Why is The USA shifting leftward

[hopper]

NAFTA allowed them to hold onto states that Dubya won in 2000 & 2004, with Prez Fox. Mexicans have shifted to left in NM, CO & NV, all states Dubya carried over Kerry. In 2008, immigration reform shifted these states. Latinos keep getting stronger in SEIU unions as well, thus minimum wage is also a concern too for Blacks as well.

I don't think Hispanics have necessarily moved left in NM since 2004 besides NM was pretty close in 2004. There has been a large number of Hispanics living in NM for decades.

NV-its mostly income based and McCain and Romney didn't campaign on Big Government Programs like Bush W. did to woo Hispanics.

CO-Yeah your right Hispanics might be liberal that live in the Denver area I think.

Yes Hispanics have a moderate presence in unions.

How did NAFTA help Bush W. win certain states? I don't get your theory on that one.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Nafta, trade with Vicinte Foxx. propel Dubya to support immigration reform which was blocked in House by Mark Kirk, who is up for reelection in the Senate. Dubya just like his dad supported trade with Mexico.

[hopper]

Again, maybe from a macro-level it's too simplified, but:

1) The electorate keeps getting younger
2) Most Gen Yers seem to care far more about social issues than fiscal ones.  That being said, many of my Co-Gen Yers have absolutely no clue what fiscal responsibility is and thus, charge up the credit cards thinking it will be society's problem to pay it off when they can't.
3) The average American (their fault or not) continues to get poorer and thus, more reliance on the gov't is needed year after year.

As I understand it, the youth share of the actual electorate hasn't changed much. It went to 19% from 2008-2012, which is good but pretty consistent, historically anyway. The damaging part is that is Millennials are heavily skewed towards Democrats and they are growing up and voting more and more. By 2016 they are expected to make up a full quarter of the electorate. All those young people who voted in 2008 are now going to be 8 years older, vote much more Democratic than the older generations, and are steadily replacing those people as the older generation "ages out" of the electorate.

There is also more to #3. It's not just people looking to the government but also the view that the wealthy and corporations are gaming the system, and Republicans are fully defending those people and even trying to expand their ability to game the system. This issue is becoming the equivalent of the anti-government sentiment that shaped the GOP coalition from the 80s-now. Except this time, its the Republicans on the wrong side of the issue.

If Republicans changed with the times, they wouldn't be in this rut. But they continue to cling to their outdated views amid a growing electorate of people who do not think that way.

Republicans are defending corporations? All but 6 Dems in the US House voted for the Export-Import Bank that was in this past "Transportation Bill" Yes most Republicans voted for EX-IM too that was in that Transportation Bill as well but 58 Republicans voted no. Kudos to them for voting no as well as the 6 Dems!

[hopper]

Nafta, trade with Vicinte Foxx. propel Dubya to support immigration reform which was blocked in House by Mark Kirk, who is up for reelection in the Senate. Dubya just like his dad supported trade with Mexico.

NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 but yes Bush W.'s father did negotiate most of NAFTA though.  Yes a huge swath of  Congressional Republicans did vote for NAFTA I don't doubt. I just fail to see how Bush W. is connected to NAFTA since it was passed in 1994 when Bush W. was running for Governor Of Texas. Maybe Bush W. was for more trade with Mexico I don't know though besides NAFTA.

[Virginiá]

Republicans are defending corporations?

It's not the act of defending corporations in general. They aren't all evil all the time. It's the act of defending policies that exacerbate inequality - Especially policies that are visibly associated with it. Perhaps I poorly worded what I was trying to convey.

Also, I'm not painting all Republicans as actively & specifically working towards padding their donors wallets. It's not like that. A lot are just wedded to policies that happen to create/worsen inequality. Is a politician purposefully trying to jail black people when he/she pushes "tough on crime" drug crime policies? No, but the indirect effect of those policies heavily affects black people. It's the unwillingness to recognize this and adapt that is going to hurt them with voters on the issue of inequality. Look at the GOP candidate's tax plans. They would all make things far worse while also running up quite a lot of debt. So as of right now, they aren't even trying to address the public's concern on this issue. They are avoiding it as best they can because they know they have no real standing to talk about it at this point in time with their current platform.

[hopper]

Republicans are defending corporations?

It's not the act of defending corporations in general. They aren't all evil all the time. It's the act of defending policies that exacerbate inequality - Especially policies that are visibly associated with it. Perhaps I poorly worded what I was trying to convey.

Also, I'm not painting all Republicans as actively & specifically working towards padding their donors wallets. It's not like that. A lot are just wedded to policies that happen to create/worsen inequality. Is a politician purposefully trying to jail black people when he/she pushes "tough on crime" drug crime policies? No, but the indirect effect of those policies heavily affects black people. It's the unwillingness to recognize this and adapt that is going to hurt them with voters on the issue of inequality. Look at the GOP candidate's tax plans. They would all make things far worse while also running up quite a lot of debt. So as of right now, they aren't even trying to address the public's concern on this issue. They are avoiding it as best they can because they know they have no real standing to talk about it at this point in time with their current platform.

Weird you mention that since Mike Lee and Rand Paul have been working have been working with Cory Booker(D-NJ) on "Criminal Justice Reform". Yes I agree the US's Criminal Justice Policy should be reformed.

The GOP's candidate tax plans-Well Trump's plan is the worst which would add 12 trillion of new debt. Rubio's would add 2-3 trillion  of new debt. Carson's would add 1 trillion of new debt. With that said I'm not fond of the GOP's candidates tax plans because it would lead to more debt. I don't know Cruz's tax plan.

