The so-called "Demise" of the Republican Party is way overblown

[aktheden]

Recently, I have read some articles claiming that the GOP's time is up, they are being left behind, the country is moving leftward, etc. I do not believe this.After all, they currently control both the upper and lower chambers of Congress, 31 governors mansions and 2/3 of the state legislatures. Give or take a few percentage points, and they would have the Whitehouse too! The GOP is just fine and if they nominate well, we could be talking about a President Walker or Rubio come 2016. In fact if anything, It is the Dems who should fear for their future; With the GOP controlling all those states, they can gerrymander themselves to a house majority for a long, long time....

[CountryClassSF]

media is hyper focused on demographics staying static.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

]As long as the GoP has control of SCOTUS, they will control the House. But, once redistricting or a liberal SCOTUS is in place, whichdever happen first,  the GOP gerrymandering is gottob rid of; thrn they will lose sway.

Latinos and blacks already have sealed up in large part 272 electors with CO, NV and Pa, and alot of social issues have gone the way of Europe.

GOP power is dwindling.

[Famous Mortimer]

You will find very few people on this board who disagree with you so this topic won't cause much debate.

[Mehmentum]

The Republican and Democratic parties both have major problems.

The Republican Party's problems (lack of appeal to young and minority voters) has been rehashed so many times I don't want to go over it again.  The Democratic Party's problem is that young and minority voters don't turn out.  In presidential elections, the Democrats clear the board.  In midterms they get demolished as turnout plummets.

This has led to a vicious boom-bust cycle that has the media hysterically claiming that the other party is doomed every two years. 

The question is: which party can fix their problem first?  Will the Democrats develop the organization to turn out their voters in 2018?  Or will Republicans find a candidate, platform, and message that can win over a sizable number of Latinos in 2016?

[pbrower2a]

Democrats are going to have the Millennial politicians who learned their political techniques from Barack Obama. That's a very good model.

Millennial adults will likely vote for Millennial politicians at the expense of Tea Party types. Such will be big trouble for the GOP.

[CountryClassSF]

Democrats are going to have the Millennial politicians who learned their political techniques from Barack Obama. That's a very good model.

What are those techniques? Racial division/agitation/fearmongering?

[Beet]

Democrats are going to have the Millennial politicians who learned their political techniques from Barack Obama. That's a very good model.

Millennial adults will likely vote for Millennial politicians at the expense of Tea Party types. Such will be big trouble for the GOP.

The problem is the Democrats seem like a party of geriatrics - Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Jim Webb, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Steny Hoyer, etc. etc. etc. Not a single real leader under 50, not many under 60 either. They do a terrible, terrible job at supporting young talent.

[Gass3268]

Democrats are going to have the Millennial politicians who learned their political techniques from Barack Obama. That's a very good model.

What are those techniques? Racial division/agitation/fearmongering?

Americans actually support President Obama on how he's handling race relations 55%-42%.

[CountryClassSF]

Americans actually support President Obama on how he's handling race relations 55%-42%.

But they also say race relations have gotten worse since he's been in office in that same poll. I don't trust anything about the poll, though, because they polled All Adults and then RV for separate questions, and then are the only pollster that claim Hillary is winning men.  I think it's an outlier all around.  

When their poll had Obama's approval going up, Gallup had him take a sharp drop and have him at 46-50. Both can't be right.

[pbrower2a]

Democrats are going to have the Millennial politicians who learned their political techniques from Barack Obama. That's a very good model.

What are those techniques? Racial division/agitation/fearmongering?

Has anyone played up race less than Barack Obama? Has he used race as a ground for patronage? Has he excused bad behavior by blacks? Because he is black, he really can't get away with much. All in all that is a good thing.  
 

[CountryClassSF]

Has anyone played up race less than Barack Obama? Has he used race as a ground for patronage? Has he excused bad behavior by blacks? Because he is black, he really can't get away with much. All in all that is a good thing.  
 

Well, let's see.

Has any President taken sides without learning facts before?
-The first case I remember is Henry Louis Gates, when he immediately took his side, and had to do damage control with him and the cop.
-The second was Trayvon Martin, "if I had a son"
-He could have used his platform to talk about the false narrative in Ferguson, chose not to
-His point man on race is Al Sharpton, someone who agitates and divides as a career.

And many more.  This President has used race, and it's worked to his advantage through his entire life.

In the primaries in 2008, there was  a whisper campaign against the Clintons, and Bill Clinton said, referring to Obama "He played the race card against me."

So the answer to your question is an unequivocal yes, he has used race, and has excused bad behavior. He won't acknowledge the crime epidemic that has happened in urban America since his admin began the war on cops, either.

[The Mikado]

The Democratic Party basically doesn't have a bench, in large parts because of the wipeouts of 2010 and 2014. The state legislatures are so Republican that very little Democratic talent emerges that can run for federal office, even for vulnerable Republicans.

