Is Trump hurting Republicans' long time prospect?

[(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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The GOP is going through an ideology shift just like the Democrats. That's how political parties work. Attitude shifts keep political parties relevant. Now to your false statement that the Republican Party is only for old white men, that is a huge lie. It would be as false as saying the Democrats are the anti-white people Party.

That's different.

I don't remember any Democratic Presidential candidate said that white people are "criminals" and "rapists".

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=from%3AHillaryClinton%20white&src=typd

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.

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.

It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

-I don't think there's any necessary equilibrium between the parties. Party dominance is effectively random, and there's no necessity for them to represent nearly 50% of the electorate. Remember the fourth party system, when, by random chance, except in the 1910s, the GOP was dominant on every level all the time.

Gary Johnson is a "strong leftist"

Why can't the GOP become the Party of the Elderly, like the Democrats are the Black Party?

Trump was benefited by older voters in the GOP primary, but was not dependent on them, in any case. Look at the New Hampshire exit polls.

[(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.

Well unless he reduces legal immigration, no wall or refugee ban will stop new immigrants from voting D, since virtually all of them are legal anyways.

-Refugees are "legal immigration". But that's only the first step.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.

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.

It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

-I don't think there's any necessary equilibrium between the parties. Party dominance is effectively random, and there's no necessity for them to represent nearly 50% of the electorate. Remember the fourth party system, when, by random chance, except in the 1910s, the GOP was dominant on every level all the time.

Gary Johnson is a "strong leftist"

Why can't the GOP become the Party of the Elderly, like the Democrats are the Black Party?

Trump was benefited by older voters in the GOP primary, but was not dependent on them, in any case. Look at the New Hampshire exit polls.

I think you're missing a potentially fatal flaw here.

-There is no flaw. If anything, due to population aging and longer life expectancy, this is a foolproof strategy.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.

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.

It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

I think he thinks immigration rates are still like the 90s/00s. Clearly, they are not.

-True. But when Trump brings back the jobs, what do you think he thinks will happen?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.

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.

It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

-I don't think there's any necessary equilibrium between the parties. Party dominance is effectively random, and there's no necessity for them to represent nearly 50% of the electorate. Remember the fourth party system, when, by random chance, except in the 1910s, the GOP was dominant on every level all the time.

Gary Johnson is a "strong leftist"

Why can't the GOP become the Party of the Elderly, like the Democrats are the Black Party?

Trump was benefited by older voters in the GOP primary, but was not dependent on them, in any case. Look at the New Hampshire exit polls.

I think you're missing a potentially fatal flaw here.

-There is no flaw. If anything, due to population aging and longer life expectancy, this is a foolproof strategy.

You know people don't automatically become conservatives when they turn 55 right?

-I know. I'm raising it as a hypothetical.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Except the idea that people become much more Republican as they age isn't really true. Maybe among whites due to a nostalgia for a whiter America that there used to be, but that's about it. In fact, elder minorities are more Democratic than younger ones, though not by much.

-I know. I'm raising it as a hypothetical.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Long-term doom is often overstated and rarely comes to fruition (for example the line that democrats would dominate American politics for 40 years as many thought in 2008) parties change and adapt to issues and events to remain in power. The republicans will be in the driver's seat for the short term with control of state and local politics as well as the democrats moving to the left at break-neck speed. Eventually there will be a backlash and democrats will regain power nothing is permanent in politics

-The Democrats lost the House in 1994 and 2010 because of their support for the individual mandate. If they were smart, they would have learned the art of 40-year dominance from Sam Rayburn.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I agree with Virginia for the most part. I am almost certain he damages the GOP long-term in the Southwest and in the New South, if this week is any indication. It might take a decade, but I will not at all be surprised if TX and AZ eventually go the way of California and if Democrats are eventually able to break through in states like NC and GA. The Midwest is more iffy because they're less likely to be turned off by the wall/refugee nonsense than those to their South and are much less likely to be turned off by the general nativist and white nationalistic sentiments than the aforementioned states. But on the whole, definitely worse off, because partisan leanings are pretty cemented for life by the time you reach mid-20's, and Gen Y and Z will form a majority within the next decade alone. It'll be much worse if the economy goes through a recession (as is projected) and if Trump isn't able to recover from it.