On the inequality front did you know 95% of income gains have gone to the top 1% under Obama's watch? Under Bush W.'s watch yes 65% of income gains went to the top 1%. Income Equality has gotten worse under Obama not better.

[Virginiá]

Weird you mention that since Mike Lee and Rand Paul have been working have been working with Cory Booker(D-NJ) on "Criminal Justice Reform". Yes I agree the US's Criminal Justice Policy should be reformed.

I specifically said "politician" though since I know some Republicans are working towards overhauling bad CJ policies. This is one thing I respect about Rand Paul, actually. He's willing to buck the recent trend of pushing policies to make voting less convenient for partisan advantage, and that's pretty big to me (in reference to allowing felons full voting rights).

As far as the tax plans go - They are horrendous in my opinion. However, when talking about deficits and debt, it wouldn't be fair to only single out Republicans. Democratic policies would also expand the deficit. The differences I find is that Democratic policies expand the deficit for the benefit of workers/average people, while these tax policies shower the most benefits on people/entities with the most money. I'd prefer that if we did either, they be paid for, of course. This "dynamic growth" theory behind tax cuts just doesn't work for me. Maybe if the top tax rate now was like 80% and we cut it in half, but that isn't the case anymore.

I feel I should say I'm not anti-Republican for the sake of being anti-Republican. I don't support a lot of their policies and their efforts towards campaign finance deregulation & rolling back voting rights is the last straw for me. So please don't think I'm just bashing them wholesale for no good reason(s).

[hopper]

Weird you mention that since Mike Lee and Rand Paul have been working have been working with Cory Booker(D-NJ) on "Criminal Justice Reform". Yes I agree the US's Criminal Justice Policy should be reformed.

I specifically said "politician" though since I know some Republicans are working towards overhauling bad CJ policies. This is one thing I respect about Rand Paul, actually. He's willing to buck the recent trend of pushing policies to make voting less convenient for partisan advantage, and that's pretty big to me (in reference to allowing felons full voting rights).

As far as the tax plans go - They are horrendous in my opinion. However, when talking about deficits and debt, it wouldn't be fair to only single out Republicans. Democratic policies would also expand the deficit. The differences I find is that Democratic policies expand the deficit for the benefit of workers/average people, while these tax policies shower the most benefits on people/entities with the most money. I'd prefer that if we did either, they be paid for, of course. This "dynamic growth" theory behind tax cuts just doesn't work for me. Maybe if the top tax rate now was like 80% and we cut it in half, but that isn't the case anymore.

I feel I should say I'm not anti-Republican for the sake of being anti-Republican. I don't support a lot of their policies and their efforts towards campaign finance deregulation & rolling back voting rights is the last straw for me. So please don't think I'm just bashing them wholesale for no good reason(s).

Campaign Finance Deregulation-Correct me if I'm wrong wasn't that "The David Bossie/Citizens United Case" that went to the Supreme Court? Its not like the RNC went in front of the Supreme Court and asked for "Campaign Finance Deregulation". How did Republicans roll back voting rights?

How do the Democrats benefit the average worker even when they do add to the deficit?

[Virginiá]

Its not like the RNC went in front of the Supreme Court and asked for "Campaign Finance Deregulation".

They have been using the budget to loosen restrictions and ban new ones for 2 years now. They also opposed the DISCLOSE Act in 2010. Every single Republican Senator.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sec-disclosure-political-spending_56717f55e4b0648fe301a84c?04b73nmi
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html

Great strategy though, I guess. Tack on tons of toxic riders, stall negotiations until literally the last week/days, then back down on most riders. McConnell must have had a nice smile after this, seeing how staunchly anti-campaign finance reform he is/has been.

States have been busy with this as well. The GOP-controlled Michigan legislature just celebrated the beginning of a new election year by basically removing campaign finance restrictions on the state/local level while also removing straight-ticket voting to increase their chances of taking the remaining Democratic-held state offices. This will also slow lines down for people used to using that option. You can say what you want about that, but their motive is pretty obvious.

How did Republicans roll back voting rights?

Seriously? Where have you been? Ever since, and even somewhat before Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was gutted by the Supreme Court, they have been introducing additional restrictions or hurdles to voting to slow down non-white voter strength. Voter ID despite the fact that voter fraud is practically non-existent and the most prevelant abuse comes from absentee ballots, something not even relevant to photo IDs. It's just a partisan measure meant to impact voters who lack IDs in higher numbers than others - minorities. Pick a GOP-controlled state. Chances are they have either passed this, or are trying to pass it.

Ending basically anything that makes voter registration easier, including restrictions on registration drives, ending election-day registration - Which has been shown to increase turnout by anywhere from 7% - 15% and most impacts Democratic voters. North Carolina passed a massive wave of restrictions and/or repeals of pro-voter regulations literally months after the VRA was gutted. It's not a coincidence and it has nothing to do with fraud. They passed it the first chance they got.

Making lines long on purpose and challenging voters - Florida passed a bill shortly before the 2012 election that reduced early voting and introduced a host of other measures that caused massive lines and quite a lot of provisional ballots. This wasn't by accident. They were trying to keep Democratic-leaning groups away from the polls and it was bad enough that they ended up repealing the measures due to public backlash.

Really, how much more would you want? Go on Google and type in "Republicans voting restrictions" (without quotes). You could read for a week straight. There are way more examples/instances of this then the ones I mentioned

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/
http://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolina-passes-countrys-worst-voter-suppression-law/
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/12/michigan_gop_bill_looks_to_wri.html

How do the Democrats benefit the average worker even when they do add to the deficit?

