Nevada: Long Gone?

[opebo]

What's missing here is the point - the demographic percentages just get worse and worse for the GOP with each passing election:  you can't really say that the Dems 'maxed out' the Latino vote in 2012 - because there will be more Latinos and fewer whites by 2016.

[opebo]

the demographic percentages just get worse and worse for the GOP with each passing election:  you can't really say that the Dems 'maxed out' the Latino vote in 2012 - because there will be more Latinos and fewer whites by 2016.

I meant percentage wise. 70% will be a challenge to exceed.

the demographic percentages just get worse and worse for the GOP with each passing election:  you can't really say that the Dems 'maxed out' the Latino vote in 2012 - because there will be more Latinos and fewer whites by 2016.

That depends a bit on Latino turnout vs white turnout, though, doesn't it?

Guys, even in the unlikely event the GOP makes small inroads in the Hispanic vote, or that Hispanic turnout declines slightly compared to White turnout (or in other words relative to 2012 turnout), these changes will almost certainly be made up for by the increase in their overall percentage of the electorate.

In other words, because of demographic change in Nevada (and following along a bit later in the process in Colorado), the GOP needs to make really large inroads into the Hispanic vote, or suppress their participation to a heretofore unseen degree.  Again, these are not very likely events because they are both large and contrary to trend.

[opebo]

First of all, I never assumed whites would trend more republican, I simply stated that they have trended more republican over the years. I would be biased if I assumed that. Second, why is is that blacks, Hispanic, minorities, etc. can get more democratic, but whites can't get more republican simply because the democratic whites are more "loyal" and "liberal". Hispanic and Black republicans aren't loyal and conservative to their party? With your set of stats, can anything get more republican?

The main point is that the Dem ethnics are increasing in number and share of the electorate, not increasing in Democratic-ness.  Even if the Whites were to become somewhat more right-wing, racist, whatever, the main point is that they are dying off and not being replaced and thus are a markedly shrinking share of the electorate - thus the GOP would need a quite large and rapid increase in the percentage they get of this race in order to win.[/quote]

This go-for-65+%-of-the-whites or take-the-Southern-racist-strategy-nationwide isn't really a great strategy, though there is hope for the bad party if they can swing it in certain states which are more amenable to it:  the famous ones being PA, OH, WS, MI.  Still, the chance is very very slim I would say.

[opebo]

I'm not sure which direction it's trending; it moved fairly rapidly R in 2012, although demographics-wise (and it was doing this for most of the 2000s numbers-wise, too) it seems to be moving D. Right now, it's a leans-D state; Republicans don't need a blowout to win it, as a solid victory by a Western candidate would probably be sufficient. The state reelected a Republican Senator in 2012; it's obviously not gone.

As for Hispanics, while they are increasing as a percentage of the population it seems doubtful that Democrats will be able to duplicate their 2012 landslide among Hispanics. Republicans have generally done much better throughout the 2000s than they did in 2012 (Bush got 44% of them in 2004), and they are still pretty regularly getting into the high 30s in Western states at the statewide level as I understand it. Romney made zero effort to appeal to Hispanics whatsoever; that mistake won't be repeated. So while opebo is right in the long term (Republicans won't be winning Hispanics outright anytime soon, and they are increasing as a share of the population), in the short run he's not, since it seems clear that if the Republicans nominate a semi-competent candidate in 2016 they will 'bounce back' and give Republicans a greater percentage of the vote than they did in 2012. So, for 2016 if the candidate's not Santorum or something insane like that they should be fine.

They'll be fine, sure, but they're not winning โucking Nevada, Big V.

[opebo]

Why do you feel Nevada's trend will continue in the same manner it's been going and why do you feel it's out of reach? It's not Vermont, or even California.

Demographics, bb.