-You are thinking of Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. Trump does damage the GOP's short-term prospects in Georgia and Arizona; the long-term consequences are so far ambiguous.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I agree with Virginia for the most part. I am almost certain he damages the GOP long-term in the Southwest and in the New South, if this week is any indication. It might take a decade, but I will not at all be surprised if TX and AZ eventually go the way of California and if Democrats are eventually able to break through in states like NC and GA. The Midwest is more iffy because they're less likely to be turned off by the wall/refugee nonsense than those to their South and are much less likely to be turned off by the general nativist and white nationalistic sentiments than the aforementioned states. But on the whole, definitely worse off, because partisan leanings are pretty cemented for life by the time you reach mid-20's, and Gen Y and Z will form a majority within the next decade alone. It'll be much worse if the economy goes through a recession (as is projected) and if Trump isn't able to recover from it.

-You are thinking of Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. Trump does damage the GOP's short-term prospects in Georgia and Arizona; the long-term consequences are so far ambiguous.

No, I'm thinking of Pete Wilson and the 1994 California midterms

-The same midterms when the GOP gained three House seats in CA while losing none?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I agree with Virginia for the most part. I am almost certain he damages the GOP long-term in the Southwest and in the New South, if this week is any indication. It might take a decade, but I will not at all be surprised if TX and AZ eventually go the way of California and if Democrats are eventually able to break through in states like NC and GA. The Midwest is more iffy because they're less likely to be turned off by the wall/refugee nonsense than those to their South and are much less likely to be turned off by the general nativist and white nationalistic sentiments than the aforementioned states. But on the whole, definitely worse off, because partisan leanings are pretty cemented for life by the time you reach mid-20's, and Gen Y and Z will form a majority within the next decade alone. It'll be much worse if the economy goes through a recession (as is projected) and if Trump isn't able to recover from it.

-You are thinking of Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. Trump does damage the GOP's short-term prospects in Georgia and Arizona; the long-term consequences are so far ambiguous.

No, I'm thinking of Pete Wilson and the 1994 California midterms

-The same midterms when the GOP gained three House seats in CA while losing none?

The same midterm that ended up being a Pyrrhic victory in retrospect.

-No; it was just a victory. The real bloodbath for the GOP in California was 1992, when Bush lost such treasured GOP strongholds as San Diego and Ventura counties to Crooked Bill.

The same thing occurred simultaneously in Vermont and New Jersey. New Jersey was far more Republican than California in 1988, and Vermont was similarly Republican as California in 1988.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

-Most youths in Kerry states are Bernie-supporting Democrats; this is not the case nationwide. White liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by more fertile non-Whites and Trump/Cruz conservatives.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I agree with Virginia for the most part. I am almost certain he damages the GOP long-term in the Southwest and in the New South, if this week is any indication. It might take a decade, but I will not at all be surprised if TX and AZ eventually go the way of California and if Democrats are eventually able to break through in states like NC and GA. The Midwest is more iffy because they're less likely to be turned off by the wall/refugee nonsense than those to their South and are much less likely to be turned off by the general nativist and white nationalistic sentiments than the aforementioned states. But on the whole, definitely worse off, because partisan leanings are pretty cemented for life by the time you reach mid-20's, and Gen Y and Z will form a majority within the next decade alone. It'll be much worse if the economy goes through a recession (as is projected) and if Trump isn't able to recover from it.

-You are thinking of Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. Trump does damage the GOP's short-term prospects in Georgia and Arizona; the long-term consequences are so far ambiguous.

No, I'm thinking of Pete Wilson and the 1994 California midterms

-The same midterms when the GOP gained three House seats in CA while losing none?

The same midterm that ended up being a Pyrrhic victory in retrospect.

-No; it was just a victory. The real bloodbath for the GOP in California was 1992, when Bush lost such treasured GOP strongholds as San Diego and Ventura counties to Crooked Bill.

The same thing occurred simultaneously in Vermont and New Jersey. New Jersey was far more Republican than California in 1988, and Vermont was similarly Republican as California in 1988.

I don't think it's a coincidence that California hispanics swung heavily D from that point forward, and as they've become a plurality in the state, their numbers haven't fallen back down to earth yet. Urban hispanics in Cali vote almost as D as blacks. That should be alarming for the GOP on a long-term scale.

-They swung heavily D on the state level. And even there, not necessarily on the gubernatorial level. Schwarzenegger won the most Hispanic county in California solidly in 2003. Where he really had trouble was Silicon Valley. Hispanics did not swing at all on the Federal level; in fact, they were more Democratic in earlier decades. Michael Dukakis 1988 got the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as did Barack Obama in 2012.