Both parties push policies that add to the deficit and use flimsy methods to pay (or hope to pay) for them. Democrats focus on social programs while the GOP has mostly focused on tax breaks and deregulation. Pretty easy to see the contrast between who those policies benefit.

[hopper]

As I've said before, I would characterize it more as the left pulling even after a long period of losing and accomplishing little on their issues from 1969-2008.  Obama hasn't accomplished Reagan or FDR level change, but he is more of a Nixon or Wilson figure who could be setting the stage for something revolutionary in the 2020's when Millennials come to dominate the voting rolls.  I think the next president will be a Republican more likely than not. But sometime in the 2020's, Elizabeth Warren or a likeminded candidate will be swept in with a strong congressional majority and finish what Obama has started.

Your reading of the current situation rests heavily on whether Obama's support from minorities can be sustained into the long run.  I'm not talking about turnout, like many on here have.  2010 and 2014 showed that increased minority turnout is likely permanent.  I'm talking about margins.  Kennedy and LBJ got 70-80% of the Catholic vote, but that was a one time thing.  Assuming Trump falls by the wayside and the end up only getting 60-65% of the Hispanic vote and 55-60% of the Asian vote going in the long run, then they really shot themselves in the foot by giving a megaphone to white privilege talk.  If you want to enact left wing economic policy, you can't have unemployed miners and factory workers giving you 30% of the vote because they happen to be white men.  There is an apparent double bind here because the voters who are most comfortable with diversity are not going to be all that enthusiastic about social democracy when the bill comes due. There is some of this in the GOP base as well, but Evangelical activists have gotten surprisingly comfortable supporting candidates who do not share all of their values, while working class Democrats have not yet come to terms with how America is changing.  

The Dems do not have the voters spread out for your 2020 scenario like the Republicans do in terms of Congressional Re-appointment to do with they did in 2006 and 2008 because Bush W. was not very popular even in some marginal Republican Districts which allowed Democrats to win a lot of those districts in 2006 and 2008.

How have working class Dems not come to terms with how America is changing? Can you go more into that?  

I don't know if most Evangelical Voters support Trump since you referenced evangelicals not supporting candidates that shared of all their values. I thought not sharing all of their values that you referencing Trump.

[pbrower2a]

most country, when young = liberal, getting older = become conservative

Generation X seems (born largely in the 1960s and 1970s) seems to go opposite that trend. They were much of the difference between the close Carter win and Carter being defeated severely in 1980, being the most conservative-voting generation since the Lost Generation born in the latter part of the 19th century.  They were the youngest voters from 1980 to 1988, the Reagan-Bush landslides. Democrats actually sought their votes with get-out-the-vote drives, only to have brought out huge numbers of new conservative voters who would not vote Democratic. 

They broke significantly for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, probably because they were the victims of cheap-labor policies and because the Republican Bible-thumpers offended their secularism. With Obama, Obama was able to win many voters whose demographics other than ethnicity or religion might have made them conservative voters in other elections.

[RFayette]

As I've said before, I would characterize it more as the left pulling even after a long period of losing and accomplishing little on their issues from 1969-2008.  Obama hasn't accomplished Reagan or FDR level change, but he is more of a Nixon or Wilson figure who could be setting the stage for something revolutionary in the 2020's when Millennials come to dominate the voting rolls.  I think the next president will be a Republican more likely than not. But sometime in the 2020's, Elizabeth Warren or a likeminded candidate will be swept in with a strong congressional majority and finish what Obama has started.

Your reading of the current situation rests heavily on whether Obama's support from minorities can be sustained into the long run.  I'm not talking about turnout, like many on here have.  2010 and 2014 showed that increased minority turnout is likely permanent.  I'm talking about margins.  Kennedy and LBJ got 70-80% of the Catholic vote, but that was a one time thing.  Assuming Trump falls by the wayside and the end up only getting 60-65% of the Hispanic vote and 55-60% of the Asian vote going in the long run, then they really shot themselves in the foot by giving a megaphone to white privilege talk.  If you want to enact left wing economic policy, you can't have unemployed miners and factory workers giving you 30% of the vote because they happen to be white men.  There is an apparent double bind here because the voters who are most comfortable with diversity are not going to be all that enthusiastic about social democracy when the bill comes due. There is some of this in the GOP base as well, but Evangelical activists have gotten surprisingly comfortable supporting candidates who do not share all of their values, while working class Democrats have not yet come to terms with how America is changing.  

The Dems do not have the voters spread out for your 2020 scenario like the Republicans do in terms of Congressional Re-appointment to do with they did in 2006 and 2008 because Bush W. was not very popular even in some marginal Republican Districts which allowed Democrats to win a lot of those districts in 2006 and 2008.

How have working class Dems not come to terms with how America is changing? Can you go more into that?  

I don't know if most Evangelical Voters support Trump since you referenced evangelicals not supporting candidates that shared of all their values. I thought not sharing all of their values that you referencing Trump.

I'm actually assuming Trump rides off into the sunset in a few months in favor of someone like Rubio or Cruz.  The Evangelical GOP base is often talked up as intransigent on just about everything that is new since 1960 (with the exception of moderate support for racial equality).  When they actually go into the voting booth, though, they are just as happy to give massive margins to the Gardner's/Rauner's/Hogan's/Paul's of the country who campaigned almost entirely on business issues and compromised to varying degrees on everything else.  There was speculation that elements of the religious right would have trouble with Romney's Mormon faith, but where are the 10's of McCain-Obama counties in Evangelical areas?  There were 10's of Kerry-McCain counties in white working class Dem areas.  And good luck passing a populist economic agenda through congress without them. 

