Have there been other times in history where a party had a demographic crisis?

[Matty]

We all know the current republican problem of fast changing demographics. Is this unprecedented? Have either the D or R parties faced a situation similar to this in their histories? If this is the wrong place to ask this question, perhaps someone could move it.

[Flake]

Southern Democrats had a problem with black people voting Republican, so they passed a bunch of Jim Crow laws to make as many blacks as possible not able to vote.

[Mechaman]

We all know the current republican problem of fast changing demographics. Is this unprecedented? Have either the D or R parties faced a situation similar to this in their histories? If this is the wrong place to ask this question, perhaps someone could move it.

Definitely not.

Arguably this is one of the factors that doomed the Whigs (along with the weakening of the Free Soil Party, which had the votes of a lot of anti-slavery Democrats in 1848).  The Famine Generation had fully settled into the urban areas of the country and the effects were very telling:

Immigrant populations, coming into the nation at unprecedented levels, strongly favored the Democratic Party (just like today).  The Irish, in particular, had a very strong cultural attachment to Democratic principles going all the way back to the Jefferson era.  The Federalist politicians who pushed for the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts were pretty open about their fears of "wild Irishmen" having free rein in the country and thus passed legislation that would've severely limited their numbers and lengthen the time it took to gain citizenship.

And then a few years later the Know Nothings pushed for the implementation of some pretty authoritarian laws (that could be compared to Nazi Germany laws, seriously) that would restrict immigration/keep immigrants from voting or getting citizenship.  Needless to say, that movement failed.

There is a hell of a lot of comparison you can make between Irish immigration and Mexican immigration.  Both were perceived radical anti-American groups that threatened the American way of life, for starters.  Seriously though, you can learn a lot from history in regards how to address the "problem" besides building fences or closing off the border.  I for one don't wish to have the same oppression visited upon another group as was visited upon my ancestors.  The GOP really really needs to find a way to get compassionate on the issue and silence the closed borders crowd.  There isn't that much exchange that can occur when you throw up a wall.

I'm assuming the OP knows this.

[hopper]

Well I think in the early 1900's Italians voted Heavily Democratic. It said in Wikipedia that in the 1930's Italians were heavily Dem but by 1968 Nixon won them.

[Mr. Morden]

Yes.  Democrats faced a demographic crisis in 1988, when the youth vote was growing increasingly Republican, and older Democratic voters were dying off, creating an apparent Republican lock on the presidency.  So explained E.J. Dionne on the pages of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/31/us/political-memo-gop-makes-reagan-lure-of-young-a-long-term-asset.html

[Skill and Chance]

Yes.  Democrats faced a demographic crisis in 1988, when the youth vote was growing increasingly Republican, and older Democratic voters were dying off, creating an apparent Republican lock on the presidency.  So explained E.J. Dionne on the pages of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/31/us/political-memo-gop-makes-reagan-lure-of-young-a-long-term-asset.html

Well Clinton or no Clinton, the country basically kept moving right up from 1980 up until 2006.  So he has a point.  When you consider which presidents were moderates relative to their party, generational voting realignments look a lot more believable.  Think of it this way:

Greatest Generation = FDR = Dem realignment from 1932-64
Baby Boomers = close competition from 1966-80 (congress heavily D but not heavily liberal)
Gen X/Late Boomers = GOP realignment from 1980-2006 (congress generally conservative)
Millenials = Dem realignment 2006-203X or close competition? Do newest voters swing back?

The fact that one party has to nominate a Clinton or an Eisenhower to win might tell us about the nature of the times.  Whether or not the next winning GOP candidate has to accept Obamacare/gay marriage/climate regs as the status quo tells us whether there has been a true realignment IMO. 

[pbrower2a]

We all know the current republican problem of fast changing demographics. Is this unprecedented? Have either the D or R parties faced a situation similar to this in their histories? If this is the wrong place to ask this question, perhaps someone could move it.

Definitely not.

Arguably this is one of the factors that doomed the Whigs (along with the weakening of the Free Soil Party, which had the votes of a lot of anti-slavery Democrats in 1848).  The Famine Generation had fully settled into the urban areas of the country and the effects were very telling:

Immigrant populations, coming into the nation at unprecedented levels, strongly favored the Democratic Party (just like today).  The Irish, in particular, had a very strong cultural attachment to Democratic principles going all the way back to the Jefferson era.  The Federalist politicians who pushed for the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts were pretty open about their fears of "wild Irishmen" having free rein in the country and thus passed legislation that would've severely limited their numbers and lengthen the time it took to gain citizenship.

And then a few years later the Know Nothings pushed for the implementation of some pretty authoritarian laws (that could be compared to Nazi Germany laws, seriously) that would restrict immigration/keep immigrants from voting or getting citizenship.  Needless to say, that movement failed.

There is a hell of a lot of comparison you can make between Irish immigration and Mexican immigration.  Both were perceived radical anti-American groups that threatened the American way of life, for starters.  Seriously though, you can learn a lot from history in regards how to address the "problem" besides building fences or closing off the border.  I for one don't wish to have the same oppression visited upon another group as was visited upon my ancestors.  The GOP really really needs to find a way to get compassionate on the issue and silence the closed borders crowd.  There isn't that much exchange that can occur when you throw up a wall.

