National Journal: The Emerging Republican Advantage

[Potus]

Article.


The article raises many, many good points in debunking the idea of a permanent Democratic majority. Couple the flight of the white working class with a decline in standing of the middle class, Democrats face some serious uphill battles.

This also pokes a hole in "MUH DEMOGRAPHICS" style analysis. Minorities who fit the middle class mold are significantly less Democratic.

[Devils30]

Problem for Democrats running for Congress but might not impact the presidential race just yet. A lot depends on what happens in Florida as it has a lot of poor minorities and second/third generation immigrants. If the GOP can moderate on social issues they have a chance to win more of these middle class voters. Of course if this happens then our politics will get less ugly anyway.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I think the article brings up some interesting points, but how do you write an article that long about the 2014 elections without mentioning that turnout was 36.4%? Seems a relevant data point, no?

[RFayette]

Democrats will have a very hard time holding either house of Congress at the end of the 2018 elections. 

As for the White House, Clinton will probably be the next President, like it or not.

[DS0816]

I think the article brings up some interesting points, but how do you write an article that long about the 2014 elections without mentioning that turnout was 36.4%? Seems a relevant data point, no?

You write it to attract believers like [ Secretary of State Potus2036 ].

I think numerous Atlas Forum members overestimate the level of interest people outside this website have in following electoral politics. And, given that, it's no surprise there are people unaware this country has midterm congressional elections.

[YaBoyNY]

I can say with almost 100% certainty that the idea that the middle class/working white class is lost to Democrats everywhere is the same as saying Hispanics are lost to Republicans everywhere forever.

In New York, for example, the suburbs are fairly Democratic leaning and the white working class typically votes Democrat still.

[hopper]

Problem for Democrats running for Congress but might not impact the presidential race just yet. A lot depends on what happens in Florida as it has a lot of poor minorities and second/third generation immigrants. If the GOP can moderate on social issues they have a chance to win more of these middle class voters. Of course if this happens then our politics will get less ugly anyway.

Well the Same Sex Marriage issue is a big loser for the GOP now. Of course the party is spilt on immigration reform(this will hurt the party in the long term) the longer the issue is in limbo in reference to an immigration reform bill getting done. The marijuana issue the GOP hasn't take a hard-line issue on like Same-Sex Marriage or be fighting over like immigration reform.)

[Adam Griffin]

I read this a few days ago and basically came away with:

1) Articles that said permanent R majority was emerging in 2004 and permanent D majority was emerging in 2008 were silly
2) Permanent R majority coming our way

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Democrats will have a very hard time holding either house of Congress at the end of the 2018 elections.  

As for the White House, Clinton will probably be the next President, like it or not.

Dems can afford to lose Ma or ME or even MD in 2018, but Lisa Madigan, and picking up WI and MI and perhaps Casey replaces Wolf is critical in Dems chances in reapportionment in 2020. While reelecting Baldwin and Stabenow. Perhaps a new Dem majority in Congress.

AK is a G O P pickup. Gov v Senate races.

Dems expected gains in gov in 2018

[hcallega]

Most "emerging majority" talk is premature. Those assessments tend to assume that would happened in the last election will happen in the next. They also tend to assume that a voters demographic makeup determines how they will vote. Sometimes it does, but these trends change overtime (and there is always one election where they filp).

As for 2016, the Democrats are still the favorites based in large part on structural factors (the economy, a huge GOP field, a very solid campaign infrastructure for Hillary) and demographic factors, but any talk of being able to govern for eight years by simply duplicating the Obama coalition is unrealistic. The Democratic Party has advantages, but they are by no means the "majority" party in America.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Most "emerging majority" talk is premature. Those assessments tend to assume that would happened in the last election will happen in the next. They also tend to assume that a voters demographic makeup determines how they will vote. Sometimes it does, but these trends change overtime (and there is always one election where they filp).

As for 2016, the Democrats are still the favorites based in large part on structural factors (the economy, a huge GOP field, a very solid campaign infrastructure for Hillary) and demographic factors, but any talk of being able to govern for eight years by simply duplicating the Obama coalition is unrealistic. The Democratic Party has advantages, but they are by no means the "majority" party in America.

But, I will dispelling the notion about 2018, that it will be another horrible year because, Dems are disadvantaged in the Senate due to more Democratic incumbants remaining. But, Dems are concerned more about reapportionment, and the G O P are term limited in the states listed above, and shall Dems lose the Senate again, the Democratic govs will ensure that there is a Democratic congress in 2020 or soon thereafter, due to the hispanic growth.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Who ever wins in 2016 will be a one term president

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Who ever wins in 2016 will be a one term president

The last 4 term multiple same party rule, presidencies were McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft, and 3 term multiple presidencies were 1981-1992.

I think it is time for Dems with Clinton to do same with hispanic growth.

At least until the legacy of SCOTUS changes with times and become like rest of country, and become liberal leaning.

[pbrower2a]

The Republican Party has the House of Representatives locked up due to gerrymandering until some core constituency departs.

[hopper]

The Republican Party has the House of Representatives locked up due to gerrymandering until some core constituency departs.

Well mostly no and a little yes on your comment.

No, its not all because of gerrymandering that the R's have a majority in the US House. Its that the R's have a natural advantage in the race for the US House majority. Their voters are more spread out geographically than the Dems votes are. 16 out of the last 20 years the R's have head the US House Majority and 4 of them when the Dem had he US House Majority were because Bush W. was hated in 2006 and he GOP had a bad year electorally in 2008.