Urban Whites in Cali vote as D as Texan Hispanics. So?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

-Most youths in Kerry states are Bernie-supporting Democrats; this is not the case nationwide. White liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by more fertile non-Whites and Trump/Cruz conservatives.

[Citation needed] You also surely realize that plenty of liberals are the kids of conservative parents, right? And the fact that Yuppies tend to have kids later than normal, like in their late 20's and early 30's. Yuppie Millennials are the bulk of our generation's white liberals.

-Check the total fertility rate of Whites in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts sometime. Compare with Arkansas, Utah, North Dakota.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

-Most youths in Kerry states are Bernie-supporting Democrats; this is not the case nationwide. White liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by more fertile non-Whites and Trump/Cruz conservatives.

Bernie won millennials of all ethnicities.

-I am 100% certain Bernie got fewer millennial votes than Lyin' Ted Cruz in the great state of Utah.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.



It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

A fairly substantial amount of the previously self-identified Republicans I knew on campus ended up voting for Hillary. I wonder if part of the swing among counties containing colleges to Hillary this election is attributable to that... It's kinda alarming in a forward-looking sense for the party, since most of the future donors and candidates for higher office will come primarily from this very group, and if they are turned off by Trumpism, that's not exactly healthy for the party.

-And I say unto you; the GOP must confront establishment hackery, not be ruled by it.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

-Most youths in Kerry states are Bernie-supporting Democrats; this is not the case nationwide. White liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by more fertile non-Whites and Trump/Cruz conservatives.

[Citation needed] You also surely realize that plenty of liberals are the kids of conservative parents, right? And the fact that Yuppies tend to have kids later than normal, like in their late 20's and early 30's. Yuppie Millennials are the bulk of our generation's white liberals.

-Check the total fertility rate of Whites in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts sometime. Compare with Arkansas, Utah, North Dakota.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3984874/More-whites-die-born-states-New-research-reveals-changing-demographics-amidst-soaring-Caucasian-death-rates.html

Well, Arkansas is actually in decline while NY and VT are actually at a slight increase. And this isn't particularly good for your argument either because the only states where whites are being born at higher rates are in already red, largely irrelevant-in-the-Electoral College states. The New South is actually pretty ominous for the GOP if these numbers are accurate, particularly FL, NC, GA, and AZ (Southwest). Even the whole "MISSISSIPPI IS TRENDING DEMOCRATIC" thing might not be a complete fantasy (blacks are projected to be a majority there by 2040).

-You are pretending people don't move between the states. Again, look at White total fertility rates. Death rates are completely irrelevant here.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, I actually don't think so. Both parties in the US shift so there is an equilibrium between them and they both always represent ~50% of the electorate. It's obvious that Trumpism even in 2016 is already incapable of winning an election without both the Electoral College and a strong leftist third party to bolster them, and that its reliance on older voters (both in the general election and in the Republican primary, incidentally) means that it can't hope to survive for long. When it is decisively defeated (and this is a matter of when, not if, unless the people turning 18 now become very staunch advocates, which seems unlikely demographically), the Republicans will go through a period of figuring things out, but they'll be back.



It's a little late on this front, don't you think? Decades late, in fact.

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

A fairly substantial amount of the previously self-identified Republicans I knew on campus ended up voting for Hillary. I wonder if part of the swing among counties containing colleges to Hillary this election is attributable to that... It's kinda alarming in a forward-looking sense for the party, since most of the future donors and candidates for higher office will come primarily from this very group, and if they are turned off by Trumpism, that's not exactly healthy for the party.

My point is that very few college republicans exist in the first place, because very few people are republicans when they're young, they're mostly bernie supporting democrats. So running after a group of people who are of statistical irrelevance and whose future republican peers are currently bernie supporting democrats is not statistically representative of where the party will be in the future. If anything, given that the current democratic youth is more populistic than it ever has been since FDR, the Future GOP is more likely to be populist also as a consequence.

-Again, not true. A majority of young White voters who voted in a 2016 presidential primary voted in the Republican primary.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Well obviously both parties will continue to exist as the major parties, but I think Trump is indeed causing problems for future Republicans.

-I think he's solving big league ones caused by Reagan/Bush.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Well obviously both parties will continue to exist as the major parties, but I think Trump is indeed causing problems for future Republicans.

-I think he's solving big league ones caused by Reagan/Bush.

By proving Democrats long-standing accusations of racism and bigotry, he is certainly not. He might appeal to alt-right young whites, many of whom I've noticed are actually pretty prominent in that age group, but their views are toxic to their peers. My old hogh school in blood-red St. Charles County voted for Hillary in their mock election despite being 85% white and having went for Romney on 2012. I don't think that's an accident.