I agree that they couldn't currently get a robust congressional majority, but my theory is that they will get there over 5-10 years because:

1. Continuing diversification of suburbs will drive some lean R districts permanently their way.
2. SCOTUS will likely get a bit more active about constraining gerrymandering (Kennedy has been hinting at this for a while)
3. Millennials will become a larger and larger fraction of the voting public, and even allowing for some moderation, all indications are that they will stay at least 55-60% Dem.
4.  The longer the economy keeps slogging along at 1-2% growth for IMO global structural reasons, promises that reforms X, Y and Z (or any political action, for that matter) can bring back mid 20th century growth rates will lose their credibility.  The middle class will focus more and more on distribution as slow growth becomes a fact of life, adding momentum to the inequality narrative.

The rest of the list assumes a Republican president in 2016.  Otherwise, acknowledge Dems could have an even bigger hole to climb out of on redistricting next time, particularly if Clinton narrowly wins in 2016 and then loses reelection in 2020.

5. With full GOP control federally, he 2018 midterm would be at worst a draw for Democrats, leading to much better maps next time in many light blue states
6.  The Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus will demand that the next Republican president actually goes there and takes a swing at the New Deal.  If the president goes along with it, he will alienate a broad swath of middle-aged Middle America that is still counting on the 1970-2010 grand bargain that Republicans shrink government only by cutting other people's benefits and that their "hard earned" entitlements were safe.  If the president refuses, they will raise holy heck probably to the point of 3rd party activity in 2018/20 that would doom him and his congressional majorities.

A lot is hinging on my point 4.  If 3-5% GDP growth does come back soon or Trump/Cruz turns into the Republican McGovern, we could lock in a semi-permanent D President/R House state of affairs with an effective coalition government between the president and a caucus of moderate House Republicans.  Senate control would generally be a toss up.  It would essentially be 1954-94 in reverse.  Democrats would probably keep their margins with minorities and become less economically populist and more exclusively focused on tolerance issues and isolationist foreign policy, which lend themselves more to executive action.  The what's the matter with Kansas/Connecticut narrative would get even stronger.

I tend to think points 1, 3, and 4 will only lead to a Democratic congressional majority with a Republican President.  Weak, sluggish growth will hurt Democrats all-around if the President is a Democrat, including minority and millenial demographics.

I have consistently predicted a Clinton victory in 2016, so I tend to disagree with a lot of your analysis for that reason.  Nonetheless, I do concur that once a Republican does become President, he or she will have to "go there" and the effects could be rather drastic.  Of course, if GDP growth is high enough under said Republican, then they could probably get away with minimal cuts so long as a balanced budget is achieved.

[RFayette]

As I've said before, I would characterize it more as the left pulling even after a long period of losing and accomplishing little on their issues from 1969-2008.  Obama hasn't accomplished Reagan or FDR level change, but he is more of a Nixon or Wilson figure who could be setting the stage for something revolutionary in the 2020's when Millennials come to dominate the voting rolls.  I think the next president will be a Republican more likely than not. But sometime in the 2020's, Elizabeth Warren or a likeminded candidate will be swept in with a strong congressional majority and finish what Obama has started.

Your reading of the current situation rests heavily on whether Obama's support from minorities can be sustained into the long run.  I'm not talking about turnout, like many on here have.  2010 and 2014 showed that increased minority turnout is likely permanent.  I'm talking about margins.  Kennedy and LBJ got 70-80% of the Catholic vote, but that was a one time thing.  Assuming Trump falls by the wayside and the end up only getting 60-65% of the Hispanic vote and 55-60% of the Asian vote going in the long run, then they really shot themselves in the foot by giving a megaphone to white privilege talk.  If you want to enact left wing economic policy, you can't have unemployed miners and factory workers giving you 30% of the vote because they happen to be white men.  There is an apparent double bind here because the voters who are most comfortable with diversity are not going to be all that enthusiastic about social democracy when the bill comes due. There is some of this in the GOP base as well, but Evangelical activists have gotten surprisingly comfortable supporting candidates who do not share all of their values, while working class Democrats have not yet come to terms with how America is changing.  

The Dems do not have the voters spread out for your 2020 scenario like the Republicans do in terms of Congressional Re-appointment to do with they did in 2006 and 2008 because Bush W. was not very popular even in some marginal Republican Districts which allowed Democrats to win a lot of those districts in 2006 and 2008.

How have working class Dems not come to terms with how America is changing? Can you go more into that?  

I don't know if most Evangelical Voters support Trump since you referenced evangelicals not supporting candidates that shared of all their values. I thought not sharing all of their values that you referencing Trump.

I'm actually assuming Trump rides off into the sunset in a few months in favor of someone like Rubio or Cruz.  The Evangelical GOP base is often talked up as intransigent on just about everything that is new since 1960 (with the exception of moderate support for racial equality).  When they actually go into the voting booth, though, they are just as happy to give massive margins to the Gardner's/Rauner's/Hogan's/Paul's of the country who campaigned almost entirely on business issues and compromised to varying degrees on everything else.  There was speculation that elements of the religious right would have trouble with Romney's Mormon faith, but where are the 10's of McCain-Obama counties in Evangelical areas?  There were 10's of Kerry-McCain counties in white working class Dem areas.  And good luck passing a populist economic agenda through congress without them.  

