's so appealing to white voters, it's probably appealing to voters of other minority groups as well.  

Right: non-white voters as a whole would likely be even more Democratic under a scenario in which 70% of whites are voting Republican than they were in 2012 (a future of hyper-racially polarized politics), so it's likely even more than 70% of whites would be needed for Republicans to pull an Obama 08-style victory.

However, the broader point here was obviously saying that the opposite needs to occur.

The circumstances under which Republicans get 70% of the white vote would likely lead to Republicans getting a higher share of the minority vote as well.

They're not going to hit 70 percent among whites by being identity politics for white people. They might if there is a scandal with the Democratic nominee, or something like thar.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2012, the black turnout rate was higher than whites. I'm thinking that doesn't happen next time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/black-voter-turnout-2012-election_n_3173673.html

And in 2012 all the pundits said black voter turn out wouldn't be as high as 2008.

Republicans need to win 70% of the white vote to have an Obama 08 style victory

One issue is they don't need an Obama '08 style victory.  All they need and want is a Bush '00 victory.  They don't even care if they lose the popular vote.

Some of the higher black turnout in 2008 and 2012 was obviously because Obama is black.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If 70% of whites are voting Republican, then the Democrat is probably an incompetent fool who is widely unpopular.  I imagine that Republicans would make gains with minority voters in this situation.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I can see Republicans winning 70% of the white vote (if not in 2016, maybe by 2020 or 2024). I don't see the white vote in the liberal parts of the country getting significantly more Democratic than it already is; on the other hand, the white vote in the more conservative parts of the country is getting more Republican with every election, it seems. And I don't think there are enough white liberals outside the major cities of states that the Democrats are already winning to counterbalance it.

Also, demographics aren't exactly favorable for white liberals (insert cliche about conservatives having more children than liberals). White Millennials still vote Republican nationwide, and the younger and middle-aged generations of voters in regions like the South, parts of Appalachia, etc. are almost as  Republican as their older (and far more Republican than the surviving remnants of the GI Generation) counterparts.

[pbrower2a]

If 70% of whites are voting Republican, then the Democrat is probably an incompetent fool who is widely unpopular.  I imagine that Republicans would make gains with minority voters in this situation.

Should the Democrats nominate another George McGovern, then such might happen.

White voters are not a monolith except in (for now) the Deep South as a racial divide that creates some horrible politics.  Even in Mormon Country the divide is between Mormons and non-Mormons. Non-Mormons in Utah, still largely white, vote about like Californians.   

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If 70% of whites are voting Republican, then the Democrat is probably an incompetent fool who is widely unpopular.  I imagine that Republicans would make gains with minority voters in this situation.

^This, again.

I am getting so sick and tired of this whole "permanent majority" talk. Your party would be nothing if it wasn't for White voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, etc.
Not to mention that Democrats won't win back the Congress for at least another 10 years if Hillary wins in 2016.

Because everyone knew that the Democrats would get slaughtered in 2010 and 2014 after Obama's strong election and re-elect.

I hate these declaratives...

The Democrats will have a tough time in mid-terms, regardless of which Democrat wins. This is the pattern now.

[pbrower2a]

A fair warning: extrapolation of a current trend, however tempting and easy it might be, and however appealing the curve of the trend may be, is one of the riskiest predictions available. Just think of how the stock markets were doing in the middle of 1929.


Can cultural trends tear down the Democratic Party? They did in the 1970s and 1980s. Can a Democratic President push too far and too fast, inspiring well-heeled elites to finance a counterattack that forces some of the most reactionary politics ever upon America? That is exactly what happened.   

Can Republicans push too far and too fast, alienating large numbers of voters? Stay tuned.

American politics implies coalitions of voters, some of those coalitions extremely fragile because of contradicting interests among members of those coalitions. The ascendancy of one Party over the other has typically involved one Party then in the minority poaching members of the current coalition of recent victories, members whose satisfaction with recent results is shaky at best.   

[DS0816]

If 70% of whites are voting Republican, then the Democrat is probably an incompetent fool who is widely unpopular.  I imagine that Republicans would make gains with minority voters in this situation.

^This, again.

I am getting so sick and tired of this whole "permanent majority" talk. Your party would be nothing if it wasn't for White voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, etc.
Not to mention that Democrats won't win back the Congress for at least another 10 years if Hillary wins in 2016.

Because everyone knew that the Democrats would get slaughtered in 2010 and 2014 after Obama's strong election and re-elect.

I hate these declaratives...

The Democrats will have a tough time in mid-terms, regardless of which Democrat wins. This is the pattern now.

TNvolunteer is a Republican hack.

I notice that no one on the GOP side reflects on how awful it was that Ronald Reagan didn't have a Republican House. Why is that?

[DS0816]

A fair warning: extrapolation of a current trend, however tempting and easy it might be, and however appealing the curve of the trend may be, is one of the riskiest predictions available. Just think of how the stock markets were doing in the middle of 1929.


Can cultural trends tear down the Democratic Party? They did in the 1970s and 1980s. Can a Democratic President push too far and too fast, inspiring well-heeled elites to finance a counterattack that forces some of the most reactionary politics ever upon America? That is exactly what happened.   

Can Republicans push too far and too fast, alienating large numbers of voters? Stay tuned.

American politics implies coalitions of voters, some of those coalitions extremely fragile because of contradicting interests among members of those coalitions. The ascendancy of one Party over the other has typically involved one Party then in the minority poaching members of the current coalition of recent victories, members whose satisfaction with recent results is shaky at best.   

To put it another way: Neither of the two major political parties wins or loses all the time.

[pbrower2a]

A fair warning: extrapolation of a current trend, however tempting and easy it might be, and however appealing the curve of the trend may be, is one of the riskiest predictions available. Just think of how the stock markets were doing in the middle of 1929.


Can cultural trends tear down the Democratic Party? They did in the 1970s and 1980s. Can a Democratic President push too far and too fast, inspiring well-heeled elites to finance a counterattack that forces some of the most reactionary politics ever upon America? That is exactly what happened.   

Can Republicans push too far and too fast, alienating large numbers of voters? Stay tuned.

American politics implies coalitions of voters, some of those coalitions extremely fragile because of contradicting interests among members of those coalitions. The ascendancy of one Party over the other has typically involved one Party then in the minority poaching members of the current coalition of recent victories, members whose satisfaction with recent results is shaky at best.   

To put it another way: Neither of the two major political parties wins or loses all the time.

More precisely, they find ways in which to quit losing. See the thread on comparisons of Presidential elections.

[ElectionsGuy]

The Democrats won't replicate the turnout and percentages with blacks. Latinos, while they will still vote majority Dem easily, its not so assured if Republicans nominate Rubio or Carson. Either way, 70% of the white vote isn't possible, obviously. They will likely need around 65% for that to happen.

[RFayette]

The Democrats won't replicate the turnout and percentages with blacks. Latinos, while they will still vote majority Dem easily, its not so assured if Republicans nominate Rubio or Carson. Either way, 70% of the white vote isn't possible, obviously. They will likely need around 65% for that to happen.

This.  The Republicans will have a tough map/demographic problem until 1 of two things happen:
1) major economic downturn w/ a Democratic President
2) major economic improvement w/ a Republican President

1 seems a lot more likely than 2 at this juncture.