Until the Democrats fix their...farm teams, I suppose, their major league team will just keep aging and there's nothing really in the wings to take their places.

[Phony Moderate]

Neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party can die since they are machines rather than parties.

[Horsemask]

The GOP needs to be more inclusive.

[DrScholl]

The fact that Republicans have to gerrymander so aggressively just to have a chance at controlling the house and even several state legislatures shows that there is a major problem. At this point, they are drafting laws that draw districts that are not of equal population in order to maximize their votes. That behavior does not indicate a very healthy future.

[CountryClassSF]

I'm not sure how much more inclusive the Republicans can get. They've spent the last 8 years obsessing over winning hard-left constituencies at the expense of the base.

The fact that Republicans have to gerrymander so aggressively just to have a chance at controlling the house and even several state legislatures shows that there is a major problem. At this point, they are drafting laws that draw districts that are not of equal population in order to maximize their votes. That behavior does not indicate a very healthy future.

Maryland. Illinois. No comment on those?

For heaven's sake, Chicagoland lost population and gained districts.

Gerrymandering doesn't change the fact that, even as Obama said, Democrats cluster in urban areas, more so now than ever before.  That puts them at a disadvantage in and of itself.

Legislatures have always drawn district lines.  Democrats can/would do the same thing if they controlled more state houses.

[pbrower2a]

The Republicans keep nominating extremists, which is great for ideological consistency... but demographic realities will hurt the Party. The aging constituency of the Tea Party implies a steady erosion of support for Republican pols. 

[DrScholl]

I'm not sure how much more inclusive the Republicans can get. They've spent the last 8 years obsessing over winning hard-left constituencies at the expense of the base.

The fact that Republicans have to gerrymander so aggressively just to have a chance at controlling the house and even several state legislatures shows that there is a major problem. At this point, they are drafting laws that draw districts that are not of equal population in order to maximize their votes. That behavior does not indicate a very healthy future.

Maryland. Illinois. No comment on those?

For heaven's sake, Chicagoland lost population and gained districts.

Gerrymandering doesn't change the fact that, even as Obama said, Democrats cluster in urban areas, more so now than ever before.  That puts them at a disadvantage in and of itself.

Legislatures have always drawn district lines.  Democrats can/would do the same thing if they controlled more state houses.

You are missing the point. The OP was making the argument that the Republicans controlling the House was somehow a sign that the party doesn't have issues for the future, when that House majority is based on gerrymandering. Republicans need gerrymandering way more than Democrats. Even on independently drawn maps, Democrats perform better. 

[CountryClassSF]

The Republicans keep nominating extremists, which is great for ideological consistency... but demographic realities will hurt the Party. The aging constituency of the Tea Party implies a steady erosion of support for Republican pols.  

We do? Last I looked, the tea party was decimated at the ballot box by the establishment in 2014. They nominated two moderates in the last two presidential cycles. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The Tea heads seem to be subdued in the 114th Congress. There's been no sign of the self-imposed targets and hysterical countdowns/ default threats that have been so common since 2011. The lines between Tea and establishment are now more blurred than ever. Most of the hellraisers like Bachaman are gone; and the ambitious have long been appropriated into the GOPmachine.

I would argue that it is possible for parties to "die out" demographically. But I feel it's less common in the US system, where parties are traditionally loose associations rather than cohesive organisations; than in, say, the Netherlands.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

]As long as the GoP has control of SCOTUS, they will control the House. But, once redistricting or a liberal SCOTUS is in place, whichdever happen first,  the GOP gerrymandering is gottob rid of; thrn they will lose sway.

Latinos and blacks already have sealed up in large part 272 electors with CO, NV and Pa, and alot of social issues have gone the way of Europe.

GOP power is dwindling.

I think you're right. IF Clinton wins and (as is likely) appoints liberal Justices, the GOP is going to  the loss of their gerrymandered edge at the same time as they lose the demographic battle over the next decade.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

ARE YOU SUGGESTING BANDIT CAN BE WRONG?

[eric82oslo]

The Republican and Democratic parties both have major problems.

The Republican Party's problems (lack of appeal to young and minority voters) has been rehashed so many times I don't want to go over it again.  The Democratic Party's problem is that young and minority voters don't turn out.  In presidential elections, the Democrats clear the board.  In midterms they get demolished as turnout plummets.

This has led to a vicious boom-bust cycle that has the media hysterically claiming that the other party is doomed every two years. 

The question is: which party can fix their problem first?  Will the Democrats develop the organization to turn out their voters in 2018?  Or will Republicans find a candidate, platform, and message that can win over a sizable number of Latinos in 2016?

What Mehmentum said. There's nothing more to add really.

[Mercenary]

It will not die. At worse it will be a minority party for a while. Eventually though it'll increase out reach efforts and change it's platform in order to win national elections again. I think the changes will happen sooner than later though.

I'm all for both parties dying though. It'd be nice if we had parties that were just corporate shells.