I agree that they couldn't currently get a robust congressional majority, but my theory is that they will get there over 5-10 years because:

1. Continuing diversification of suburbs will drive some lean R districts permanently their way.
2. SCOTUS will likely get a bit more active about constraining gerrymandering (Kennedy has been hinting at this for a while)
3. Millennials will become a larger and larger fraction of the voting public, and even allowing for some moderation, all indications are that they will stay at least 55-60% Dem.
4.  The longer the economy keeps slogging along at 1-2% growth for IMO global structural reasons, promises that reforms X, Y and Z (or any political action, for that matter) can bring back mid 20th century growth rates will lose their credibility.  The middle class will focus more and more on distribution as slow growth becomes a fact of life, adding momentum to the inequality narrative.

The rest of the list assumes a Republican president in 2016.  Otherwise, acknowledge Dems could have an even bigger hole to climb out of on redistricting next time, particularly if Clinton narrowly wins in 2016 and then loses reelection in 2020.

5. With full GOP control federally, he 2018 midterm would be at worst a draw for Democrats, leading to much better maps next time in many light blue states
6.  The Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus will demand that the next Republican president actually goes there and takes a swing at the New Deal.  If the president goes along with it, he will alienate a broad swath of middle-aged Middle America that is still counting on the 1970-2010 grand bargain that Republicans shrink government only by cutting other people's benefits and that their "hard earned" entitlements were safe.  If the president refuses, they will raise holy heck probably to the point of 3rd party activity in 2018/20 that would doom him and his congressional majorities.

A lot is hinging on my point 4.  If 3-5% GDP growth does come back soon or Trump/Cruz turns into the Republican McGovern, we could lock in a semi-permanent D President/R House state of affairs with an effective coalition government between the president and a caucus of moderate House Republicans.  Senate control would generally be a toss up.  It would essentially be 1954-94 in reverse.  Democrats would probably keep their margins with minorities and become less economically populist and more exclusively focused on tolerance issues and isolationist foreign policy, which lend themselves more to executive action.  The what's the matter with Kansas/Connecticut narrative would get even stronger.

I tend to think points 1, 3, and 4 will only lead to a Democratic congressional majority with a Republican President.  Weak, sluggish growth will hurt Democrats all-around if the President is a Democrat, including minority and millenial demographics.

I have consistently predicted a Clinton victory in 2016, so I tend to disagree with a lot of your analysis for that reason.  Nonetheless, I do concur that once a Republican does become President, he or she will have to "go there" and the effects could be rather drastic.  Of course, if GDP growth is high enough under said Republican, then they could probably get away with minimal cuts so long as a balanced budget is achieved.

Hmmm, so assuming Clinton wins, do you think D President/R House will get locked in for the better part of 2010-50 or do you have Clinton walking into a 1932/1984 situation in 2020?

It all hinges on GDP growth.  3-5% GDP growth will lead to a Clinton 2020 landslide and probably wouldn't deliver a D landslide w/ Congress, but the Senate would probably end up GOP in that instance.  Weak, sluggish growth would be easier to pin on Clinton/the Democrats, and a Republican would then win in 2020, after which your scenario could make more sense (GOP becoming much more toxic in Middle America due to "going there").  All demographics will shift in a relative manner, so weak GDP growth + terror threats prior to 2020 will hurt the Democrats with millenials/minorities proportionally to the rest of the country.

[RFayette]

As I've said before, I would characterize it more as the left pulling even after a long period of losing and accomplishing little on their issues from 1969-2008.  Obama hasn't accomplished Reagan or FDR level change, but he is more of a Nixon or Wilson figure who could be setting the stage for something revolutionary in the 2020's when Millennials come to dominate the voting rolls.  I think the next president will be a Republican more likely than not. But sometime in the 2020's, Elizabeth Warren or a likeminded candidate will be swept in with a strong congressional majority and finish what Obama has started.

Your reading of the current situation rests heavily on whether Obama's support from minorities can be sustained into the long run.  I'm not talking about turnout, like many on here have.  2010 and 2014 showed that increased minority turnout is likely permanent.  I'm talking about margins.  Kennedy and LBJ got 70-80% of the Catholic vote, but that was a one time thing.  Assuming Trump falls by the wayside and the end up only getting 60-65% of the Hispanic vote and 55-60% of the Asian vote going in the long run, then they really shot themselves in the foot by giving a megaphone to white privilege talk.  If you want to enact left wing economic policy, you can't have unemployed miners and factory workers giving you 30% of the vote because they happen to be white men.  There is an apparent double bind here because the voters who are most comfortable with diversity are not going to be all that enthusiastic about social democracy when the bill comes due. There is some of this in the GOP base as well, but Evangelical activists have gotten surprisingly comfortable supporting candidates who do not share all of their values, while working class Democrats have not yet come to terms with how America is changing.  

The Dems do not have the voters spread out for your 2020 scenario like the Republicans do in terms of Congressional Re-appointment to do with they did in 2006 and 2008 because Bush W. was not very popular even in some marginal Republican Districts which allowed Democrats to win a lot of those districts in 2006 and 2008.

How have working class Dems not come to terms with how America is changing? Can you go more into that?  

I don't know if most Evangelical Voters support Trump since you referenced evangelicals not supporting candidates that shared of all their values. I thought not sharing all of their values that you referencing Trump.

I'm actually assuming Trump rides off into the sunset in a few months in favor of someone like Rubio or Cruz.  The Evangelical GOP base is often talked up as intransigent on just about everything that is new since 1960 (with the exception of moderate support for racial equality).  When they actually go into the voting booth, though, they are just as happy to give massive margins to the Gardner's/Rauner's/Hogan's/Paul's of the country who campaigned almost entirely on business issues and compromised to varying degrees on everything else.  There was speculation that elements of the religious right would have trouble with Romney's Mormon faith, but where are the 10's of McCain-Obama counties in Evangelical areas?  There were 10's of Kerry-McCain counties in white working class Dem areas.  And good luck passing a populist economic agenda through congress without them.  