I'm assuming the OP knows this.

A huge difference: Mexican-Americans are not as a group hostile to any part of the American way of life. They seem to have aligned themselves with one wing of the Establishment that welcomes them into political and economic life.

Enmity toward illegal aliens exists and has even proved murderous (Shawna Forde in Arizona) -- but enmity toward Mexican-Americans has never approached that toward blacks at any other time in American history or even toward the Irish of the famine-refugee era around 1850.

For a minority group in America of such size, Mexican-Americans seem placid.

[hopper]

Yes.  Democrats faced a demographic crisis in 1988, when the youth vote was growing increasingly Republican, and older Democratic voters were dying off, creating an apparent Republican lock on the presidency.  So explained E.J. Dionne on the pages of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/31/us/political-memo-gop-makes-reagan-lure-of-young-a-long-term-asset.html

Well Clinton or no Clinton, the country basically kept moving right up from 1980 up until 2006.  So he has a point.  When you consider which presidents were moderates relative to their party, generational voting realignments look a lot more believable.  Think of it this way:

Greatest Generation = FDR = Dem realignment from 1932-64
Baby Boomers = close competition from 1966-80 (congress heavily D but not heavily liberal)
Gen X/Late Boomers = GOP realignment from 1980-2006 (congress generally conservative)
Millenials = Dem realignment 2006-203X or close competition? Do newest voters swing back?

The fact that one party has to nominate a Clinton or an Eisenhower to win might tell us about the nature of the times.  Whether or not the next winning GOP candidate has to accept Obamacare/gay marriage/climate regs as the status quo tells us whether there has been a true realignment IMO. 

Well you think the 90's were more Conservative than the 80's in terms of policy? I sort of agree with you with Reagan in the 80's and Bush W. in the 2000's that policy was conservative. Clinton was a Centrist Democrat in the 90's.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Well you think the 90's were more Conservative than the 80's in terms of policy? I sort of agree with you with Reagan in the 80's and Bush W. in the 2000's that policy was conservative. Clinton was a Centrist Democrat in the 90's.

The '80s were more conservative than the '70s in terms of policy. The '90s were more conservative than the '80s. The '00s were more conservative than the '90s.

[Skill and Chance]

Yes.  Democrats faced a demographic crisis in 1988, when the youth vote was growing increasingly Republican, and older Democratic voters were dying off, creating an apparent Republican lock on the presidency.  So explained E.J. Dionne on the pages of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/31/us/political-memo-gop-makes-reagan-lure-of-young-a-long-term-asset.html

Well Clinton or no Clinton, the country basically kept moving right up from 1980 up until 2006.  So he has a point.  When you consider which presidents were moderates relative to their party, generational voting realignments look a lot more believable.  Think of it this way:

Greatest Generation = FDR = Dem realignment from 1932-64
Baby Boomers = close competition from 1966-80 (congress heavily D but not heavily liberal)
Gen X/Late Boomers = GOP realignment from 1980-2006 (congress generally conservative)
Millenials = Dem realignment 2006-203X or close competition? Do newest voters swing back?

The fact that one party has to nominate a Clinton or an Eisenhower to win might tell us about the nature of the times.  Whether or not the next winning GOP candidate has to accept Obamacare/gay marriage/climate regs as the status quo tells us whether there has been a true realignment IMO. 

Well you think the 90's were more Conservative than the 80's in terms of policy? I sort of agree with you with Reagan in the 80's and Bush W. in the 2000's that policy was conservative. Clinton was a Centrist Democrat in the 90's.

To some degree yes, because the 1994-2000 congress was much more conservative than the 1982-1990 congress.  And Clinton came to the table.  The right's narrative largely won.  The conservative policies of the 80's stuck and Clinton signed things like DOMA and financial deregulation.  The influence of religious fundamentalists on politics also increased throughout the decade.  The parallels with Eisenhower making peace with the New Deal are strong.

[hopper]

Yes.  Democrats faced a demographic crisis in 1988, when the youth vote was growing increasingly Republican, and older Democratic voters were dying off, creating an apparent Republican lock on the presidency.  So explained E.J. Dionne on the pages of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/31/us/political-memo-gop-makes-reagan-lure-of-young-a-long-term-asset.html

Well Clinton or no Clinton, the country basically kept moving right up from 1980 up until 2006.  So he has a point.  When you consider which presidents were moderates relative to their party, generational voting realignments look a lot more believable.  Think of it this way:

Greatest Generation = FDR = Dem realignment from 1932-64
Baby Boomers = close competition from 1966-80 (congress heavily D but not heavily liberal)
Gen X/Late Boomers = GOP realignment from 1980-2006 (congress generally conservative)
Millenials = Dem realignment 2006-203X or close competition? Do newest voters swing back?

The fact that one party has to nominate a Clinton or an Eisenhower to win might tell us about the nature of the times.  Whether or not the next winning GOP candidate has to accept Obamacare/gay marriage/climate regs as the status quo tells us whether there has been a true realignment IMO. 

