Possible New GOP Coalitions

[DC Al Fine]

From another thread:

The next Democratic coalition is here, and it is the predominant feature of the contemporary American landscape.  The next few decades are going to be very difficult for the Republicans, a la the 1930s through 1960s.

The Democrats have created a winning coalition of minorities, younger/better educated whites, and unmarried women. Like all coalitions, it will eventually lose ground or break up. Say the GOP is ascendant sometime in the next 20-40 years. What does their coalition look like?

[Mehmentum]

Its going to be a hard few decades for Republicans, who knows what things will be like in 20-40 years?

Most likely, the Republican party's resurgance will be fueled by capturing a new generation, similar to what the Democrats with FDR and Obama, and what Republicans did with Reagan. 

[Sol]

I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans grow again as Hispanics increasingly assimilate and vote like whites.

[Mr. Morden]

Indeed, the racial categories that exist today won't necessarily exist in the same way decades from now:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

[greenforest32]

Indeed, the racial categories that exist today won't necessarily exist in the same way decades from now:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

Makes you wonder about the impact of changing religious affiliation too: http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

[Mehmentum]

Indeed, the racial categories that exist today won't necessarily exist in the same way decades from now:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

I don't think we can assume that Latino's will integrate poltically, look at African Americans.

[Indy Texas]

Indeed, the racial categories that exist today won't necessarily exist in the same way decades from now:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

I don't think we can assume that Latino's will integrate poltically, look at African Americans.

Hispanics do not have nearly the magnitude of historical baggage that keeps African-Americans voting as a bloc.

[Mr. Morden]

Indeed, the racial categories that exist today won't necessarily exist in the same way decades from now:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

I don't think we can assume that Latino's will integrate poltically, look at African Americans.

We can't assume that they will and we can't assume that they won't.  My point is that we just don't know.  Whatever racial categories that we have today might look completely different several decades from now.  For example, "Hispanics" weren't always considered a separate racial category in the way they are today.  Neither have Arabs for that matter.  Sometimes they have been considered a separate racial category, and sometimes they haven't been.

In any case, as pointed out in the column I link to, there's an increasing number of cross-racial marriages between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics, as well as between whites and Asians, who are producing an increasing number of biracial and multi-racial offspring.  Exactly how those children grow up to think of themselves, and whether they even grow up to think of themselves in strongly racialized terms at all, is an open question.

[politicus]

Indeed, the racial categories that exist today won't necessarily exist in the same way decades from now:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

I don't think we can assume that Latino's will integrate poltically, look at African Americans.

We can't assume that they will and we can't assume that they won't.  My point is that we just don't know.  Whatever racial categories that we have today might look completely different several decades from now.  For example, "Hispanics" weren't always considered a separate racial category in the way they are today.  Neither have Arabs for that matter.  Sometimes they have been considered a separate racial category, and sometimes they haven't been.

In any case, as pointed out in the column I link to, there's an increasing number of cross-racial marriages between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics, as well as between whites and Asians, who are producing an increasing number of biracial and multi-racial offspring.  Exactly how those children grow up to think of themselves, and whether they even grow up to think of themselves in strongly racialized terms at all, is an open question.

True, you never know for sure. But given the nature of American racial and social hierarchies it would be most likely that biracial Hispanic/Whites would identify as whites and that light skinned Hispanics generally will start identifying as whites. Many biracial Asian/Whites will have an upper middle class background and people with high social status are generally perceived as whiter than people with low status.

My guess is that the US will have an increasing group of people who are perceived as Whites without having a 100% European heritage.

[opebo]

...there's an increasing number of cross-racial marriages between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics, as well as between whites and Asians, who are producing an increasing number of biracial and multi-racial offspring.  Exactly how those children grow up to think of themselves, and whether they even grow up to think of themselves in strongly racialized terms at all, is an open question.

Do we have any statistics on how multi-racial people vote now?  If I had to guess I'd say they would be even less likely than full Hispanics to vote Republican, as multi-racial people tend to feel very ostracized by standard white/Republican racist society - probably more so even than ordinary Hispanics.

[Mr. Morden]

True, you never know for sure. But given the nature of American racial and social hierarchies it would be most likely that biracial Hispanic/Whites would identify as whites and that light skinned Hispanics generally will start identifying as whites. Many biracial Asian/Whites will have an upper middle class background and people with high social status are generally perceived as whiter than people with low status.