I agree that they couldn't currently get a robust congressional majority, but my theory is that they will get there over 5-10 years because:

1. Continuing diversification of suburbs will drive some lean R districts permanently their way.
2. SCOTUS will likely get a bit more active about constraining gerrymandering (Kennedy has been hinting at this for a while)
3. Millennials will become a larger and larger fraction of the voting public, and even allowing for some moderation, all indications are that they will stay at least 55-60% Dem.
4.  The longer the economy keeps slogging along at 1-2% growth for IMO global structural reasons, promises that reforms X, Y and Z (or any political action, for that matter) can bring back mid 20th century growth rates will lose their credibility.  The middle class will focus more and more on distribution as slow growth becomes a fact of life, adding momentum to the inequality narrative.

The rest of the list assumes a Republican president in 2016.  Otherwise, acknowledge Dems could have an even bigger hole to climb out of on redistricting next time, particularly if Clinton narrowly wins in 2016 and then loses reelection in 2020.

5. With full GOP control federally, he 2018 midterm would be at worst a draw for Democrats, leading to much better maps next time in many light blue states
6.  The Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus will demand that the next Republican president actually goes there and takes a swing at the New Deal.  If the president goes along with it, he will alienate a broad swath of middle-aged Middle America that is still counting on the 1970-2010 grand bargain that Republicans shrink government only by cutting other people's benefits and that their "hard earned" entitlements were safe.  If the president refuses, they will raise holy heck probably to the point of 3rd party activity in 2018/20 that would doom him and his congressional majorities.

A lot is hinging on my point 4.  If 3-5% GDP growth does come back soon or Trump/Cruz turns into the Republican McGovern, we could lock in a semi-permanent D President/R House state of affairs with an effective coalition government between the president and a caucus of moderate House Republicans.  Senate control would generally be a toss up.  It would essentially be 1954-94 in reverse.  Democrats would probably keep their margins with minorities and become less economically populist and more exclusively focused on tolerance issues and isolationist foreign policy, which lend themselves more to executive action.  The what's the matter with Kansas/Connecticut narrative would get even stronger.

I tend to think points 1, 3, and 4 will only lead to a Democratic congressional majority with a Republican President.  Weak, sluggish growth will hurt Democrats all-around if the President is a Democrat, including minority and millenial demographics.

I have consistently predicted a Clinton victory in 2016, so I tend to disagree with a lot of your analysis for that reason.  Nonetheless, I do concur that once a Republican does become President, he or she will have to "go there" and the effects could be rather drastic.  Of course, if GDP growth is high enough under said Republican, then they could probably get away with minimal cuts so long as a balanced budget is achieved.

Hmmm, so assuming Clinton wins, do you think D President/R House will get locked in for the better part of 2010-50 or do you have Clinton walking into a 1932/1984 situation in 2020?

It all hinges on GDP growth.  3-5% GDP growth will lead to a Clinton 2020 landslide and probably wouldn't deliver a D landslide w/ Congress, but the Senate would probably end up GOP in that instance.  Weak, sluggish growth would be easier to pin on Clinton/the Democrats, and a Republican would then win in 2020, after which your scenario could make more sense (GOP becoming much more toxic in Middle America due to "going there").  All demographics will shift in a relative manner, so weak GDP growth + terror threats prior to 2020 will hurt the Democrats with millenials/minorities proportionally to the rest of the country.

I am starting to conclude that while good economy = good for incumbent party and the reverse are generally true, the effect is not symmetric.  In particular, it seems like a bad economy hurts Republicans more than Democrats while a good economy also helps Republicans more than it helps Democrats.  There does seem to be a point when economic growth is so strong that the working/middle class decides they don't need the safety net anymore.  Think 2000 and 1968, along with 1996 not being all that impressive of a win.  The optimum for Democrats is probably slow but consistent growth- better off than last year, but still cautious enough not to say "just leave me alone."

Perhaps, but Vietnam and cultural upheaval/Lewinsky seem to explain those situations.  We don't really have a good analog with a GOP President under a great economy but similar turbulent circumstances for sake of comparison.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It all depends on 2018, if Dems buck the trend and make significant gains for Govs, whie Im not betting on a Dem House, but if Senate stays neutral, 2018, losing ND & IN and winning NV, it will make 2020 an even more promising year to start a long term Dem majority. Barring a recession and Dems make endroads in IL, WI, FL, ME & NM.

[Virginiá]

Dems make endroads in IL, WI, FL, ME & NM govs.

It's not even just those states. In terms of redistricting, Florida would be nice but the Fair Maps amendment will ultimately prevent rigged maps - Even if it takes literally 4 years to litigate. They desperately need to get a Democratic governor in WI, MI, OH and keep Wolf in office in PA. They will also need to win most likely 2 VA governors races (2017 & 2021) as the election timing gives the GOP the ability to either pass new maps in 2021 or stall until 2022. All those other states either have at least one Democratic chamber or are just a few seats short (Like Nevada's Senate, which is just 1 seat away from majority control and New Mexico's House will likely go back to Democrats by at most, 2020). Not to mention getting Rauner & Hogan out of IL & MD if they want to rig those maps themselves (yuck).

Pretty sh**tty situation. Their best shot to do that is to actually lose in 2016, but doing that with a GOP Congress would be terrible for the country.