-Democrats gonna accuse. Who cares? Trump isn't proving their accusations; they just keep making them. Romney lost all but one Lincoln state; Trump won many more.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Of course not. After he wins again the Democrats will be ruthlessly gerrymandered, and it will be even easier and more glorious than 2011 since the Democrats have shrunk themselves into a pathetic 400 county rump party.

400 counties that 70% of the country lives in? It's Republicans in places like rural Texas that will have a serious self-packing problem in the long-run if current trends hold.

Mathematically that doesn't even work. There are only 23 districts where Trump got 70% of the vote, and a large portion of those are easily unpacked in the next redistricting. Antiquated VRA preclearance nonsense is gone. There are at least 61, and probably 63, such Hillary districts.

The Rump party has close to 23 such packs in NYC and the Bay Area alone.

You're missing my point. Those 400 counties are growing and the rural counties are shrinking and have been for some time. That in and of itself is a sign of concern.

-Trump appealed to the forgotten men and women of this country. Whaddaya expect? It's not a "sign of concern"; it's a sign of Trump doing what he said he would do.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Of course not. After he wins again the Democrats will be ruthlessly gerrymandered, and it will be even easier and more glorious than 2011 since the Democrats have shrunk themselves into a pathetic 400 county rump party.

400 counties that 70% of the country lives in? It's Republicans in places like rural Texas that will have a serious self-packing problem in the long-run if current trends hold.

Mathematically that doesn't even work. There are only 23 districts where Trump got 70% of the vote, and a large portion of those are easily unpacked in the next redistricting. Antiquated VRA preclearance nonsense is gone. There are at least 61, and probably 63, such Hillary districts.

The Rump party has close to 23 such packs in NYC and the Bay Area alone.

You're missing my point. Those 400 counties are growing and the rural counties are shrinking and have been for some time. That in and of itself is a sign of concern.

-Trump appealed to the forgotten men and women of this country. Whaddaya expect? It's not a "sign of concern"; it's a sign of Trump doing what he said he would do.

That sure sounds like a brilliant long-term strategy: run up the score in Appalachia and in the Plains and see how far that gets you.

-Trump ran up the score in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, instead. Worked very well for him.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Of course not. After he wins again the Democrats will be ruthlessly gerrymandered, and it will be even easier and more glorious than 2011 since the Democrats have shrunk themselves into a pathetic 400 county rump party.

400 counties that 70% of the country lives in? It's Republicans in places like rural Texas that will have a serious self-packing problem in the long-run if current trends hold.

Mathematically that doesn't even work. There are only 23 districts where Trump got 70% of the vote, and a large portion of those are easily unpacked in the next redistricting. Antiquated VRA preclearance nonsense is gone. There are at least 61, and probably 63, such Hillary districts.

The Rump party has close to 23 such packs in NYC and the Bay Area alone.

You're missing my point. Those 400 counties are growing and the rural counties are shrinking and have been for some time. That in and of itself is a sign of concern.

-Trump appealed to the forgotten men and women of this country. Whaddaya expect? It's not a "sign of concern"; it's a sign of Trump doing what he said he would do.

That sure sounds like a brilliant long-term strategy: run up the score in Appalachia and in the Plains and see how far that gets you.

-Trump ran up the score in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, instead. Worked very well for him.

Well you can only win on the backs of 70 point margins in shrinking counties for so long.

-Very few of those margins were 70 point.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What is your point?

You keep talking about 'young republicans', but the fact is that very few young republicans exist. Most youths are bernie-supporting democrats, now when those youths grow up are they more likely to become doctrinaire conservatives or populists?

That same argument literally goes for Bush in 2000 with Nader.

-Most youths in Kerry states are Bernie-supporting Democrats; this is not the case nationwide. White liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by more fertile non-Whites and Trump/Cruz conservatives.

[Citation needed] You also surely realize that plenty of liberals are the kids of conservative parents, right? And the fact that Yuppies tend to have kids later than normal, like in their late 20's and early 30's. Yuppie Millennials are the bulk of our generation's white liberals.

And I'll need a citation for that, as well.  There's zero reason to believe that young White Republicans are less well off than young White Democrats.

I don't know where I said that in here? I was making the point that white liberals are not a dying breed anymore than white conservatives are. They're (both groups) only shrinking as an overall percentage of the population.

-You might be right, but [citation needed], still.