I agree.  The category of "whiteness" has ever changing boundaries, many of which are ridiculously arbitrary.  It could essentially swallow up several categories of people in the future who are currently excluded.  Especially since "whiteness" is basically associated with the "mainstream" in the USA, and an increasing number of people without 100% European heritage are helping to define the mainstream nowadays.

And of course, we have no idea whether racial identity will have the same sort of impact on people's view of their place in the world in the same way 30 or 40 years from now.  You could certainly make the case that it's gotten less important in the last 30 or 40 years, so who's to say it won't get less important still in the future?

[opebo]

True, you never know for sure. But given the nature of American racial and social hierarchies it would be most likely that biracial Hispanic/Whites would identify as whites and that light skinned Hispanics generally will start identifying as whites. Many biracial Asian/Whites will have an upper middle class background and people with high social status are generally perceived as whiter than people with low status.

I agree.  The category of "whiteness" has ever changing boundaries, many of which are ridiculously arbitrary.  It could essentially swallow up several categories of people in the future who are currently excluded.  Especially since "whiteness" is basically associated with the "mainstream" in the USA, and an increasing number of people without 100% European heritage are helping to define the mainstream nowadays.

NO way, if you understand America at all you would know the 'one drop rule' - if you have one drop of black blood, you're black.  You're not just white because you 'look white'.  I think the same would hold true with other races in American's perceptions, though obviously Hispanics of purely European ancestry might be the exception.

[Vosem]

True, you never know for sure. But given the nature of American racial and social hierarchies it would be most likely that biracial Hispanic/Whites would identify as whites and that light skinned Hispanics generally will start identifying as whites. Many biracial Asian/Whites will have an upper middle class background and people with high social status are generally perceived as whiter than people with low status.

I agree.  The category of "whiteness" has ever changing boundaries, many of which are ridiculously arbitrary.  It could essentially swallow up several categories of people in the future who are currently excluded.  Especially since "whiteness" is basically associated with the "mainstream" in the USA, and an increasing number of people without 100% European heritage are helping to define the mainstream nowadays.

NO way, if you understand America at all you would know the 'one drop rule' - if you have one drop of black blood, you're black.  You're not just white because you 'look white'.  I think the same would hold true with other races in American's perceptions, though obviously Hispanics of purely European ancestry might be the exception.

If you were an actual student of American history, opebo, you would know the 'one drop rule' historically has been a purely African-American phenomenon. Native Americans were definitely excluded from it (see Charles Curtis, who was Vice President 1929-33, was 3/8 Native American, and was enrolled as a member of the Kaw tribe).

The reason Hispanics vote Democratic has more to do with class; immigrants to the US are usually poorer and traditionally at first vote Democratic before slowly becoming part of the mainstream. (The exceptions have been 20th-century groups fleeing communism or its aftereffects, such as Cubans, Vietnamese, and my own ancestors, who tend to come and immediately vote Republican regardless of class). This never happened with African-Americans because they are not immigrants; they have been here for 400 years and they have always been, to put it bluntly, a separate group and this has had strong effects on their culture and prevented such acculturation.

[DC Al Fine]

True, you never know for sure. But given the nature of American racial and social hierarchies it would be most likely that biracial Hispanic/Whites would identify as whites and that light skinned Hispanics generally will start identifying as whites. Many biracial Asian/Whites will have an upper middle class background and people with high social status are generally perceived as whiter than people with low status.

I agree.  The category of "whiteness" has ever changing boundaries, many of which are ridiculously arbitrary.  It could essentially swallow up several categories of people in the future who are currently excluded.  Especially since "whiteness" is basically associated with the "mainstream" in the USA, and an increasing number of people without 100% European heritage are helping to define the mainstream nowadays.

NO way, if you understand America at all you would know the 'one drop rule' - if you have one drop of black blood, you're black.  You're not just white because you 'look white'.  I think the same would hold true with other races in American's perceptions, though obviously Hispanics of purely European ancestry might be the exception.

No, definitions change. The Irish and Italians are white now.

[Mister Mets]

From another thread:

The next Democratic coalition is here, and it is the predominant feature of the contemporary American landscape.  The next few decades are going to be very difficult for the Republicans, a la the 1930s through 1960s.

The Democrats have created a winning coalition of minorities, younger/better educated whites, and unmarried women. Like all coalitions, it will eventually lose ground or break up. Say the GOP is ascendant sometime in the next 20-40 years. What does their coalition look like?

One possibility for the GOP is that they would peel off parts of the Democratic coalition, since single women, African Americans, Hispanics, gays, secular voters, environmentalists, unions, young people and the educated upper-middle class have different, sometimes contradictory, priorities.