[Virginiá]

Losing FL-GOV in 2018 means that a Republican will appoint replacements for 4 of the 5 justices who ruled for the plaintiffs in the congressional redistricting case due to the mandatory retirement age.

Oh, good point. If you ask me, they should go for round 2 and get some initiatives going for redistricting commissions for the 2020 election. We lost 2 cycles to bad maps while they spent years bickering over this.

Either way, I have good feelings about 2018. Both of Scott's elections were razor-thin wins and between 2010 - 2014, he lost a lot of Hispanic voters. The realignment of the Hispanic vote in Florida seems to be trickling down to state races as well (though I'm hesitant to say that for sure until after 2018).

Hopefully the next GOP candidate isn't also filthy rich and willing to spend half his fortune to get elected.

[hopper]

Dems make endroads in IL, WI, FL, ME & NM govs.

It's not even just those states. In terms of redistricting, Florida would be nice but the Fair Maps amendment will ultimately prevent rigged maps - Even if it takes literally 4 years to litigate. They desperately need to get a Democratic governor in WI, MI, OH and keep Wolf in office in PA. They will also need to win most likely 2 VA governors races (2017 & 2021) as the election timing gives the GOP the ability to either pass new maps in 2021 or stall until 2022. All those other states either have at least one Democratic chamber or are just a few seats short (Like Nevada's Senate, which is just 1 seat away from majority control and New Mexico's House will likely go back to Democrats by at most, 2020). Not to mention getting Rauner & Hogan out of IL & MD if they want to rig those maps themselves (yuck).

Pretty sh**tty situation. Their best shot to do that is to actually lose in 2016, but doing that with a GOP Congress would be terrible for the country.

do think if Rauner and Hogan get re-elected in IL and MD respectively the congressional maps won't be that bad for Democrats because Democrats control both chambers of both state legislatures. 

[hopper]

most country, when young = liberal, getting older = become conservative

Generation X seems (born largely in the 1960s and 1970s) seems to go opposite that trend. They were much of the difference between the close Carter win and Carter being defeated severely in 1980, being the most conservative-voting generation since the Lost Generation born in the latter part of the 19th century.  They were the youngest voters from 1980 to 1988, the Reagan-Bush landslides. Democrats actually sought their votes with get-out-the-vote drives, only to have brought out huge numbers of new conservative voters who would not vote Democratic.  

They broke significantly for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, probably because they were the victims of cheap-labor policies and because the Republican Bible-thumpers offended their secularism. With Obama, Obama was able to win many voters whose demographics other than ethnicity or religion might have made them conservative voters in other elections.

Well no, People born from 1959-1962 voted in their first Presidential Election in 1980 and they are Very Late Boomers. 1965 born was the first Gen X year.  Yes I'm sure early Gen X born from 1965-1970 voted for Reagan and Bush in 1984 and 1988.

Yes, the Northeast and Upper Midwest(though not as pronounced) turned Dem in Presidential Elections starting in 1992 because of the Bible-Thumping.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rauner wants constitutional term limits on state assembly, thats why he doesnt want to compromise on Budget. Redistrict Mike Madigan out by 2022. HOGAN, its a different matter, due to nonpartisan nature the way Ehlrich governed.

It all depends on 2016, & how big the wave is & how Dems chose to govern, partnership or partisanship like Boehner did, and how 2018 will turn out.

[hopper]

Losing FL-GOV in 2018 means that a Republican will appoint replacements for 4 of the 5 justices who ruled for the plaintiffs in the congressional redistricting case due to the mandatory retirement age.

Oh, good point. If you ask me, they should go for round 2 and get some initiatives going for redistricting commissions for the 2020 election. We lost 2 cycles to bad maps while they spent years bickering over this.

Either way, I have good feelings about 2018. Both of Scott's elections were razor-thin wins and between 2010 - 2014, he lost a lot of Hispanic voters. The realignment of the Hispanic vote in Florida seems to be trickling down to state races as well (though I'm hesitant to say that for sure until after 2018).

Hopefully the next GOP candidate isn't also filthy rich and willing to spend half his fortune to get elected.

2010-Scott won 50% of the Hispanic Vote. 2014-Scott won 45% of the Hispanic Vote.

[hopper]

As I've said before, I would characterize it more as the left pulling even after a long period of losing and accomplishing little on their issues from 1969-2008.  Obama hasn't accomplished Reagan or FDR level change, but he is more of a Nixon or Wilson figure who could be setting the stage for something revolutionary in the 2020's when Millennials come to dominate the voting rolls.  I think the next president will be a Republican more likely than not. But sometime in the 2020's, Elizabeth Warren or a likeminded candidate will be swept in with a strong congressional majority and finish what Obama has started.

Your reading of the current situation rests heavily on whether Obama's support from minorities can be sustained into the long run.  I'm not talking about turnout, like many on here have.  2010 and 2014 showed that increased minority turnout is likely permanent.  I'm talking about margins.  Kennedy and LBJ got 70-80% of the Catholic vote, but that was a one time thing.  Assuming Trump falls by the wayside and the end up only getting 60-65% of the Hispanic vote and 55-60% of the Asian vote going in the long run, then they really shot themselves in the foot by giving a megaphone to white privilege talk.  If you want to enact left wing economic policy, you can't have unemployed miners and factory workers giving you 30% of the vote because they happen to be white men.  There is an apparent double bind here because the voters who are most comfortable with diversity are not going to be all that enthusiastic about social democracy when the bill comes due. There is some of this in the GOP base as well, but Evangelical activists have gotten surprisingly comfortable supporting candidates who do not share all of their values, while working class Democrats have not yet come to terms with how America is changing.  