Well you think the 90's were more Conservative than the 80's in terms of policy? I sort of agree with you with Reagan in the 80's and Bush W. in the 2000's that policy was conservative. Clinton was a Centrist Democrat in the 90's.

To some degree yes, because the 1994-2000 congress was much more conservative than the 1982-1990 congress.  And Clinton came to the table.  The right's narrative largely won.  The conservative policies of the 80's stuck and Clinton signed things like DOMA and financial deregulation.  The influence of religious fundamentalists on politics also increased throughout the decade.  The parallels with Eisenhower making peace with the New Deal are strong.

1995.

[fartboy]

If trends continue, then Democrats will be in a crisis regarding the white vote.

[hopper]

If trends continue, then Democrats will be in a crisis regarding the white vote.

Well yes and no. If the Dems moved the hard-left yes but also it depends on geography  where more whites are moving back to the cities where its mostly Dem but it does depend on where in these cities that they move to. Like Southern Brooklyn is not as as Dem as the rest of New York City.

Also  more whites are moving away from the evangelical religion which doesn't favor the GOP or whites are identifying as "no religion". More college educated white women are more Dem than the white vote as a whole. McCain and Obama spilt the college educated white women vote in 2008 and Romney won the college educated white women vote in 2012 by 6 points. Also the 18-29 White Demographic did vote for Romney by 7 points in 2012 but the white vote was won by Romney as a whole by 21 points(60-39%) so white youth aren't as loyal to voting GOP as older whites.

[Person Man]

If trends continue, then Democrats will be in a crisis regarding the white vote.

Well yes and no. If the Dems moved the hard-left yes but also it depends on geography  where more whites are moving back to the cities where its mostly Dem but it does depend on where in these cities that they move to. Like Southern Brooklyn is not as as Dem as the rest of New York City.

Also  more whites are moving away from the evangelical religion which doesn't favor the GOP or whites are identifying as "no religion". More college educated white women are more Dem than the white vote as a whole. McCain and Obama spilt the college educated white women vote in 2008 and Romney won the college educated white women vote in 2012 by 6 points. Also the 18-29 White Demographic did vote for Romney by 7 points in 2012 but the white vote was won by Romney as a whole by 21 points(60-39%) so white youth aren't as loyal to voting GOP as older whites.

It seems that the white vote is competitive if you remove the Religious Right. A majority of people who voted for Romney were probably Religious Right if you count the 21% of the vote who are White Evangelicals who voted for him and maybe half of the 10% of the vote who were hardline white Catholics who voted for him. They have basically come for the Republican Party what African Americans have come for the Democrats.

The last 15 years can be interpreted two ways. The Elephant in the room is Karl Rove's "majority of a majority" strategy.  One interpretation is that the country is getting more Republican because people are being assimilated faster than the country is becoming diverse. The republican's share of the majority is growing faster than the shrinking of its absolute share. The other interpretation is that people want the melting pot to actually change as more things get melted into it and as a result, the majority will become a minority or plurality even if virtually everyone there votes Republican. As a result, the Democrats will eventually make it work if they haven't already.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If trends continue, then Democrats will be in a crisis regarding the white vote.

Well yes and no. If the Dems moved the hard-left yes but also it depends on geography  where more whites are moving back to the cities where its mostly Dem but it does depend on where in these cities that they move to. Like Southern Brooklyn is not as as Dem as the rest of New York City.

Also  more whites are moving away from the evangelical religion which doesn't favor the GOP or whites are identifying as "no religion". More college educated white women are more Dem than the white vote as a whole. McCain and Obama spilt the college educated white women vote in 2008 and Romney won the college educated white women vote in 2012 by 6 points. Also the 18-29 White Demographic did vote for Romney by 7 points in 2012 but the white vote was won by Romney as a whole by 21 points(60-39%) so white youth aren't as loyal to voting GOP as older whites.

No, he won the votes of white women as a whole. And anyway, I think the more important difference re: voting patterns for white women is not level of education, but marital status.

[hopper]

If trends continue, then Democrats will be in a crisis regarding the white vote.

Well yes and no. If the Dems moved the hard-left yes but also it depends on geography  where more whites are moving back to the cities where its mostly Dem but it does depend on where in these cities that they move to. Like Southern Brooklyn is not as as Dem as the rest of New York City.

Also  more whites are moving away from the evangelical religion which doesn't favor the GOP or whites are identifying as "no religion". More college educated white women are more Dem than the white vote as a whole. McCain and Obama spilt the college educated white women vote in 2008 and Romney won the college educated white women vote in 2012 by 6 points. Also the 18-29 White Demographic did vote for Romney by 7 points in 2012 but the white vote was won by Romney as a whole by 21 points(60-39%) so white youth aren't as loyal to voting GOP as older whites.

No, he won the votes of white women as a whole. And anyway, I think the more important difference re: voting patterns for white women is not level of education, but marital status.

Yes Romney won the white women vote was won by Romney by 14 points I think but college educated white women he won by half that margin of 6 points.