The Republican base is currently married white people. So, that would be one way to make inroads into other ethnic groups.

[Skill and Chance]

They really have two major options for gettable voters:

1. The Midwestern Strategy- this would be a narrow R win with these voters

This would be the long-sought-after Republican breakthrough in the Rust Belt.  I'm not sure if MI or MN would be the last non-IL holdout, but I went with MI because it has a more diverse electorate.
 
2.  The Minority+Yuppie Strategy

This basically represents a return to the Bush coalition, but it is accomplished by being less socially conservative on the whole. 

Prior to the election, the GOP seemed to be concentrating on the first strategy.  Romney was trying hard for this in 2012 and he basically ignored/took for granted the Bush-Obama states in the process.  After they got burned with that plan, they seem to be shifting gears back toward the 2nd option.     

[Person Man]

They really have two major options for gettable voters:

1. The Midwestern Strategy- this would be a narrow R win with these voters

This would be the long-sought-after Republican breakthrough in the Rust Belt.  I'm not sure if MI or MN would be the last non-IL holdout, but I went with MI because it has a more diverse electorate.
 
2.  The Minority+Yuppie Strategy

This basically represents a return to the Bush coalition, but it is accomplished by being less socially conservative on the whole. 

Prior to the election, the GOP seemed to be concentrating on the first strategy.  Romney was trying hard for this in 2012 and he basically ignored/took for granted the Bush-Obama states in the process.  After they got burned with that plan, they seem to be shifting gears back toward the 2nd option.     

In order to win by peeling off middle class and brown-ish voters, they will have to be in a condition to offer them an "in" to the entire Republican "thing". For example, in the early 2000s, credit was still pretty good so you could speculative opportunities to be a Republican without that much income or wealth. After the credit crunch, in order to gain back these groups, the Republicans will have to start talking up easy credit again. To me, that will be the sign that the Republicans are going after a Rovian strategy of throwing the Dems off balance instead of expanding their own base.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The GOP could be smarter about toning down their End Times far-right religious rhetoric. That would definitely help them with such demographics as highly-educated, urban/suburban professionals, white mainline Protestants, and even some completely secular voters who otherwise fit the GOP demographic profile (white, married, affluent...)

I also think that if enough (male) Republican officials and candidates stopped making bad comments about things like rape, for example, they wouldn't be having such trouble with (white, married, middle-to-upper-class) women, who are also an important voting bloc for Republicans.

As far as reaching out to Latino voters goes: if they were serious about immigration reform  (which I'm not convinced they are) and stopped pandering to racists and xenophobes with their "self-deportation" rhetoric (or even with laws like the infamous Arizona law), they could make some inroads into the Latino vote-which they will need to, sooner or later.

The Republican Party could maintain much of its conservative ideology and still do a lot better than they did in 2008 and 2012. The Democratic Party is not a crazy left-wing party (particularly nowadays) by any means, and have actually moved to the Right on many substantive issues over time.

[Del Tachi]

The next Republican coalition will be more secular, more educated, younger, more urban and more diverse.  It has to be because that is the way that the country is moving in that direction.

The United States is becoming as secularized and as cosmopolitan as Western Europe, and the Republican Party will have to mold themselves in the shape of Europe's center-right parties to build their next coalition.

[tallguy23]

If the GOP stops making religion and social issues a big deal, I could see them appealing to a larger group of voters. Mainly better educated, higher-income voters in urban areas who mainly vote Dem or third party due to their liberal social views and cosmopolitan lifestyle.

[DC Al Fine]

The next Republican coalition will be more secular, more educated, younger, more urban and more diverse.  It has to be because that is the way that the country is moving in that direction.

The United States is becoming as secularized and as cosmopolitan as Western Europe, and the Republican Party will have to mold themselves in the shape of Europe's center-right parties to build their next coalition.

Just curious here, but what does a CDU or UMP coalition look like?

[Del Tachi]

The next Republican coalition will be more secular, more educated, younger, more urban and more diverse.  It has to be because that is the way that the country is moving in that direction.

The United States is becoming as secularized and as cosmopolitan as Western Europe, and the Republican Party will have to mold themselves in the shape of Europe's center-right parties to build their next coalition.

Just curious here, but what does a CDU or UMP coalition look like?