The Dems do not have the voters spread out for your 2020 scenario like the Republicans do in terms of Congressional Re-appointment to do with they did in 2006 and 2008 because Bush W. was not very popular even in some marginal Republican Districts which allowed Democrats to win a lot of those districts in 2006 and 2008.

How have working class Dems not come to terms with how America is changing? Can you go more into that?  

I don't know if most Evangelical Voters support Trump since you referenced evangelicals not supporting candidates that shared of all their values. I thought not sharing all of their values that you referencing Trump.

I'm actually assuming Trump rides off into the sunset in a few months in favor of someone like Rubio or Cruz.  The Evangelical GOP base is often talked up as intransigent on just about everything that is new since 1960 (with the exception of moderate support for racial equality).  When they actually go into the voting booth, though, they are just as happy to give massive margins to the Gardner's/Rauner's/Hogan's/Paul's of the country who campaigned almost entirely on business issues and compromised to varying degrees on everything else.  There was speculation that elements of the religious right would have trouble with Romney's Mormon faith, but where are the 10's of McCain-Obama counties in Evangelical areas?  There were 10's of Kerry-McCain counties in white working class Dem areas.  And good luck passing a populist economic agenda through congress without them.  

I agree that they couldn't currently get a robust congressional majority, but my theory is that they will get there over 5-10 years because:

1. Continuing diversification of suburbs will drive some lean R districts permanently their way.
2. SCOTUS will likely get a bit more active about constraining gerrymandering (Kennedy has been hinting at this for a while)
3. Millennials will become a larger and larger fraction of the voting public, and even allowing for some moderation, all indications are that they will stay at least 55-60% Dem.
4.  The longer the economy keeps slogging along at 1-2% growth for IMO global structural reasons, promises that reforms X, Y and Z (or any political action, for that matter) can bring back mid 20th century growth rates will lose their credibility.  The middle class will focus more and more on distribution as slow growth becomes a fact of life, adding momentum to the inequality narrative.

The rest of the list assumes a Republican president in 2016.  Otherwise, acknowledge Dems could have an even bigger hole to climb out of on redistricting next time, particularly if Clinton narrowly wins in 2016 and then loses reelection in 2020.

5. With full GOP control federally, he 2018 midterm would be at worst a draw for Democrats, leading to much better maps next time in many light blue states
6.  The Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus will demand that the next Republican president actually goes there and takes a swing at the New Deal.  If the president goes along with it, he will alienate a broad swath of middle-aged Middle America that is still counting on the 1970-2010 grand bargain that Republicans shrink government only by cutting other people's benefits and that their "hard earned" entitlements were safe.  If the president refuses, they will raise holy heck probably to the point of 3rd party activity in 2018/20 that would doom him and his congressional majorities.

A lot is hinging on my point 4.  If 3-5% GDP growth does come back soon or Trump/Cruz turns into the Republican McGovern, we could lock in a semi-permanent D President/R House state of affairs with an effective coalition government between the president and a caucus of moderate House Republicans.  Senate control would generally be a toss up.  It would essentially be 1954-94 in reverse.  Democrats would probably keep their margins with minorities and become less economically populist and more exclusively focused on tolerance issues and isolationist foreign policy, which lend themselves more to executive action.  The what's the matter with Kansas/Connecticut narrative would get even stronger.

1960-more like the Y2K era(1999-2002.) They loathe things like "Immigration Reform" and Gay Marriage which are post Y2K era things.

Gardner-Yeah changed his opinion on contraception that it should be over the counter.

Rauner/Hogan-They are blue state Republican Voters they aren't that conservative as "Freedom Caucus Congressional District Voters" who are from Rural Districts. Besides most of IL and MD's population is around the Chicago and Baltimore Suburbs respectively.

Paul's-You have a point there in that their Foreign Policy Platforms go against the "GOP's Foreign Policy Platform".


Sure Maybe Dems can get some Lean R districts to go their way but most of the GOP's Congressional House advantage is below the Mason-Dixon Line(VA to TX.) I don't see the Dems being hugely competitive in that region of the country in House Races.

This theory about the GOP taking away "The New Deal" is out there politically. What they really want to take away is ObamaCare and not "The New Deal".

Hard-Earned Entitlements-Well those programs have to be reformed in order to have longevity.

I agree with the longer "The Income Inequality Narrative' lasts the more backlash there will be but will the public reward Dems because of this at the ballot box? I don't know.

The 1954-1994 in reverse theory that's a lot less predictable since the GOP will probably change in some ways if they lose in a Open-Seat Presidential Election Race in 2024.

[Virginiá]

Sure Maybe Dems can get some Lean R districts to go their way but most of the GOP's Congressional House advantage is below the Mason-Dixon Line(VA to TX.) I don't see the Dems being hugely competitive in that region of the country in House Races.

Given enough time, I think they will be. The fastest growing Southern states seem to be experiencing the most growth in urban centers, with significant non-white growth in places like Georgia and Texas. North Carolina also has a fair bit of pro-Democratic growth going on. So new districts these states stand to gain would be favored as Democratic districts if they can just blunt the effect of gerrymandering somewhat. Meanwhile, as these states grow, ultra-conservative Southern states may continue to lose seats in the future (past 2020).

Point is, given the current demographic trends and population movement going on in the South, Democratic prospects in the South look positive long-term.

[5280]

How does the Pacific Northwest and the Midwest trend GOP?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I find it hard to believe that Sandoval & Capito will run. GEORGE P BUSH v Joe Kennedy III would be a better election in 2024.