Is Trump hurting Republicans' long time prospect?

[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.

[The_Doctor]

I'm going to argue that the Republican Party needs to ditch both Trumpism and Reaganism to succeed in the future. Ditch both extremes, trying to operate in the 1960s and 1980s paradigms is not really helpful when we have automation coming down the line, self-driving cars, we have smart phones, global warming, and we have a myriad of issues that simply didn't exist in 1965 or 1981.

Trump very much continues the branding of the GOP as a past-looking party and solves none of the major problems facing it. It's not just simply a matter of political popularity; the ideology itself has to make sense and to work. Trump's attempts to rework the GOP as a working class white party that pushes nativism is not necessarily a winner among urban areas or minorities. By cutting off free trade's benefits while not helping the population gain necessary skills to succeed in the future (e.g, college tuition help, etc) Trump is setting the GOP up for failure down the road. That's just one example of a Trump policy not working out.

Reagan is remembered as a successful president because supply side economics coupled with a strong anti-inflationary bent by the Fed allowed the economic boom of the 1980s and then the deregulation of the 1980s helped along the 1990s economy, which more or less was already set for a boom by the time Clinton took office as President. W. is remembered as less successful because 2008 marked the end of successfully deregulating the economy and untangling the unnecessary regulations Democrats had put on the economy from the 1930s to the 1970s.

I do think there is a route for a moderate - conservative Bill Clinton technocratic GOP to be effective down the road, but it's going to require the GOP to adapt without a Southern evangelical base and to free itself up to appeal to major urban areas that have long been ruled by liberals without an effective opposition. I think that this avenue hasn't simply been explored by the GOP because of its current southern evangelical base and cultural conservatism holding it back from making a pitch to voters who would be otherwise annoyed by liberal Democratic hegemonies in the major cities.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.