I imagine that it would look a lot like the "one nation" Tories of the UK.  The GOP goes from opposing any from of social engineering to supporting certain forms of social engineering and government intervention under the auspices of building social cohesion and supporting further economic growth.  I imagine that the GOP could also put a nice technocratic, neoconservative twist on this traditional "liberal conservative" stance. 

I believe a coalition of this type would probably include strong support from the pro-business community as well as be more appealing to the upper-middle class and well-educated.  If a strong "law and order" push was made by the GOP, that could also push the suburbs from purple to deep red again, I believe. 

So, business community + suburbs + yuppies = next GOP coalition.

Of course, this is all assuming moderation in social issues.

I basically say what needs to happen here:

The GOP needs to be the party of the Sunbelt, not the Rust Belt.  They can do this by starting to appeal to the well-educated, wealthier areas of the South like NoVa, the Research Triangle, the I-35 Corridor, and Silicon Valley.  How do we do this?  Drop all this Tea Party/Libertarian and crap and go back to want the vast majority of middle class, White Americans want but don't know it:  authoritarian neoconservatism with a technocratic twist.    

#SouthernStrategy2.0

NoVa and the Research Triangle are heavily dependent on federal dollars. Even if they can rebrand and get people to forget their Elmer Gantry schtick, how does the party of cutting government appeal to these folks? By I-35, I guess you mean Texas? The GOP is already doing fine down there. As for Silicon Valley, it's a highly creative and innovative sort of place. Lots of diversity too. Meanwhile, Republicans are so damn stuffy and crusty, and CA is such a lost cause for the GOP anyway. What they really need is Pennsylvania. Those all white suburbs in Bucks County looks like as good a place as any to try to work some magic.

Exactly, NoVA and the Research Triangle love to get money for their pet projects/contractors from Uncle Sam.  Unfortunately, in the ongoing budget debates Republicans have been going after a Trojan horse:  discretionary spending, which is exactly the kind of spending that places like NoVa depend on.  Republicans can trade earmark bans and discretionary spending freezes for sensible, middle-of-the-road entitlement reform that could be supported by >70% of the electorate if they found the right spokespeople.  I think that this kind of economic philosophy, one where the government plays an important role in research, technology, transportation, etc., while pursuing long-term reforms to help balance the budget is better for our economy and more electorally viable. 

So, basically the GOP would need to:

1) Drop the anti-discretionary spending mumbo-jumbo for real, sensible entitlement reform.
2) Adopt the economic policy that it was known for in the 1950s:  support for technology, science, and infrastructure by supporting research initiatives, especially at universities.  This should help a lot with the Asian vote as well as in places like the Research Triangle and Silicon Valley. 
3) De-emphasize social conservatism in their campaigns, without necessarily becoming more liberal or even libertarian.  They need to keep their social conservatism in order to not lose any more appeal to Hispanic voters.         
4) Steal some plays from the British Conservatives' playbook and become the "law and order" party to a larger extent then they are now.  This plays well in the suburbs, which is where elections will be won for at least the next 40 years.
5) Find better spokespeople.  This goes without saying.   

The thread can be found, here:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167211.0

[pbrower2a]

I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans grow again as Hispanics increasingly assimilate and vote like whites.

Republicans will have to abandon the anti-intellectualism that attacks the Hispanic middle class.

[H. Ross Peron]

The next Republican coalition will be more secular, more educated, younger, more urban and more diverse.  It has to be because that is the way that the country is moving in that direction.

The United States is becoming as secularized and as cosmopolitan as Western Europe, and the Republican Party will have to mold themselves in the shape of Europe's center-right parties to build their next coalition.

Just curious here, but what does a CDU or UMP coalition look like?

From what I've seen, the CDU and UMP coalitions both consist of businessmen, upper middle-class professionals, middle-class white-collar workers, rural voters, and conservative Catholics. The UMP coalition seems to more "populist" though and attracting more blue-collar workers.

[DS0816]

A "new GOP coalition?"

Not for years to come.

I am among those who believe the presidential election of 2008 was a realigning one favoring the Democrats.

Does anyone see anything in the Republican party of 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, and continuing in 2013, that suggests the GOP is about to win over a new coalition?

If racism and xenophobia is to work like a charm nationally on a greater shift in white voters … well, that a coaltion for the GOP! It wouldn't be new. And, in all frankness, it's not about to happen. Practice that in states where its voters are prone to that type of thinking…and they can carry them beyond 21 percentage points, the ridiculous margins levels enjoyed by Mitt Romney in Arkansas and West Virginia, the types of states Romney would not have won had been his party's nominee in decades past.