Yes, the Dems would have more seats in the US House because of GOP gerrymandering but not enough for a Dem US House Majority if the map was neutral(no gerrymandering.)

[Slander and/or Libel]

The Republican Party has the House of Representatives locked up due to gerrymandering until some core constituency departs.

Well mostly no and a little yes on your comment.

No, its not all because of gerrymandering that the R's have a majority in the US House. Its that the R's have a natural advantage in the race for the US House majority. Their voters are more spread out geographically than the Dems votes are. 16 out of the last 20 years the R's have head the US House Majority and 4 of them when the Dem had he US House Majority were because Bush W. was hated in 2006 and he GOP had a bad year electorally in 2008.

Yes, the Dems would have more seats in the US House because of GOP gerrymandering but not enough for a Dem US House Majority if the map was neutral(no gerrymandering.)

This is absolutely true, and why there ought to be multi-member districts. The fact of single member districts helps Republicans right now, but in general it provides a structural advantage in the House to whichever party has its support base more spread out geographically.

[Devils30]

Wolf winning re election and Dems gaining FL OH WI MI govs would force a veto of the map at worst. Then the courts likely draw a neutral map and ones that Dems can win in 2022 or 2024. A lot of 2018 is too far to predict, if Hillary governs as a moderate and hits midterms with 56% approval then Dems will be just fine.

[hopper]

Who ever wins in 2016 will be a one term president

The last 4 term multiple same party rule, presidencies were McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft, and 3 term multiple presidencies were 1981-1992.

I think it is time for Dems with Clinton to do same with hispanic growth.

At least until the legacy of SCOTUS changes with times and become like rest of country, and become liberal leaning.

Well more socially liberal I think. I don't think the electorate is economically liberal. I think the electorate is "Moderate" on economic issues rather than "liberal" or "conservative".

[hopper]

The Republican Party has the House of Representatives locked up due to gerrymandering until some core constituency departs.

Well mostly no and a little yes on your comment.

No, its not all because of gerrymandering that the R's have a majority in the US House. Its that the R's have a natural advantage in the race for the US House majority. Their voters are more spread out geographically than the Dems votes are. 16 out of the last 20 years the R's have head the US House Majority and 4 of them when the Dem had he US House Majority were because Bush W. was hated in 2006 and he GOP had a bad year electorally in 2008.

Yes, the Dems would have more seats in the US House because of GOP gerrymandering but not enough for a Dem US House Majority if the map was neutral(no gerrymandering.)

This is absolutely true, and why there ought to be multi-member districts. The fact of single member districts helps Republicans right now, but in general it provides a structural advantage in the House to whichever party has its support base more spread out geographically.

Well the "Electoral College Map" helps the Dems right now though too, that's another way of looking at it.

[Skill and Chance]

Who ever wins in 2016 will be a one term president

The last 4 term multiple same party rule, presidencies were McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft, and 3 term multiple presidencies were 1981-1992.

I think it is time for Dems with Clinton to do same with hispanic growth.

At least until the legacy of SCOTUS changes with times and become like rest of country, and become liberal leaning.

Well more socially liberal I think. I don't think the electorate is economically liberal. I think the electorate is "Moderate" on economic issues rather than "liberal" or "conservative".

Agreed.  Even the height of the crisis in 2008-10 was nothing like 1932-38 or even 1902-08 for the economic left.  Barring an economic situation so bad that the worst off 20-30% of the population is worried about starving, I see things continuing to drift in a libertarian direction (which should modestly help Republicans) for the foreseeable future.  But if there's any issue that could revive the economic left,  it's education, particularly if university tuition is >2X the US median income/year circa 2040.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think the wages that has helped mostly the middle class who earn salaries has come at the expense of hourly employees. Most jobs that were replaced in the old economy have become low paid minimum wage jobs.  And it is true that most of these aren't paying 7.00 anymore, but $9 an hour, there has been no increase in that figure since the minimum wage has adjusted back during GW Bush administration.

List of jobs replaced by minimum skilled jobs

Postal service jobs replaced by factory mail sorting jobs
Healthcare jobs in hospital replace by homecare health jobs, going home to home
telemarketing phone jobs replaced by cell phone marketing jobs.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The Republican Party has the House of Representatives locked up due to gerrymandering until some core constituency departs.

Well mostly no and a little yes on your comment.

No, its not all because of gerrymandering that the R's have a majority in the US House. Its that the R's have a natural advantage in the race for the US House majority. Their voters are more spread out geographically than the Dems votes are. 16 out of the last 20 years the R's have head the US House Majority and 4 of them when the Dem had he US House Majority were because Bush W. was hated in 2006 and he GOP had a bad year electorally in 2008.

Yes, the Dems would have more seats in the US House because of GOP gerrymandering but not enough for a Dem US House Majority if the map was neutral(no gerrymandering.)

This is absolutely true, and why there ought to be multi-member districts. The fact of single member districts helps Republicans right now, but in general it provides a structural advantage in the House to whichever party has its support base more spread out geographically.

Well the "Electoral College Map" helps the Dems right now though too, that's another way of looking at it.

Sure, but that's by happenstance, and state lines are fixed. Generally the action is in swing states, which tend to be states with much less of their population concentrated in urban or rural areas, but more balanced between the two.